User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14


Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting

No, you're misunderstanding what I meant. The edit summary I wrote (which you linked me to) is completely distinct article, different name. The same subject doth not a G4 make - this was in response to the nominators claim that it was "the same article, different name". The text of the now-redirected version (which anyone can see) is notably different from the current text; hence, G4 does not apply. Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it's notably different, and probably would have denied G4 for that myself. Also, I probably would have refused to apply G4 on the basis of a speedy close like that. I just thought your phrasing was unfortunate -- not that I haven't gotten myself completely twisted up trying to explain my thought processes in the past. Enjoy the mop! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I get what you mean; I hit "save page" on your talkpage and went "crap. I really did phrase that edit summary badly" before looking for some surface, perchance a palm, to slam my face into. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Here you go. Facepalm Facepalm--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


Except that Krugman is the perpetrator of the blood libel on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. That's what's missing from the article. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's WP:original research to call him "the perpetrator", so that's well-missed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Excellent call on managing the inexplicable page mover. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Scoble changes

The changes I entered for Robert Scoble were based on a conversation with Robert's brother Alex ( I changed the Apple II references to Apple III and added information about Robert's younger brothers Alex and Ben).

Is there some way to reinstate those changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianJamesSullivan (talkcontribs) 20:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much only with verifiable and reliable sources. Private conversations don't qualify.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


...was priceless.[1] (And, yes, it's something that I realize could be aimed at me from time to time.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Beginning of time to end of time, more like... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Another zinger. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your chop of my comment on the Obama speech article deletion

I do not agree with your assessment that this comment [[2]]

  • Comment If Keepers are Democrats and Deleters are Republicans-then what are Mergers?-Canadians? The reasonings offered here are interesting in a meta-indication sort of way. Are we allowing for NPOV,AGENDA, and Polling vs Discussion. Should this discussion be taking place on the discussion page attached to this Articles for Deletion project page ?

constitutes disruption as you asserted. I ask you to consider whether your chop is contrary to many fundamental WP policies--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 06:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. First you attack editors on the basis of their political affiliations. Then of their nationality. Then you ask if everyone on the page is violating policy, and assume that the closing admin will as well. I think I got that revert just about right, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I think I should cut down on the number of user talk pages I watch...but then I see a beautiful sequence like this, and I realize they have to stay. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks, I needed that, Q. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No attack. Rather a question about the preceding polarized pattern of voting and appended comments, using metaphor, and a suggestion to consider policy and practice. Your notion of what constitutes attack is interesting. Asking is not accusing-it is a way of more politely requesting consideration of a new perception than a statement. Original research within our debate pages is healthy. Humour can help move a frozen debate toward consensus.
Have you considered that your repeated reversion of a comment from another editor that you dislike on a page where you have previously repeatedly expressed a vehement opinion on one side of a polarized debate may constitute a conflict of interest? [[3]][[4]]
Are you Sheriff John Brown? Am I Bob Marley?.(another metaphor) I am glad that debate brings you merriment and keeps Qwyrxian involved. Also, why are you going around describing me as an inactive editor as you did here? [[5]]?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 07:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you admitting that you are User:Ral315 now? After all, it was very clear that it was that user SoV was saying was inactive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I admit nothing guvnor ! now or at any other time. ("The money was only resting in my account") Never looked at his userpage. SoV apparently did not either 'til after posting ! I would like to be Ral315 though - he seems like a nice bloke. Maybe he will come out of seclusion and save the day --— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi - you had reason to warn a guy named Chuck Hamilton over his conduct on the Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory article, (see the NCNOLT Afd section on his talk page where you warned him), for incivility and personal attacks. He s now doing the same on a similar article, Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky and it is causing a lot of resentment. I thought if you reviewed this article you might agree to intervene now and save us a lot of grief. I have never been in this position before so don't know how to proceed. His attacks are not against me personally but rather the person who is currently writing the article. It is headig for an edit war and that just aint necessary or useful. Thanks either way. MarkDask 11:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your vote at this recall. However, as your most recent block is with-in six months I've removed your vote from the page. Please feel free to discuss this matter if you wish - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss, you're perfectly correct. Thanks for catching that! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(copying from User talk:Looie496) I will just say however, I consider you to be an "administrator in good standing" (most of the time! ;D) using my own definition of the meaning of those words, but for the purpose of the recall I'm trying to remain impartial, and obviously you don't pass the criteria for that page. I suppose you only have yourself to blame for that ;), but personally I think it's great that you accepted (and continue to accept) your block in the way you did back then. - Kingpin13 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage

Umm, the title is "Special:Newpages/1" and all the sections start and end with "UNIQ" and "QINU". --Perseus, Son of Zeus 21:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. The title is "Special:Newpages/1" instead of "User:SarekOfVulcan".
  2. Sections are named ?UNIQ1ef7f2fd56c0899d-h-0--QINU?, ?UNIQ1ef7f2fd56c0899d-h-1--QINU?, ?UNIQ1ef7f2fd56c0899d-h-2--QINU?, ?UNIQ1ef7f2fd56c0899d-h-3--QINU?, etc. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 21:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it happens every now and then. Refresh a couple of times, it should go away.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to substantiate myself.

Hi, and I don't know who you are. I am totally new to Wikipedia and have a job and family and not much time, but this historical record on Wikipedia is very important to me...just as a factual base. I will try to educate myself as to how to do edits to make this article accurate, but here now, I cant even see how to write you back properly. I am who I say I am, but if you say there is a way to formally substantiate that...well then, I'll do that.

Usually I don't care what people and news articles have said; I clarify whatever it is in interviews I do..once in a while when the oportunity comes. But recently I have realized that my children are counting on Wikipedia as reference to various subjects. One day, they will likely look to Wikipedia for information on their parents, family. Maybe their friends might also. It's important for the facts to be represented accurately. The truth is is what it is. But untruth...never okay.

I personally look to Wikipeidia for base facts on subjects. I trust in Wikipedia to at least be correct in base facts. I have adult children and children still in early stuctured schooling; I refer them to Wikipedia first...when researching (at least for basic facts). Every so many years I have had reason to check on my Wikipedia page.

Recently, I did an interview for Paris Match Magazine. The interviewer had some realy skewed facts and said he got them from Wikipedia. So here I am now on my Wikipedia page checking to see what he is talking about. I see that it has been edited many times since last I looked (a few years ago). I realize that I can't change the past news (publications) that were inaccurate and sensationalized..I accept it is what it was, and the media did what they did at the time they felt they needed to do that to the facts (truth). I do feel that enough time has passed and in that time, the real facts can be there.

Okay, I don't expect you to do any of the work to get the facts right. But please work with my newness in doing this (just be patient), so I don't keep getting my factual corrections removed for improper technical form. All of the verifiable sources are out there...I'm just not sure yet of the rules for Wikipedia editing. Like, I want to add some sources that aren't on Internet. Oh, but how do I do that? I have to find out. For instance, I see there is this great debate on the editing of my page about the language of "statutory rape" v "rape of a child" or "child rape". Well what is going on here is that both sides of the debate are correct and wrong. But if I (or anyone knowing) could add a few references that are not on Internet...all would be settled in the editor's debate. You see, the Washington State Legislative records actually say why they changed their title of the law from Statutory Rape to Rape of a Child. Washington State legislators purposely changed the language to Rape of a Child to deter the behavior (to help stop female teen pregnancies). There is much commentary in WA records on the choice of language and the fact that the words of the title of that statute are chosen for shock value. In addition, the United States Supreme Court has opinions to the very subject of Statutory Rape Laws AND gender difference when imposing the law. Little (or none) of this is on Internet. whatever..your thinking, so far as Wikipedia. It's just that I believe if I was in on the editing debate last August, I may have been able to directed the editors to some legal insight as it relates to "news" and encyclopedia facts, and maybe the first paragraph could have been edited quickly (accurately). But I need to find out what sources are considered high merit and far as Wikipedia.

Really I just want to say thank you for writing to me, and directing me to resources on how to do Wikipedia right. I only have a little time each week work on this...but I will keep on it.

And on a personal far as the Wikipedia article, my brother did drown and it wasn't my older brother or me that was taking care of him at the is really an assault on my entire family for that subject to even be relevant to the Wikipedia article. It is personal and sacred to my family history and it didn't invlolve me. I don't know what resource could have printed or connected that to me, but it is really upsetting to my entire family that reference is made about that very tragic part of our family history. Yes, he did drown (that is a fact), but what is it doing in the Wikipedia article (in relevance to the article), and what "verifiable" source is there? Even if some author said that...really, it simply isn't the truth, and I or someone in my family shouldn't have to prove it is not as portrayed by that author (outside person). I don't care to read what that person has to say in her book or writing; I lived it, I witnessed it, and it is not true what is stated in Wikipedia. So what about that? When can I say..and be the verifiable source...that something is not the truth.

Again, thank you for sending note to me to learn to edit correctly. I will be learning.Smmary (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) is a good place to start -- while you don't have to establish your identity to edit here, letting the established OTRS volunteers fix things gives more weight than a brand-new editor. As far as off-line resources go, they're perfectly acceptable - as long as any hypothetical editor could look it up. I'm not sure what level of detail you'd have to use to establish the WA Legislature's discussion, but if it's published, there shouldn't be any problem with using it. I would be concerned about undue weight being given to the topic in your article, though -- unless the changes in the law were in response to your case, the information might go better in the statutory rape article.
Oh, and just to make sure I haven't presented myself incorrectly here, I'm only trying to help. I'm not any sort of gatekeeper that you have to deal with to be allowed to edit -- I'm just a community member who's interested in your article from the news coverage, and from living northeast of Seattle for a while before moving back to the East Coast.
Have fun with Wikipedia, as you settle in. I'd also urge you to spend time editing other articles -- it will give you practice editing within policy without the emotional baggage of having to fix misrepresentations about yourself. You can pick a random article from the link on the sidebar, edit articles about the Seattle area, or anything else that interests you. Be careful about anything besides your own article where you could be accused of having a conflict of interest -- save those types of articles for when you have a track record of good editing behind you. Take care! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


What is the infobox you are referring to? He is the author in the link ``Discovering and Proving that Pi is Irrational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

William Jones (mathematician) is linked prominently from Template:Π (mathematical constant), on the right side of the screen. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

T. W. Jones' "Discovering and Proving that Pi is Irrational" contains new and correct things. But the correct things (Niven's proofs) are not new and the new things (his "simplifying concept") are not correct! See Zhou's comments in the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 999ers (talkcontribs) 15:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Some comments have been added. The author references an unpublished paper and seems to just not like the proof. The Monthly has published it. Should I bother to put in or will it just be taken down again. It is much simpler than the other proofs on the page. My justifications do seem to hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

This would be a good time to go read WP:Edit warring, probably. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Jones' article does reference Niven and it is clear he is building on Niven's idea -- he is simplifying it. The simplification would not have been published if it was not a good one. I have read the edit warring advisement. If I put it back up, noting that the Jones is not the one from the info box (just citing the new paper), will you take it down based on the comments made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you (CMDC)

for your prompt action. Is there any chance of getting this expunged, please? That is what the off-wiki link is pointing to. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a chance, but I'd prefer not to. It lets other people see what she did to make me think she deserved the block, for one thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted because: this curious user wanted to figure out what "trouting" was first-hand. :-)--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"editors" and "contributors"

Referring to other editors as "editors" in edit summaries, as you did here, is considered quite rude. I would suggest not doing this going forward. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would ask to consider if you have given similar advice to the other parties involved. I have tried to use the "softly softly approach" with a small number of very arrogogant people, it has not been succesful. I am now returning the compliment to them. Editing can be considered skillful, the act of continually removing suitably sourced "contributions" and content from multiple contributors in articles by certain "editors", (respected by a minority, or otherwise), is counter productive to those many individuals who have taken the trouble to "contribute". The issue is now perceived to be a personal one between two individuals. To be followed around by the same pair of people, and to have researched and verified information removed (on a whim), is not acceptable either. One can appear to be quite impartial but very patronising, the other should be more cautious about creating contraversial, and confrontational situations. He has now polarised certian individuals like yourself, who should research the problem before making comment.
It may take you considerable time to verify this fact using the history of contributions made by the parties concerned in the recent fiasco. If someone is rude to me in the real world, then they receive the same treatment. This is cyberspace where some people hide behind "nicknames" and "badges of authority". It was my intention to make it clear that this behaviour is no longer considered acceptable. Study the history of Transport in Somerset and you will see the "edit war" that devoloped between two contributors, failing to understand both content and article structure. Intent on re-inventing the wheel to suit ther own ends. This was attempted by me to be reverted to the original and the situation clarified, which then initiated a process by one of the "editors" to deliberatley disrupt this process by removing and randomly placing content into un-rrelated sections. I am going to tag the article as "Unclear" to help avoid the repetition of adding content to the wrong sections. (railway, modern) was placed in unrelated part of the article and has caused it to be repeated by other "contributors". I use "these things" to emphasise, rather than use the edit tool bar to bold text. I suggest this conversation be continued on the talk page of the article. That is a more appropraite place, others may then comment on this debacle.
P.S. check out my contributions, you will find I have been consistent on Wikipedia and always courteous until continually provoked over the last few months. It would appear that I am considered "fair game" as an older more experienced and suitably qualified member of the "University of life". Francis E Williams (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I thank you for the further advice regarding the NAI discussion that you left on my talk page section. I noted that the discussion was about "edits" and that it was heading in a positive direction. The discussion was initiated with my name included anyway. This complaint could have been made simply with a link to my talk page "edits". However, it appears to have been a singungular personal issue to which you should have not been involved. This may have also avoided another user with a personal "owner" issue from Radio becoming involved. The dispute about page "ownership" is a seperate issue in its own right, and does not involve "threats". I was not the user that "re-ordered" the radio talk page into a mess. My edits were obviously being tracked by a user at radio, I have not posted anything on this persons talk page, nor he on mine. There should be no possiblity of "auto addition" to either watched pages. (See my watchlist historical "log" for verification). I understand how the Wikipedia "audit trail" and "logs" work.
The person who "highlighted the edit issue" posted two (three personal attacks, one on here.) one on the NAI dscussion page, one on my talk page. In ignorance of these NAI proceedings, (about naming people), I responded to the personal attack on NAI in the same manner. Perhaps too hastily, if these additions are also deemed inappropriate sections, should they be recorded on our respective talk pages instead? I agree to their transference, perhaps the other party may agree also. I think it will help to restore the tone of the discussion. I am sure the "edits" issue investigation by an administrator will take place in due course. Your recent post occured overnight for me, I have only just observed it. I note that you have made comment to the complainant about one event but not the other yet. I hope this matter may be resolved soon, I am sure all parties involved will take on board the ramifications of their actions in future, and will move toward resolving their "issues" with each other without involving other people. I realise you have a very difficult job, and that any personal bias cannot be a contributing factor. I am administrator at several school related websites, and have "chaired" medium sized organisations. I hadn`t interpreted your first message as a "warning", only advice. Francis E Williams (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC) This comment was updated using strike and (brackets) Francis E Williams (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

IP vector.js

Could you create a vector.js page for my IP? Thanks! (with the code:

importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar 2.0.js');
importScript('User:ProveIt GT/ProveIt.js');
importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar 2.0.js')



I don't think so, but I'm checking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope, one of the other admins tried, and it didn't work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

All Shriners are Freemasons, but not all Freemasons are Shriners.

Regarding your comment "Think this is the only one needed, if we accept Shriner=Mason. If we don't, none of the others would help anyway." Just like Scottish Rite, and York Rite a man MUST be a Freemason FIRST. So YES, Shriner=Mason, but Mason does not necessarily equal Shriner.
My sources for this:

  • "Be a Shriner Now: Roadmap". Tampa, Florida, USA: Shriners International. Retrieved 1/24/2011. Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • Hodapp, Christopher (2005). "12". Freemasons for Dummies. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing. Inc. p. 175-176, 228, and 230. ASIN 764597965 Check |asin= value (help). ISBN 978-0-7645-9796-1.

Thanks, EricCable (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage

thanks for reverting my userpage, why do all the trolls think I'm gay??--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Innapropriate action

I wanted to let you know that I personally I believe that if you are going to remove my comments you should remove his as well but since I have left the project it is not really any of my concern at this point. --Kumioko (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility star

Civility barnstar.png Civility Award
Your block earlier tonight caused me to raise an eyebrow, but your composure and civility afterwards restored in me a bit of much-needed wikifaith. Best. HausTalk 04:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I try. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Can i have my twinkle back please? You said i had to make several edits without it; I have created 1 article and made hundreds of edits since. So......... Someone65 (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of had more than a week and a half in mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI header

In this edit and in a related earlier edit, you used a summary that suggested the old headers were breaking formatting of some form. While I prefer more concise headers, and have a strong dislike of one-sided argumentative headers that also wrap onto multiple lines - I don't see anything "broken" in the formatting (although, I can see a case for the current one-sided header being an issue under WP:TPO subject "Section headings"). Can you clarify what you saw as broken formatting? --- Barek (talk) - 23:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The heading was so wide it was going into the archive box on the right before wrapping onto the next line.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying - I wasn't seeing that problem, but that could be differences in browser or other system settings that was causing it. If I had known some users were experiencing that problem, I would have restored your changes when the user reverted them. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I likely would have reverted it for the sake of neutrality anyway, but the formatting was a more convenient reason to use at the time. I wouldn't have made it "allegations of Admin abuse", though -- I don't want to know how many times that heading has been used on ANI. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of File:OverlongANIHeaderResults.png

A tag has been placed on File:OverlongANIHeaderResults.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this obviously-incorrect speedy deletion tag and replaced the license tag to indicate the creative commons licensing that applies. Thparkth (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning that up, Thparkth. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


Hi SarekOfVulcan. The number of suitable candidates for RfA is on the decline. Some Wikipedians are making an effort to improve the RfA system with a view to attracting mature, experienced editors to run for office. I wonder if you have read this?. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bloom County flashback

Just cough up some dough, Mac! :) Cinosaur (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Here, take my Admin's salary for January, that ought to cover it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you rather sign up for a monthly contribution? Cinosaur (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
No, thanks, but if you'd like to, feel free. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, would you mind if I copy the above exchange to Talk:Mantra-Rock Dance for educational purposes? ;) Cinosaur (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
To SarekOfVulcan. You know what for. :-) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind?

Hi SarekOfVulcan, would you mind closing this? I think I must have filed it while you were blocking. Jakew (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion Harassment

This was not an attack page as defined in speedy deletion criterion G10 and should not have been deleted. Who or what exactly was it attacking? If there is no straightforward answer to that question, G10 is not appropriate. I was about to remove the csd tag when you deleted the page.


Thparkth (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I see there is some arbcom-related backstory here so I withdraw my objection.


Thparkth (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

my request for rollback

hi I'm requesting again since its been a month, im alerting you as you previously revoked my rights i've stopped giving the vandal recognition and am just using 'rvv' or 'reverting vandalism' as an edit summary when reverting blatant vandalism from now on.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


do you mind creating a redirect for Shia death squads to mahdi army pls? thanks Someone65 (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edit-warring complaint

Hello Sarek. Regarding WP:AN3#User:Natty4bumpo reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ). Why would an admin submit an edit-warring complaint in which both he and the other party have gone over 3RR? Admins are expected to have skill in resolving disputes. I perceive that there may be ways of fixing the article to accommodate the views of both parties, since the definition of 'recognition' of a tribe is a little vague from one state to the next. Unless you are recommending that you and the other party should both be blocked, it would be helpful if you would present a plan for resolving the dispute, and take the first steps toward putting that in motion. This might be as simple as an RfC, or as complex as asking an experienced third party to advise both of you. Nothing prevents you from offering to stop reverting the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that I deserve a block for my edits, I will not contest it. Note, though, that Natty4bumpo (talk · contribs) has a long history of pushing his POV on Native American articles, and currently has an AfD running for the tribe he keeps removing from State recognized tribes. I have accepted his sources, though not his interpretation of them -- he refuses to recognize the validity of other sources, including one from the State of Kentucky referring to two governors' recognition of the tribe. Note also that someone else has attempted to edit the article since your message, and was promptly reverted by Chuck. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can You Take a Look?

Hi Fellow editor, can you take a look at article Damdami Taksal, and the continual removal of reference by an anon IP.Thanks and Live Long and Prosper.--Sikh-History 15:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Next time, post on the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring so that you get prompt attention -- I might not have been looking here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see you did. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your revert at ANI

Just to clarify, it wasn't me and I have never advocated for a complete ban on Racpacket but from a curiousity standpoint is there a rule somewhere that says an IP cannot add something at ANI? Under normal circumstances I would agree with you that an IP normally shouldn't be adding something there however given the constent discussions I can also see where someone may not want to get pulled into unending conflict and discussion over the issue. Several EMAIL's have been sent to me off Wiki stating as such. I was always under the impression that anyone including IP's could submit to ANI so I find your revert a little strange. --Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If it had been an IP with a track record, I would have left it. Since it was a brand new IP with extensive knowledge of WP history, it was obviously an existing account that was evading scrutiny, which is a no-no. After comparing the IP's (very limited) editing pattern with yours, I decided it wasn't you -- but just because I didn't know who it was didn't mean it wasn't obvious socking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better using an IP isn't my style. Whether thats always tactful is a matter of debate but I feel there is no need to say it if I don't want people to know its me so I just say what I think or feel and deal with the fallout. That kinda makes sense what you said about the IP history. I'm still not sure I agree but I didn't agree with what it was advocating either so its not something worth fighting about. I was mostly just wondering from an educational standpoint of wether an IP can ask questions there or not. Thanks for the clarification. --Kumioko (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course IPs can ask questions, but when the only question they've ever asked on WP is when-are-you-getting-rid-of-this-abusive-established-editor, it raises a lot more questions. Now, if you were to revert that and put your own name to it, that would be something that wouldn't be reverted on sight, like I did for the brand new IP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, no need for that, as a matter of fact (and this might surprise you) I was going back to state that I dind't see the point of a complete ban based on 1 or 2 issues a year, most of which are subjective. I had asked for a temporary subject ban but nothing more than that. Admittedly he is an irritation but not of such that I would want him thrown off the site. Anyway, thanks again. I just wasn't sure about the IP thing. --Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Freemasons Appendant Bodies in the Lede

Sir; Please see my post regarding your deletion of my work List of Freemasons#Appendant and Concordant Organizations in the Lede. As a person who has named himself after the most logical character in all of science fiction, I believe you will come to agree with my point. Thanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Per your post on my talk page you state "It basically comes down to, if we can't identify their home lodge, we don't include them in the list." If that's the case then there are a LOT of people on that list without cites that are "that good." Oh well. If you look at my last comment on the list's talk page you see that I have given up. I will never again attempt to add to the list. Your pal MSJapan is a condescending jerk and has taken all the fun out of it. Peace brother.  Eric Cable  |  Talk  15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
User:SarekOfVulcan/Sigh Well, we're all volunteers, so sometimes we don't get all the existing material -- it's easier to see something new coming in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Just an FYI Wikipedia:Help_desk#Anon_whistleblowing. CTJF83 01:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Hey,, you promised i could get my twinkle back please after 1 week and a half. Its been 2 weeks now. I have created 1 article and made 350 constructive edits and vandal reverts. Thank you Someone65 (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance list

A problem has been identified at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of Idaho

Hi Sarek... would you take a look at at the Grand Lodge of Idaho article and talk page and opine on the relevancy question that has been raised at the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Editing Archive

SarekofVulcan, thanks for letting me know. I didn't realize I was editing an archive. I'll try to move the material.NinaGreen (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi. This user has requested unblocking, and asked if I would mentor him. I've started a thread at WP:AN/I#Unblock request. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone65 block

Hi SarekOfVulcan. Not that I disagree with a block (at all), but unless there's something I missed, that SPI shows that the Someone65 account was unrelated to all but a single account that he no longer uses. I posted some more details on the "twinkle back" thread on AN/I (since hatted) that may be of interest. 28bytes (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll check that -- if I misread it, I'll back it down to a month or so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, hatted and archived now. Consensus there seemed to be that there's no basis for a sock block, although the abusive edit summaries certainly warrant a block. (A quite long one, IMO.) 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Reduced to 3 months, per the apparent consensus at ANI that a lengthy block was called for. Thanks for the help!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. And I think 3 months is quite fair, given the circumstances. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


This user was appropriately blocked for edit warring. He has admitted the error, committed to refrain from further edit warring and agreed to try mentoring. Seems like the purpose of the block has been served; how would you feel about lifting it early?--Kubigula (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The block

Thank you, Sarek, for applying that block. It was several days overdue. --Kenatipo speak! 06:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hi. Since the time that you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request (where there was some messy brainstorming about what terms are necessary for an unblock), a specific proposal has been made by Doc James about the restrictions/conditions that will come into effect upon the user being unblocked. Your comments/views on this proposal are welcome. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

PP History section

I just redid it, if you don't mind taking a look and editing it and such, I would appreciate it. I have a tendency to mess up my own grammar and not notice it until I read it a few days later. Another set of eyes would be nice. WMO 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalization of SOURCED content - re: Kramer


"That quest began unexpectedly for Kramer on Thursday, August 24, 2000. Kramer had been dating a woman with three sons ages 12, 13, and 15. The father of the younger two, a military intelligence officer, was seeking custody and had the mother investigated by the Department of Family and Children's Services (DFCS)."

What is the issue here?

Aeneas (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Post hoc fallacy. The article tacitly accuses the father of causing Kramer's arrest. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there another article denying it? Does a Wiki editor trump a detailed investigative article? I thought Wikipedia was not a tabloid. Aeneas (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Snappy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hi Sarek. Consensus seems to have been achieved at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal. Would you like to perform the unblock? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1RR on Palestine

I know. I hadn't realised until afterwards, actually. It's been reported at WP:AE. It's all in relation to that template you deleted, and the user's demand for it to be merged. I'm at a loss, since his "merge" has gotten incorporated into another editor's changes, so there are now two editors trying to push through something that hasn't been discussed, and that I object to. Nightw 08:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Alpha Delta National Fraternity

Thank you for your input. How will I know when I have enough outside sourcing to consider my article acceptable?

I noticed that there were several mentions of this fraternity floating around the internet, particularly Wikipedia, and thought it would be a great place to start with my first article.

Any assistance would be great. I would hate to have my article deleted, I have worked pretty hard on it and have been collecting this info for a while.

Straight.edge3kk (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, the outside sourcing should exceed the inside sourcing. If there's an entire section without any references, you don't have enough. The lede refers to a "dire need" -- this would generally be seen as over-the-top. Look at the APO article for ideas on how to speak about your group. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Edward E. Kramer

Thanks for your work on the Kramer article. I hadn't noticed Dante19's reversion attempts until after you and OrangeMike became involved. I also examined Dante19's edits and agree with OrangeMike that this is either the article's subject or a close friend/family member. Dante19 also created the article so likely feels ownership. Any idea on how to proceed? I don't desire to keep reverting edits with this person but I also don't like having sourced reliable information removed. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How does one deal with opinion vs. fact when both are in print? One example is the "riot" where investigative reporter Cohen at notes that there is no record of any such riot. The aforementioned article quotes witnesses of an assault. Is is incorrect to provide balance according to TOS? Please note that a 3rd party had previously evaluated the content and removed inappropriate content from OrangeMike, which he has now replaced. OrangeMike has been a past critic of both Dragon Con and Kramer prior to 2000, and his commentary reflects this bias. I have been to Dragon Con, have followed this case, but consider myself neither a close friend nor associate. Aeneas (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've responded about this issue at Talk:Edward_E._Kramer#Removing_sourced_information.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega links

I agree with most of the link removals, however I am interested in your opinion on links to anchored entries in an already wl'ed page. For example, somewhere near the top of the article Alpha Phi Omega National Conventions is linked, but farther down in a discussion of a specific convention a wl to an anchor in a table on the National Convention page would be used.Naraht (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Sorry I missed that last time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'd actually added that yet, I still need to do the anchors in the convention page. :) I didn't realize there were that many links to scouting. Thanks.Naraht (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Perseus8235's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Perseus8235 21:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Can You Take a Look at this?

Hi Fellow editor, can you take a look at this. I know you have history in dealing with such issues, but no Admins seem to be picking it up. Also, I want to rename my page simply SH, as the religious bit to my name seems to give the wrong impression. Thanks --SH 09:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Spamming/Canvassing absolutely everyone, are you? Look at my advice on my talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of empty sandbox

Just for the record, Sarek, none of the reasons you gave for deleting one of my sandboxes was a valid reason. It can't be an attack page if it's empty. But, thy will, not mine, be done! --Kenatipo speak! 02:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It has a title, and hence is not "empty".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
What? You mean you've never heard of the GeoFisicalYear??? Oops, I keep forgetting that Vulcans are not famous for their sense of humor. --Kenatipo speak! 23:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

PP cat on Lila Rose

On the contrary, I do think it's valid. The category doesn't only have to include PP and its presidents - unless it's specified, don't such categories typically include articles related to the subject? And it would be hard to argue that Miss Rose is not related to the subject, since it is the entire source of her notability. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me think about that. Choosing a slightly over-the-top example, could you compare it to putting an "Air traffic in the United States" category on Osama bin Ladin?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The September 11 attacks have their own category, which he is in - and ultimately it is a subcat of "Aviation in the United States." :P (At one remove, of course - it's a subcat of "Aviation incidents and disasters in the United States," which is a subcat of "Aviation in the United States.") Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
LOL. One of these days I'll learn not to come up with examples off the top of my head... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
And Hinckley's in the Reagan category. Hmm. Current practice would seem to indicate it's appropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you

Thank you for your well-wishes. They were very much appreciated and made me feel a lot better during my time off. For your kindness I present you with a kitten! May it love you and keep you. (And thank you for semi-protecting my page) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

ObamaCare Nickname

Hi SarekOfVulcan:

1. Why did you remove this subheading? The nickname is a serious point of contention in discussion about the law.

2. How is the HHS citation irrelevant? The HHS may have purchased the "ObamaCare" adword, but the agency only uses the real name of the law; the sentence before the one I just added does not clarify this. The nickname may be ubiquitous, but it's not used by the people running the program.

I'm putting the subheading and the sentence back. Arzel and Fat&Happy explain their changes on the article's discussion page; why won't you? (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan:

Might I request a little WWSD? The non-human Sarek wouldn't be this heavyhanded (even the old, TNG, cries-at-Mozart Sarek).

Since you're an admin, I would certainly appreciate more guidance and less shutdown. I received your edit-warring notice on Feb 9. On Feb 11, I edited the article twice. How is this edit warring? More importantly, if I had come close to instigating your block on Feb 11, it certainly wouldn't have been over-the-top for you to drop me a message saying, "I'm changing the article back. If you edit again today, you'll be blocked." I read and understood the ew article the first time.

I also read the "Be Bold" and "Don't Bite the Newcomer" articles.

I made the changes because the only two editors who engaged in discussion about the article had no objections with the subheading. One even said the article was neutral. Both of these editors did most of the work after my first edit.

I had consensus on this issue--at least on the subheading. Read the talk page if you don't believe me, [ahem] a talk page discussing pejorative nicknaming that you saw fit to parcel into "Bamabreaks" lol. (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


You're going to start tailing me now and reviewing every minor edit or finding another way to involve yourself - having nothing to do with the issuing of templates that you were so worried about? I sure hope this doesn't turn into a wp:harassment issue. Surely there are far more important issues which will benefit from your attention. Srobak (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. You were right to tag that -- I was trying to fix it, but I couldn't figure out how not to break it worse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh I know I was right in tagging it, and am also going through my own avenues to resolve it. My point lies in the fact that my tagging got your attention in the first place. I have a vested interest in the accuracy of the article - one which we do not share. If you like, I can save you the trouble and get you a copy of my watchlist. Up to you. Srobak (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
There's two Srobak (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Such misplaced vitriol. This is a collaborative project ... be happy that someone (read:Sarek) was trying to actually help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

re: difflinks

Thanks for the tip. Do you know if there is a way to do these with deleted edits, which use a different URL syntax? (I wondered whether these should be linked at all, seeing how they're not generally visible, but it could come up when dealing with a long-term issue.) Thanks again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, it seems like it should be doable, but I don't have the time/inclination right now to sit down and figure it out. How about you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nemerle Deletion

Hi Sarek. I believe we may have acted too hastily in the deletion of the Nemerle article. What appeared to be a consensus on the deletion page seems to me to actually have been the result of the dismissal of a few users who don't have many edits. The fact remains, though, that Nemerle is a prominent .NET language, which had dozens of incoming links, and is *easily* shown to be notable with even the smallest amount of searching. I am requesting your thoughts about this before opening up a deletion review, as is proper courtesy. Thanks. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone posted about this on, and there is now a thread full of vitriol and angry programmers who want this and other pages back. Just so you know. Thanks very much for considering reconsidering the deletion of the page. LittlegreenmanfromMars (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't that mean they know about it if it's "full of angry programmers"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been around for more than 5 years, and this is one of the most ridiculous afd decisions I've seen. Have you even read the discussion? There are plenty of reliable sources (including academic sources), and nobody who argued for deletion has bothered to write more than one sentence defending their opinion. And you still chose to delete it. Shameful.  Grue  07:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Grue, I've been around for more than five times longer than you say you've been around, and on that basis I would make a recommendation to you: base your arguments on facts.
nobody who argued for deletion has bothered to write more than one sentence defending their opinion - it ain't so. And it's very obviously not so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemerle is listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 14#Nemerle. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great that it's "serious business". Are you a software developer? If not - why did you delete Nemerle and other languages? Why was it not even merged with other smaller languages into a "consolidated page" of many small languages? Try not to delete or erase information, but instead retain it and CREATE something. Destruction is easy. Too easy.

Please answer the following questions related to the Nemerle deletion:

  • Are you a compiler writer? (eg have written other computer languages). Are you an expert in computer languages?
  • On what basis are articles (and hence information) deleted? What guidance is given on the criteria for deletion?
    • Related: what criteria did you use for the deletion of the Nemerle page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfordaus (talkcontribs) 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for undeleting the article quickly, apparently I missed the DRV though I could swear I checked. Perhaps it hadn't started yet? Anyway, this is a clear mistake. They happen. Let's just undelete and let the users get back to improving Wikipedia. prat (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blake1960 ANI

I have re-ordered the diffs to show three personal attacks since he was blocked. Please let me know if I should change my report in other ways as well. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mythryl deletion

Would you reconsider the deletion of Mythryl? I was surprised to find it missing, and now that I've looked into it, it seems weird to me that Christopher Monsanto nominated a whole bunch of other articles on programming languages for deletion, too (I noticed about a dozen). That calls into question his motives, at least in my eyes, since many of them unquestionably belong on Wikipedia. Mythryl may not be as clear-cut, considering its dire need of reliable sources, but I did think that it was well written, informative, and worthwhile. I've found this site to be a great resource for discovering programming languages, and I think that the standards for notability should be somewhat relaxed when it comes to open source software projects such as in this case. Gdejohn (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It may have been nominated by one person, but was then discussed by many. The decision to delete came from WP:CONSENSUS based on Wikipedia policies. One cannot simply relax standards or else we'll start having articles about every garage band and child beauty pageant in existence. Once notability has been established, the article would be great. Some wise individual might do well to create an article about alternative programming languages, group them by "type", and use information from all of the articles that were deleted ... but noooooo, people would rather bitch and whine (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
My point was that the whole process seems tainted, which should be cause for reconsideration. And not counting Monsanto, it was voted on by five people (hardly many), only two of which actually wanted to delete it (hardly consensus; by the way, I know what consensus is, so you really don't have to cite policy). I also specifically limited my comment on relaxing notability standards to open source software, so your response about garage bands and child beauty pageants wasn't appropriate. Do you really think it helps Wikipedia rather than hurts it to delete this article? Have you even read it? Are you familiar with programming languages and open source software? Notability means different things for different subjects, and that policy is a guideline. If you think that the best solution is to create a combined article for lesser known programming languages, then go ahead and do it. That would be a much better way to spend your time than leaving snarky, unhelpful comments on user talk pages. I have no personal interest whatsoever in Mythryl or the article, I just honestly think that it deserves to be here. That's why I politely brought my views to the attention of SarekOfVulcan (the one who deleted it), which is the correct protocol, as I understand it. And I don't appreciate you accusing me of bitching and whining. Gdejohn (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Would you care to offer a couple of sources first, so we don't go right back down this path in a couple of weeks? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC) and Scrubs - Just Can't Leave it Alone

After having been blocked for edit warring on the article previously, above IP has gone right back to making the same edit that got them blocked for EW to begin with. Not sure what the proper protocol is now. Do we really have to warn them under a month later not to continue edit warring on the same article? Doniago (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism message

Hello. I'm not exactly sure what "STiki" is, but it seems to have some problems. It thought that this edit was vandalism and restored a double-redirect; and it left this message on a redirect page, instead of following the redirect to leave a message where a user might actually see it. I suggest you not use this tool until these problems have been corrected. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi Sarek--you may be interested in this edit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted wikimanone comment

I realize he can delete stuff off his talk page but as you can see what I put here was deleted but I am curious what your views on this is. Did I have the polices in the right context? Thanks. (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No, actually. That would be like saying you couldn't write about Microsoft because you had bought a copy of Windows, or edit the article about Hannaford because you shopped there on occasion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense for that one, what about the other ones quoted, activist and so on especially the firing off of undue way to often, thanks (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Activist is an essay, not a policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


You need to be aware of this post by WMO. I deleted as an NPA, but this was after he started editing after he came back from his 48 hour block. - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Winter Harbor 21

I'm not sure if you were keeping an eye on the article or not, but in general we shouldn't be letting copyrighted material sit in an article for any period of time unless/until it's been verified via OTRS or at the source website. Often we never receive an actual email or the permission is unusable for one reason or another, and so WP:CV directs us to blank the article with {{subst:copyvio}} until permission has been verified. Just thought you should know, cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


Sarek, I think our boy found out you're RC! --Kenatipo speak! 16:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


I'd like to express my opinion in the matter of WikiManOne. You admins mostly sat on your hands while he ran amok on at least two articles and their talk pages. As I saw it, only Fences&Windows even came close to doing anything about it. The friction initiated by WikiManOne occasioned the usual drive-by admin reactions: blocks, WQAs, ANIs, MfDs, 3RRs, etc. Now, admins, probably feeling responsible for not taking action sooner, are discussing all kinds of restrictions on the abortion pages and even sanctions against editors who were provoked by WikiManOne, including me! My recommendation: a one month topic block on WikiManOne to keep him off the abortion, Christianity and Catholic pages. One month is a very long time in the life of a young man. That's all that's needed here. WikiManOne was never my enemy and is no longer my adversary on those pages even though we are poles apart on pro-life issues. I have disengaged from him for reasons that have been deleted. But, let's not be using a sledgehammer here to kill a gnat, please. Sincerely, --Kenatipo speak! 18:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Um..... - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Neutral, since you haven't responded to my query elsewhere, I will read your mind and respond: That discussion is an awful lot of palaver to solve a simple problem -- reining in one disruptive editor. A one month block from editing the topics I listed above should be plenty. And, if the related articles flare up in the mean time, then put in a 1RR restriction. --Kenatipo speak! 06:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
My apologizes, must have missed that while talking about my userpage. Answered on my talkpage. - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Doris Allen

Hi Sarek - What kind of content would you like to see on the Doris Allen page? I have a lot of primary sources and can help if I know what kind of content won't be zapped. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CarefulEdits (talkcontribs)

Content that's taken word-for-word from primary sources will be zapped per WP:COPYVIO. Unverifiable content, like the claims that she was nominated for a Nobel, will be zapped per WP:V. Beyond that, if it adheres to WP:POLICY, we can work with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Southern Cherokee Nation of Kentucky

I see you got involved with this as well--fun stuff! I actually emailed the folks at the site (about this link), but they couldn't give me an answer, really--all they did was rehash the information that's already in the article. I don't doubt for a minute that they looked at the Wikipedia article and scratched their heads. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Kramer article discussion

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppets_and_legal_threats_at_Edward_E._Kramer you might be interested in. Personally, I'm about tired of dealing with the back and forth on this article. It's really not worth all this effort.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I'm done with any further edit attempts on this article. I've reverted it to NYlegal1's previous version and if he wants to delete all this information that's an issue for others to deal with. I have no desire to keep going back and forth on this issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Hey, Sarek, how do I find out how many are watching me? --Kenatipo speak! 17:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC), but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Fewer that 30 watchers? That's a little vague. Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It explains it here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Sarek. --Kenatipo speak! 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy SarekOfVulcan's Day!

Featured article star.svg

SarekOfVulcan has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as SarekOfVulcan's Day!
For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian,
enjoy being the star of the day, SarekOfVulcan!

Signed, Neutralhomer

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...NeutralhomerTalk • 05:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations and enjoy your day! — Brianhe (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


Just letting you know that he came back as another IP and claimed that you were too involved to block him. I didn't see that, and beyond that he clearly isn't listening to anyone. I therefore extended his block to indefinite. See the ANI thread for more details. Grondemar 12:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you wish to be kept in the loop: I left another message on User talk:Grondemar, as Someone65 is continuing to evade his block through multiple IP's in the same range.--Atlan (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A request

Hi, User:Onetonycousins issued a warning against me for issuing a warning against him for using vulgarity in edit summaries. Here is his vulgarity: [6]. Here is the warning he is responding too [7], with the template saying the wrong stuff so i edited it to [8]. This is supposedly me making threats against him.

Seeing as this is simply a petty "revenge" warning with no basis, can it be removed from my edit history seeing as i have never had a single warning in my entire history in Wikipedia except for once when i gave myself (yes myself) a warning for stopping an edit-warrer by going past 3 reverts to which they finally stopped.

Also does Onetonycousins deserve another block seeing as he is still using vulgarity in his edit summaries? He even had an ANI broiught against him once again, this time by User:Gnevin, for his edit summaries. Link here. Mabuska (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact here is yet another outburst from him: Talk:League_of_Ireland_Premier_Division#A_final_solution. Despite the previous warnings and blocks he just doesn't seem to get it. Mabuska (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
"f**k" isn't particularly WP:CIVIL, but it's not a vulgarity. I've warned him about that last message to you, though. Back off and give him room, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I have given him room, i don't stalk or trail him looking to get him into trouble. Its not my fault he decides to jump in head first and make changes with uncivil language without dicsussing - especially in articles i have on my watch list or am currently involved in editing. Should i just inform someone else to issue a warning to him in the future the next time he decides to have a go or just let him go around thinking its alright for him to do so? I can work with him on a professional level if he does likewise in a professional manner as in here Mabuska (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify; my request is not about taking action against Onetonycousins - i only asked does he deserve another block not that he should get another block. If i wanted to request that i'd go to AN/I, which i may do seeing as he has defended his personal attack. Rather my request is about the removal of that pointless revenge warning from my edit history or for that do you go to AN? Mabuska (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
That warning definitely isn't deletable -- just revert and ignore.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Okey dokey, and what of OTC's open refusal to withdraw his comments? Mabuska (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:ROPE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Whilst i know what your getting at with that link, that is in regards to blocked users. Maybe a stern formal warning on personal attacks from an admin such as yourself to OTC may serve as a better rope... as it'll let them know they have a chance and that it won't be tolerated if done again. Especially as they are adament they mean it. Mabuska (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I note that you declined a CSD for the above article earlier but I cannot for the life of me see how the guy is notable under the policies for basketball players. I CSD'd this myself, then noticed your earlier decline & so self-revert ... only to find that you had reverted an intermediate attempt to remove the template. I'm confused; I bet you are too! What is the way forward with this please? - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just seen your cmt on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(thought you might :-) ) There's sufficient sourcing out there to meet the WP:GNG, so it's not speedy material. AfD is fine -- I suspect it won't survive, but I want there to be time to source it properly. (Re: revert -- I think I was confused there myself. :-) ) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Made a comment on the article talk page. Will look into it in a couple of days when, hopefully, it has settled down a bit. Thanks for your assistance. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


Do you really think talking it over on the article talk page will help, when the editor in question clearly doesn't read any form of talk page? (Also, you might want to revert Girloveswaffles' last two edits to the article, which were just blindly undoing mine. Again.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Also, I've discussed this at least twice on their talk page and they won't listen. Do you really think discussing with them somewhere else will work? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No, you've warned them on their talkpage. Discuss it on the article talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • And what makes you think they'll discuss it? This user probably hasn't even seen the talk page, judging from their edit history (3 months and all they've done is restore the same fancruft I keep removing). But if you want to comment there, and maybe on the user's talk page as well, that might help — Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
        • And what makes you think you can ignore WP:DR? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
          • You can't resolve a dispute if the other party is blatantly unwilling to do anything other than click "undo" ad nauseam. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
            • ...which sounds much like what you say you're doing. You're not going to win this on my talkpage, you know.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Hello, I noticed that here [9], you referred a user to the Simple English Wikipedia as a suggestion for proving they can work in a collaborative environment. Speaking as a member of the Simple community, we already have a fairly bad reputation for being seen as a "vandal rehab center", and indeed, a number of users banned or blocked from en have been sent over here (and consequently used up a lot of our time). We've actually added the phrase "Simple English Wikipedia is not a place for banned users to try and get unbanned from another website. Simple English Wikipedia is a separate Wikipedia in its own right." to our version of WP:NOT: [10] Are there any alternatives to simply dumping users on other Wikimedia projects? Thanks, Kansan (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- I was trying to come up with options short of "go away, kid, you're bothering us". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(butting in) ... Sarek, you are obviously not from Yorkshire, where bluntness is an art form. I speak as one from the neighbouring Lancashire & so may be biassed in this opinion :) - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Bangor Air National Guard Base

It's the same facility. When the Air Force inactivated Dow AFB in 1968, the Maine ANG took over the part of the base not turned over to the city of Bangor. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Having a separate page for Dow AFB and one for Bangor ANGB wouldn't take long to accomplish and it's not difficult. I've actually been wanting to update the article on Dow AFB for some time now. Still have a few things to add to it as well. Since the two are physically one and the same, was the reason I put it all under the Bangor ANGB title, then restructured it. The fact also is that I just didn't have a lot of material about the national guard base (the 101st ARW is another project, and another page for another day). However I DID want to separate the ANG base from the Bangor International Airport page. Works for me either way, and would be more than happy to move the Dow information back to the former page. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Will need a few minutes :) take care Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I put the Bomarcs in the Dow AFB article (restored and updated), and the OTH Radar use by Space Command in the ANG article. Been working on this most of the day and it didn't take long to split it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A little help, please?

There's a Seventh Day Adventist POV pusher in the Waldensians article (WP:NPOVN discussion about it here), and I'm just about to head out with my family for my birthday. Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see he's backed down, nevermind, but thanks anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Happy birthday, anyhow. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


Noticed you were going through and adding the sanction notice. Not sure if this would be workable or not, but wouldn't it be easier to just add the sanction notice to the WP:Abortion Project's template? Take it or leave it. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 22:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, much better to save it for articles where there are actually problems such as edit warring. I only tagged Talk:Abortion itself because it seemed to me that the main article should be tagged, not because there was actually any need for the sanctions there at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

unblocking of Brianwazere

Hi this brianwazere who u blocked but im currently not logged in, i want to know when my block is up and indefinite is not a good enough answer i want to know how many DAYS OR HOW MANY WEEKS i am blocked for, i would say thanks but im not thankful! BRIANWAZERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to reply to me, how dare you ignore me i know u were online lately so reply to avoid more trouble thank you (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

more obvious notice of abortion GS

Sarek, when the Sarah Palin page was under 1RR, if you tried to edit it, a big notice would pop up on the edit page warning you of the 1RR, etc. Can we do the same for some of the contentious abortion pages? --Kenatipo speak! 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Remind me later if I don't get to it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I see the GS warning at the tops of some talk pages, but I think there should be something at the tops of the article pages, like those different color locks? Also, a warning when you hit the edit button. Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

John Goodsall

Have you noticed he's using two accounts to edit his article? Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:The Egyptian Liberal

theres no note on his block to appeal it. also the reason that you blocked pending the bureaucracy figfures out is not reason to block. you cant punish a contributive editor because others are confused. at the most sanction for temporary 1rr, but you cant hinder improvement.Lihaas (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't fully understand that post, but it appears to be saying that you were wrong to block. If so, I totally disagree. The editor was causing considerable disruption, and you were right to block. However, I think I have pretty well sorted out the mess, and it is clear from what The Egyptian Liberal has said on their talk page that they will not be likely to continue with the problematic editing, so I think an unblock is in order. Usually I consult the blocking admin, rather than unblock myself. However, in this case, since you said the block was "until we figure out what the heck happened and how to fix it", and I think that is done, I am going to go ahead and unblock. Please let me know if you disagree. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. I just wanted to make sure the problems didn't get worse before they were dealt with. That done, there's no further need to maintain the block. I appreciate the note, though. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This may interest you

1RR? [11] [12] Lionel (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


Talk:State_of_Mexico#Requested_move_March_2011 hopefully that way finally the state of México gets its accent. Chihuahua State (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock from Macr86

Hello SarekOfVulcan we wanna unblock from Macr86 and you blocked in 43 days ago. (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You can go ahead and post another unblock request on your talkpage, and someone will evaluate it. Just make sure that it addresses the reason you were blocked for this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I put {{ reason=your reason here (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)}} now are you ready SarekOfVulcan? (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No, because "your reason here" is not an unblock rationale.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My block

Are you aware that I removed the troublesome wording that you claimed I reverted to between your comments on my talk page and my third edit that you blocked me for?

The three edits were like this:

  1. I reword a bunch of stuff in the article, you claim that that counted as my "1RR" because I switched the word "clinics" back to the phrase "health centers" in that edit. You specifically say if I undo that portion of the edit, it would not count as a revert.
  2. With no interceding edits, I follow your advise to avoid conflict, and the phrase in question to "facilities" which was previously unused, which I believe satisfied your demand that I undo that specific wording.
  3. I make a revert to the page, believing since I satisfied your requirements I was still allowed one revert.

After that, you blocked me... I would like to hear the rationale. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 04:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Reverting" means returning to the original. Choosing an alternate phrase that has not obtained consensus is most definitely not a revert. Pretty easy block IMHO, and I don't hand them out like candy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, what BWilkins said. I offered you the chance to self-revert, which meant to completely undo that edit as an indicator that you meant to take back your 1RR. Now, if you had done that and _then_ made the change, the case for blocking would have been harder, but a completely uninvolved admin might have been able to make it anyway, had I reported it on AN/I for review. The intent of the general sanctions was to stop the edit warring on the abortion pages -- namely, the ones you've been involved with, since the rest of them haven't had problems reported. As you continued to edit war after the sanctions were imposed, you shouldn't be surprised that action was taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What does this do?

I like it... Peridon (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What does what do? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
A certain Twinkle button, perhaps... Peridon (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Which hypothetical button would that be? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I'll have to come out and say 'Ajchuch'? Peridon (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
*headdesk* Got it, thought it was something you were doing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...NeutralhomerTalk • 04:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: cites, in lead

Still wondering what you think I should do about this. Relevant content was removed from the lead again by an IP claiming that it was unsupported, and while it's a fairly transparent attempt to suppress unfavorable content about CPCs rather than a legitimate concern, I can't revert it, and they are technically correct that the information is not cited in the lead. So, should I choose a few out of the dozen-and-a-half citations from the relevant sections and stick them in the lead? Put some sort of hidden notice directing users to the paragraphs where all of this is cited extensively, so that in the future, this content removal can be treated as the drive-by POV-motivated deletion that it is? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet reverted, and I added two refs. Let's see how that works. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please look at my latest work..

Hello again,

I would appreciate you taking a look at and commenting on my latest work
It is the result of a number of trips to the library, digging through contradicting sources, and also one head-smacking moment when I thought I had four different sources but realized numbers 2 through 4 were all plagarism of #1. It is also my first attempt at using Harvard citation method. Thanks! Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Defamation using unsubstantiated newspaper sources

I discovered your link from editing a wiki page on a friend of mine, Vito Roberto Palazzolo. I don't know if this is the correct medium but I have a big problem with the page, namely, it is hugely slanted and defamatory of Palazzolo, who is a living person. Written by a guy called Don Calo, all his sources are the newspapers and, Silvio Berlusconi included, we know what utter rubbish they print and get away with. I wish to duke this out using informed sources and documantation.

I fear that Don Calo is using Wikipedia as a front, behind which he attacks an innocent man (see the court documents).

Can you help? All Wikipedia had to say was the following:

Please be aware that newspaper articles are presumed accurate unless a correction has been published or there is evidence that the newspaper is biased or unreliable. The decision to declare a newspaper inaccurate can be broached at <>.

requesting merge

Been a long time for me using wiki with any regularity. Just been browsing and doing some recent changes patrol. I came apon a couple of articles that beg to be merged. and,_Women,_and_Chainsaws the final girl article reads right from the book, its clover this and clover that. To make a long post short for the life of me how do I request to merge been years since I looked how. Thanks. No hurry. Xiahou (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your help i think is needed....

MFIreland seems to be on a warning spree at Onetonycousins talk page [13]. Whether Onetonycousins is guilty or not of any of the warnings i don't know, but i think this needs nipped in the bud before it descends into worse. Mabuska (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


I don't know if you saw my comment on the talk page of the William Balfour (general) article:

:If we were writing in 1642 or 1885, or writing a historical novel, your edit might be correct. However, we're writing our new encyclopedia article in 2011 and no one would use "popery" as a synonym for Catholicism in 2011. It's not censorship if we're just updating an archaism. And the reader is just one click away (at the bottom of the page) from the original 1885 article in the DNB if he wants to see how they did it in the olden days. If we push your logic to the extreme, don't we end up with the old source article with no changes allowed? Sarek, please reconsider your edit. --Kenatipo speak! 16:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

--Kenatipo speak! 16:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to reconsider it, but I won't argue against consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock IP

Hey Sarek, I just blocked this IP as an obvious sock of Onetonycousins (restoring soccer-related changes he'd been edit warring over at Sport in Ireland). Do you think this warrants extending Onetonycousins' block?--Cúchullain t/c 16:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably, but it's not clear that that would be preventive rather than punitive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Hopefully he won't do it again and we can move on. I'm not holding my breath though.--Cúchullain t/c 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

John Vincent Atanasoff

Would you mind also reverting to this version by User:TodorBozhinov? Otherwise the article is stuck with an ungrammatical first sentence ("an physicist"), unmotivated boldface text, etc. Robert K S (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Language query

Query: are there terminology changes on abortion-related pages that are considered "obvious vandalism" for purposes of the sanctions? Eg. replacing "anti-abortion" or "pro-life" with "anti-choice," "abortion provider" with "abortionist," or "fetus" with "unborn baby"? Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to call "no" on that. "Abortion provider" to "murderer", otoh, I could make a case for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

John Vincent Atanasoff

Would you mind also reverting to this version by User:TodorBozhinov? Otherwise the article is still stuck with some of the goofiness put in place there by the vandals who got it locked in the first place. Robert K S (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Evenhandedness query

Why has Haymaker been blocked for 48 hours for reverts at The Silent Scream whereas the editor he was edit-warring with (Roscelese) was merely given a warning?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I didn't count two reverts for Roscelese, but Haymaker clearly had them. If you see two reverts, show me the diffs, and I'll take another look.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. Revert #1 at 16:47:[14] Revert #2 at 21:00:[15]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That first diff isn't a revert. There was nothing there, Haymaker added something, and Roscelese changed it to something else. Currently, both editors' phrases are in the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The first diff that I gave above shows removal of the words "Pro-choice activist". That is extremely clearly a revert, regardless of what was inserted in it's place.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If you think you can make the case, feel free to try WP:AN/I.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please explain why Roscelese's removal of the term "Pro-choice" activist is not a revert. If you cannot offer any sensible explanation or evenhandedness, then I will escalate. I would prefer not to, as I dislike drama.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I explained my reasoning above already. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There's now a section at ANI about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. I've responded, adding the diffs I used to demonstrate the 1RR vio for Haymaker. (Also changed your barelink to an oldid template -- hope that's ok.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sarek, I would have actioned the incident in the same way as you did (and have opined as such at the ANI thread). Kudos also on the openness to review of your actions, which is always refreshing to see. Regards, AGK [] 00:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, my response to AGK's opinion at the ANI thread is here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the hard work you're doing on that page. I have a feeling those edits are coming from Sylver himself. --LongLiveReagan (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the info Sarek. I do have a question for either you or LongLive. I don't want to do anything to mess up any pages that have been created and when I go to add information that I think is beneficial and adds to the content of the page how do I ensure it's not looked at as trash or not cited or ref well? I don't want to spend my time trying to add stuff if it's not helping the overall article and I want to make sure that as much info is in the article as possible. I appreciate your help. Neutralviews (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, start by reading the welcome message I left you -- there are lots of useful links there. Also, you can suggest additions on the article's discussion page first -- Talk:Marshall Sylver, in this case. If we have questions about a source you bring, we can raise them there instead of just removing the info from the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


More disruptive edits with IP User:

Hello SarekOfVulcan. I'm not an admin on Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if you could block IP User: a second time. In February, several disruptive edits of the Ceann Comhairle article were made in which you warned and blocked this user. Later, the same thing happened with Malin Åkerman, and now on the article I been contributing to: Dysfunctional family. This editor refuses to leave any comments on the discussion page after inserting templates stating "See the talk page for details," deletes an entire section with citations without any consensus calling it a "fringe view," deletes a fact stating "Not in reference" when it's clearly stated in second sentence in the ref-linked article, and calls my reverting of these edits "vandalism."

Instead of communicating on the discussion page he/she left the generic template about "Please do not remove content or templates..." on my talk page while I was warning him/her about the disruptive edits. If this user isn't blocked, I'm sure the same thing will happen with other Wikipedia articles as well.

Thanks, DSVU (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Templates alerting people that an article needs to be improved are not disruptive. Removing such templates is disruptive. I deleted a section which is referenced using a poor source, and which represents a fringe view. The "fact" I deleted was *not* in the reference. (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


User: is vandalizing an article I've been working, We're New Here. The user's been removing sourced content from the article, reverting me 2 or 3 times, and has reverted by warning to his talk page. Since you've dealt with the user before, can you please help? Dan56 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize anything. I didn't remove sourced content. I changed the wording of the lede to improve economy of language. And you left a warning about some article I'd never heard of, much less edited. (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi SarekOfVulcan,

I trust that you do not mind me undoing your removal. I loaded the first paragraph of the posting into Google and up came the original web page, so knowing what had been done, I decided ot give the authro the benefit of the doubt.

Regards User:Martinvl. Martinvl (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I mind. That's a straight copyvio, unless the editor was the original author, which was not claimed anywhere, and there's no notation as to what the editor expected to be added to the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah. I see that you didn't add the whole thing back in -- guess that's ok. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Padania article

As I explained in Talk:Padania, I will soon re-insert the material User:Enok removed without consensus (he was alone against four users and a couple of IPs). I will have no problem if there will be a consensus on removing the "opinion polling" section or other parts from the article in the future, but it is clear at this point there is no such consensus. I will also welcome any further discussion. Take care, --Checco (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the day I decided not to re-insert the "opinion polling" section because I was a little bit confused by some remarks by N5il in Talk:Padania. This is the last edit (or, better, deletion) by Enok that I would like to revert. As I wrote in many different places, all the other editors of the article expressed their disagreement with Enok's actions and, concession to concession, we accepted many of his desiderata (well, actually, he enforced that by himself!). Would you like to become a third-party editor/moderator of the discussion? Is the "opinion polling" section relevant to the article? --Checco (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Archbishopric of Ohrid

Hi Sarek,

Just wanted to say I think your close of this was incorrect. There was no clear consensus to move the article, so it should have stayed where it was and the move request closed as "no consensus". There were at least two oppose votes saying that this is not the primary topic for "Archbishopric of Ohrid" - there are modern churches of the same name, so irrespective of competing names for the disambiguation title, it should not be occupying the primary page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My major takeaways from that discussion were that scholarly sources don't refer to it by the name it was at before, and that it lasted for 700 years. Therefore, it has an excellent claim to being the primary topic for that title, and I didn't feel that the arguments against the move were sufficiently compelling even to close it as "no consensus", never mind "keep at current location". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Hello Sarek, I've started a new discussion thread regarding to the blocking of User:KnowIG (the user which has been recently unblocked) on WP:ANI, as you were also involved in his blocking/unblocking procedure, I'll feel gratitude if you inspect the whole issue and present your point of view. Thanks Bill william comptonTalk 06:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We're New Here dispute

Would you like to add your two cents at this discussion regarding the article's content? Dan56 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hi SarekOfVulcan, just letting you know about a possible 1RR violation by an IP user, User talk:, at 40 Days for Life. See the last ten edits there. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Editor did it again and is on his final warning for vandalism. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at Mattnad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a note of appreciation

Hi, Sarek! I noticed that earlier today you took care of some nonsense at the Drug Free America Foundation article, and that reminded me of something. I know people of your species don't necessarily stay in touch with offspring to the same extent that we humans are inclined to do, so I thought I'd just let you know, in case you didn't, that the boy seems to be making good. :-) More seriously, since I've so often been the quiet (if indirect) beneficiary of your work to keep all the wheels turning properly here, I just thought today that it was time to say that I'm grateful for that. So thank you for your dedication to this extraordinary enterprise of ours, very sincerely. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ohio. It's always nice to hear something besides complaints here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Iowa building

Replied on my talk page... as is so often the case with SPS sources, you need to look at specifics of a challenge. In this case, my objection centered on what the source was supporting when I challenged it. The statement that the dedication of the building was "the most important event in Iowa masonry during the 20th century" is most definitely contentious.

As I said at the AfD... the article topic is slowly shifting towards being about the library and museum (as opposed to being about the building that houses them). If this continues, I should be able to withdraw the nomination. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)