User talk:Sarah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
| Wikipedia Ads | file info – #46 |
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 |
[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!
[edit] Wikinews?
Sarah, I've been meaning to ask you for some time: do you write for Wikinews? Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Viri. That's a bit out of left field - what makes you ask about Wikinews?? :) Well, I have a Wikinews account which I started back in 05 but I don't really edit there very much. Mostly just when I feel like I need a break from ze 'pedia. I just go there and quietly copyedit a couple of articles and then go on my way. I often copyedit there while logged out so I'm not very visible. My username there is User:Sarah. Do you edit there? Sarah 17:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Two reasons I asked: 1) I know you have an interest in journalism, and 2) I was going to ask for some help with some Hawaii-related articles I was thinking about writing there, but considering you don't use it all that much except for copyediting, I'll put you on the list! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, this is weird, but I just brought up your name because we may need your expertise in both journalism and nursing for a new news report. See this link. Would you be interested in helping out with checking out our facts and keeping it professional? If you have time, we would welcome your participation as a writer. In case you don't know what we're talking about, see this edit. Here are some GNews hits on the subject:[1] Essentially, what we are talking about is a follow-up to these two Wikinews articles ([2][3]) with an emphasis on the consequences to human health and the environment. If you don't have the time to be directly involved, we would like to ask you to be our advisor. :) Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, yeah, I studied both at uni but if you're hoping for professionalism and expertise you might be very disappointed! lol. I would be happy to help if I can but my knowledge of vog is rather limited as we've never had it in Australia, at least, not in modern history. But if you think I might be able to help with copyediting and such, just let me know when you're ready and I'll mosey on over there and check it out. Apologies for the delay replying, Viri. I've been very busy IRL and haven't had much time for editing. Trust all is well with you. Cheers, Sarah 12:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, this is weird, but I just brought up your name because we may need your expertise in both journalism and nursing for a new news report. See this link. Would you be interested in helping out with checking out our facts and keeping it professional? If you have time, we would welcome your participation as a writer. In case you don't know what we're talking about, see this edit. Here are some GNews hits on the subject:[1] Essentially, what we are talking about is a follow-up to these two Wikinews articles ([2][3]) with an emphasis on the consequences to human health and the environment. If you don't have the time to be directly involved, we would like to ask you to be our advisor. :) Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Two reasons I asked: 1) I know you have an interest in journalism, and 2) I was going to ask for some help with some Hawaii-related articles I was thinking about writing there, but considering you don't use it all that much except for copyediting, I'll put you on the list! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:Gerald Gonzalez sock again
He created another sock (User:LykaRaymundo). Please check out his contributions for evidence. Thanks! -Danngarcia (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Another possible sockpuppet: (User:Carpioeje). User has also the same editing pattern (All edited articles are related to Angel Locsin and user also checks the "minor edit" box on almost all of his contributions. -Danngarcia (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for letting me know. I see that Lyka has been blocked. I'm watching Carpioje but he hasn't edited again. Carpioje doesn't have any edits to Angel Locsin which is making me hesitate to hit the button but I do think you're probably right. I think I'll just keep an eye on it for now. Cheers, Sarah 13:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Poignant
This edit and understood Sarah my friend. Oh what bravery our forbears offered to this young country.--VS talk 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your very kind note, Steve. Very muchly appreciated. Sarah 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome aboard
On behalf of the unnoifficial drinking team that sometimes masquarades as an wikipedia meetup ( I have just realised I owe another round whenever it happens due to my big mouth ) and the generally disorganised and probably most productive state team in australia - may you wear your west oz tag with dignity pride and (yes the next time i wander the continent i will come to melboure i promise) may all your interactions with my fellow inmates be cordial jovial and indeed uplifting (and not create the slightest thought what the hell am i doing in this weird goldfishbowl in the first place) in the hope that we as a group do not have under any circumstances the style manner or general disposition of myself on talk pages - welcome to the weird and wonderful world of the west oz wp participants thingo - uh, where am i again? SatuSuro 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Of course I have the munchhausen syndrome none of that was true :) apart from the welcome SatuSuro 01:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- LOL Thanks for the welcome, Sats. I look forward to joining the officially unofficial drinking team as you lads keep promising me drinks. But I might have to take a rain check on some of these drinks or else I'll end up under the table. I look forward to helping out on the WA pages and learning more about your fine state in the process. :) I've just started reading a book about the 'Freemantle Six' and the Catalpa rescue called "The Voyage of the Catalpa" by Peter Stevens and it inspired me to join you boys on the WA project.:) Sarah 13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well youve got into interesting territory there - Fremantle (freo for short) and the seasiders - they are down there on the sandflat - I appear to be th only hills inhabitant in our drinking team - so we have a majority of sandflatters - but hey they are not freo types - with the catalpa and their oirish and yankee mates - they are the yotties/seasiders - freo types - so there are all these serious ethnic divisions - but fortunately we all speak the same language - i think :) (and cygnis he is indeed there with god - or her minions - he is now in the really deep south - no stopes from where he is before th south pole) so there is a complex geography of the wa eds - along with the million gnomes we never see on the noticeboard ever - so welcome aboard - and keep that drink balanced as the boat wobbles with the beginning of one of those white pointer filled king waves that give the southerners their thrills for the year (please dont try to make sense of any of this - ta) - cheers SatuSuro 13:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfC Skyring
Should there be some notice on the RfC stating that it is closed and archived? There is nothing apparent to me along these lines at [[4]]. SmithBlue (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey SmithBlue. Well, usually once the discussion of an RfC has finished and there's been no further edits for thirty days, the bot delists and archives it. I just checked a few other ones in the archives and a couple have been formally closed with "discussion is archived do not edit" templates but most are just archived without so I'd be inclined to leave as is for now. I don't have a problem if people still have things to discus but everyone else has long since stopped using it to discuss the original issue and Lester is just posting periodic evaluations of Peter, one complimentary, one not, as though he is trying to keep it hanging over Peter's head in perpetuity which seems pretty unfair to me. I'll keep an eye on it but I don't think it needs to be formally closed at this point. Thanks for your message. Cheers, Sarah 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Craig Moore (Broadcaster)
Hi. I wondered if you would mind reviewing your deletion of this article. I don't feel that it meets the A7 criteria. It had been tagged at least a couple of times by the same user with the speedy requests being rejected by me and at least one other admin. When the tagging user finally tagged it as prod instead, it seems that you may have deleted it as a speedy. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was asked to review it by the previous administrator who had deleted it and I agreed it was pretty obviously an A7. We're talking about an apparent autobiography about a weekend weather guy on a regional tv station who does some regional voiceover work. Googling his name brings up very little outside Wikipedia, mirrors and other self-published and wiki-type websites [5] [6] and even some of those hits appear to refer to a different Craig Moore who is a former Socceroos captain and the radio presenter Craig Moore (radio presenter). That said, I don't really care about it very much, so if you think there's a claim to notability then feel free to restore it. Having discussed it with others, I am pretty sure it will very soon be deleted at AfD if notability isn't clearly established and/or no reliable sources are produced pretty quickly. Sarah 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. You may well be right that it will soon be AFDed, but I would feel better if there was a chance to discuss it. On my interpretation there is a definite "claim" to notability, although whether there is any actual notability is very much in doubt. I will restore it. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Camcd93
Sock + vandalism = insert answer here :) Paul Yeratz (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- = Blocked! :) Sarah 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WBOSITG's RfA
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Priory-of-Sion.com spam and disruption
Hi. You were involved earlier with this earlier:
- Wfgh66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive361#Systematic deletion of my contributions to Wikipedia
FYI, this has come around the track again:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks AB. I actually got a very polite email from Wfgh66 this morning asking me to help him resolve the blacklist issue but I'm rather surprised to see him say that he and I are now on good terms because we haven't had any contact that I recall since he spammed my email address with rantings. I am going to have a read over the previous discussions before I head over the blacklist page. Cheers, Sarah 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Yummy
 |
Cookies! | |
| For reading my mind and granting me WP:ACC privledges without me even having to ask. Rock on, fellow Sarah. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] From Shapiros10
- Thank you. I assure you, you won't be disappointed. Oh, and please call me Sam. Shapiros10 Came Back! 22:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. This was lying in my archived talk page.
Shapiros10's New RfA Standards
- 2000 edits
- 4 adoptees
- 50 comments on issues at AN/I
- 1 year since prior block
- 100 reverts
- Participate in 50 XFDs
- 3 editor reviews
Shapiros10 Came Back! 22:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll just spend 1 neew year, or march since it's my birthday. Shapiros10 Came Back! 11:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hi Sarah, need your help in this
I just got:
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} should not be placed on talk pages. Please remove it and place it on the content page. to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Quota"
While offended by the "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia" (I have been contributing for 5 years at least) I understand the 'bot' culture. But I do not understand why the entry Mike Paterson was deleted. This is Chair of the computer science department of Warwick University -- notable by definition, in effect. Can you re-instate?
Thanks -- quota (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Something sweet!
Here's some chocolate chips for you! Chocolate chips somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari 17:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Mr Acalamari. Very much appreciate the thought. :) I hope all is well with you and your family. Cheers, Sarah 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're very welcome! It's nice to spread some good cheer around. Yes, everything's fine where I am: thanks for the interest. :) Same over there? Acalamari 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] SmartWorks from Accord Software and Systems
Hi, Please can you email me the above article, in case it gets deleted. I want to refine this article, in case it exists. How can I do this ? Please help. Smartaccord (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I can do that but you will have to either give me your email address or go to Special:Preferences and register your email address under "User profile" and then go to the bottom of the same page under the heading "Email" and click the box "Enable e-mail from other users" so that you can receive emails from others. Then let me know and I will email you the article. Sarah 08:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have changed the preferences. Please send me the e-mail. Thank you in advance. Smartaccord (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for e-mailing the article. My intention was to include information about our product that can be used for project management, but I think I am failing due to my not-good writing skills. Advertising was not my intention. Hope I can refine and post my article in another attempt. Smartaccord (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you.
Thank you for reverting the damage to my userpage. That anon. is a menace. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] John Howard
I've taken note of your comments (and those of a few other editors I respect). You might care to cast your eye over some of my recent contributions. I think that the problem is mainly between Lester and myself, and I've proposed mediation with only two parties. Some of the other editors are more interested in stirring up trouble than in progressing the article, and there is one blatant troll. Mediation with these folk involved would be too hard on the hapless mediator, but with Lester and I, and a bit of good will, and a good mediator, I think we can get somewhere. --Pete (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Peter. I appreciate you pausing to give this issue some thought and I think mediation between you and Lester would be a very good thing. The JH mediation request seems likely to be useless and a waste of time but it would be a great start if there were a way to get you and Lester to the table so I hope that Lester will agree to start with that. Something needs to be done with the wider group there as well, though, as I see a number of problem editors there and I really do see this heading to Arbitration very soon if things don't change radically. Just a couple of days ago some of us were discussing making an ArbCom request for the Australian Politics articles. The important thing from your perspective is to make sure that you stay on the right side of policies so that ArbCom have no cause to name you as subject of any remedies. Sarah 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Australian politics
Hi Sarah, I noticed this comment and agree entirely. The RfM is a waste of everyone's time; there is no goodwill and when a solution is found on this matter (which will please no-one) the whole sideshow will roll over to the next topic-du-jour. Any intervention from outsiders will be met with claims of bias, accusations will fly from both directions and we will be no further along than where we are before.
The basic problem is this – There are editors involved whose reason for being here is not to create a encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view but to advocate for a political cause. There is no problem with editors having points of view—political advocacy is a good thing—but if they are unwilling or unable to put these aside when writing articles then perhaps they should go elsewhere where political advocacy is welcomed, or indeed encouraged. Without doubt, the actions of the editors involved have damaged the project; I certainly refuse to go anywhere near WP:AUSPOL, heaven knows what newbies think. Bold action will needed to fix this mess, I fear. Sorry for ranting. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hear hear and well said no rant but good sense - support comments having watched some fearless freddies trying to mediate with no luck - there is about as much sense of community from their intractability as to make one wonder whether they should start their own wiki and quietly argue with themselves and save us from their obvious toilet training issues when they were 2 or 3 SatuSuro 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Chaps. A couple of nights ago another Australian admin and I were discussing the idea of requesting Arbitration for JH and AUSPOL generally and I said jokingly that what we need to do is get together a good group of Australian admins and Australian editors who are here to write a neutral, non-partisan encyclopedia and stage a coup on these articles. I was joking, but in reality I think that is what is really needed. The trouble is that some of us go in there and try to bring issues back to policy but get nowhere because they just continue shouting at each other, don't give a damn about the policies unless the policies are on their side for this particular issue, and continue their edit warring and back and forth snipping and insults, and so we give up and swear we're never going back to the AUSPOL domain ever again. An alternative to ArbCom:
Step One: We need to rustle up a group of good Australian admins and editors who don't have a political interest in these articles beyond simply wanting decent, neutral, non-partisan articles that aren't slanted in favour or against either side, who are willing to work on and monitor these articles.
Step two: We go to ANI and propose imposing a strict community probation, say 1RR, strict civility, NPOV, NPA paroles, etc, much like the Homeopathy and COFS/Scientology cases.
Step Three: Regardless of who they are, editors who refuse to edit appropriately and within the parameters of the probation are out on their ear.
Seriously, this has been going on in one form or another since the last AUSPOL arbitration case three years ago and I don't seen any way to bring sanity to the table other than an ArbCom case that would turf out many editors or community based article probation but that requires a team of uninvolved editors and admins willing to come back to the articles and I know for many of us it is a case of once bitten twice shy, so unless folks are willing to help enforce an article probation we might be left with no choice but arbitration. Cheers all, Sarah 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sarah, my 2 cents on your 3 steps: "Luv it, can't come soon enough" - particularly step 3--Merbabu (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Something potentially useful for dealing with some users in this case: User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. Of course some editors are just plain incivil POV pushers. :) Sarah 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Account Creation Interface
You have been approved to use the Internal Account Creation Interface! Some important notes before you get started:
- Abuse of the interface is not tolerated, and access can be revoked by an interface admin at a moment's notice
- You should ask an administrator for the "accountcreator" usergroup, which overrides the 6 account creations/day limit. However, this usergroup too can be removed by any Wiki admin at a moment's notice if abused.
Now that you have read the generic warnings, please read (or re-read if you have read it already) the tool's documentation page which includes a link to the tool's request-filling interface. If you ever need any help, I myself am an interface admin, so feel free to drop me a line on my talk page! --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 02:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Umm...that was insanely fast, FastLizard (you sure deserve your username!). Like professionally fast! I'm an admin so I don't need the accountcreator rights. Thank you very much for your speedy response. :) Cheers, Sarah 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Peter Phelps
Thanks for that Sarah. I didn't want to get too involved since I was in the beginnings of a dispute with the user, but it does look awfully fishy to me. Your assistance is much appreciated! =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC).
- No problems. I do agree the account looks rather strange and I'm curious to see whether I hear from him or not. :) All the best Lanki, Sarah 02:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that; I never really gave much thought to rollback before because I essentially have it through Twinkle anyway, but it's nice to know that I'm considered trusted in the community! Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
- I promise to be very careful with it! Please let me know how the Peter Phelps thing goes, and once again, thankyou for the vote of confidence! Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
- Noticed that, and assumed you were just busy. Don't worry! The user is actually making some quite useful edits now, and you're right in that there is a lot of potential for this person to make some very useful contributions if they can stick to the policies. Hopefully after a bit of a bumpy start we'll be able to tap his obviously considerable knowledge. Again, thanks for your help on the matter. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC).
- I promise to be very careful with it! Please let me know how the Peter Phelps thing goes, and once again, thankyou for the vote of confidence! Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks for that; I never really gave much thought to rollback before because I essentially have it through Twinkle anyway, but it's nice to know that I'm considered trusted in the community! Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
For the userright removal and your understanding over the matter! :) I haven't really done much with the account-creator right, and have pretty much stuck with giving out rollback for now. :) Acalamari 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- On a similar note, do you know where the policy page for account-creator is, assuming there is one? Thanks. Acalamari 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't know if there is a policy! I had a look around but all I could find was the page in the new admin school and Giggy's proposal here: User:Dihydrogen_Monoxide/accountcreator_proposal. It's still fairly new and it doesn't really get given out much so possibly no one has really bothered to write a proper policy for it yet. But my basic understanding of the right is that it just allows you to create more than six account per day. Administrators can create as many accounts as they need to but non-admins hit a wall once they've created six in one day and then have to wait until the next day to create more. So users helping with account creation requests were having to stop helping out once they'd done six and we get stacks of requests every day through the various lists, so it wasn't very helpful having editors forced to stop helping. So as far as I know, we've only been assigning the "accountcreator" right to editors who help with account creation, either through OTRS, the tool server, the account creation Requests mailing list or the unblock-en-l mailing list or socks belonging to admins who help with accoount creation requests. Those are the only people I've given it to personally and looking at the list of people with the right, they all seem to be account creators. The right is just useless to anyone who isn't helping with account creation because it doesn't do anything except allow you to create more than six accounts a day. I don't think it's a major security concern or anything but I do agree that it is a potential and unnecessary security risk that has no pay off if the person isn't helping with creating new account. If you ever decided to start helping with account creations, then I think it would be perfectly fine to add the right back onto your alt account. I hope you have a nice weekend. :) Sarah 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation! Acalamari 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't know if there is a policy! I had a look around but all I could find was the page in the new admin school and Giggy's proposal here: User:Dihydrogen_Monoxide/accountcreator_proposal. It's still fairly new and it doesn't really get given out much so possibly no one has really bothered to write a proper policy for it yet. But my basic understanding of the right is that it just allows you to create more than six account per day. Administrators can create as many accounts as they need to but non-admins hit a wall once they've created six in one day and then have to wait until the next day to create more. So users helping with account creation requests were having to stop helping out once they'd done six and we get stacks of requests every day through the various lists, so it wasn't very helpful having editors forced to stop helping. So as far as I know, we've only been assigning the "accountcreator" right to editors who help with account creation, either through OTRS, the tool server, the account creation Requests mailing list or the unblock-en-l mailing list or socks belonging to admins who help with accoount creation requests. Those are the only people I've given it to personally and looking at the list of people with the right, they all seem to be account creators. The right is just useless to anyone who isn't helping with account creation because it doesn't do anything except allow you to create more than six accounts a day. I don't think it's a major security concern or anything but I do agree that it is a potential and unnecessary security risk that has no pay off if the person isn't helping with creating new account. If you ever decided to start helping with account creations, then I think it would be perfectly fine to add the right back onto your alt account. I hope you have a nice weekend. :) Sarah 03:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Mike Kelly (politician)
Hi Sarah! I noticed that you had reverted part of the above talk page to remove a BLP concern. While I can't see what you were reverting, it still contains the IP comment in regard to Peter Phelps. As I recall he had complained about the entry, so I just wanted to make sure that the comment you were trying to revet wasn't, in fact, that one. (I thought that comment had been deleted by another editor, but my memory isn't what it should be). - Bilby (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know! He did complain about that comment and also emailed me about it so I reverted it yesterday but I thought about it overnight and thought, you know, to be fair and as difficult as the editor was being, it's really not fair to have personal and professional comments left in the history when it's on a page with such a small editing history (which makes it very easy to delete individual edits). So I deleted the page but I didn't realise the comment had been made in a series of edits separated by a whole lot of edits by Orderinchaos so when I restored the page I restored everything minus my reversion of the page and the IP's last edit which not only restored the material to the history but also to the page since I'd left my revert deleted. So thank you very much for telling me! I really appreciated it very much. :) Sarah 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright Violations
Sorry, but seeing an article get reverted to two sentences made me quickly jump to the conclusion of vandalism. Could you please revert the page to how it was before your edits, and we can quickly remove the areas with copyright violations without sacrificing all the other valuable edits that have been done? And in future, please post in the discussion before deleting an article, as I have put a large amount of time into it. Also, I was not the one who infringed copyright laws, in case you were wondering. - Bonzai273 (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, wait, you created user:User:Jk123 2099.. ? Or maybe I'm just a noob at wikipedia. Anyway, sorry for the trouble, haven't ever come across a copyright violation, but now I know. Thanks for the help. - Bonzai273 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's fine. Completely understandable too, so I'm not angry or anything. I really wouldn't unblock JIS, there are so many students there that I would see likely to try mess up wikipedia. It is a huge conflict of interest with him editing the article, as it has ended up more as a advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Just curious, can you block someone from a specific article? And I would like to work on that article more, but I'm very cautious of treading on toes, as he is admin for the school, and I'm a student, with a parent as a teacher... . I'll keep watching over it, and I'll message you if I see any issues. Well, thanks for intervening - Bonzai273 (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assistance on a Previous Admin Noticeboard Issue
Hi Sarah, this is Dario D., someone you just about banned after the user Wikidemo posted this report (link below) - (no worries, I have nothing against you at all - just want to enlighten something, as the dispute is ongoing, and I am in need of assistance)
I have to get back to my work-load (all this crap: http://www.deefrag.com), so I'll try to be quick if possible. [update: Oops. Sorry about that.] - I just read over the incident report for the first time (I'm not a Wikipedian - all these procedures are french to me), and was shocked to see that all editors were incredibly against me. However, I thought that would be quite obvious after seeing that Wikidemo A) only presented his side of the argument, B) linked you to a (huge) section that he wrote against me, after which you wouldn't have the energy to read the other sections that are *crucially* important, C) made me look like an edit-warring lunatic, D) made me look like I was using Socks (first of all, what the heck are socks? Oh, you mean forgetting to log in? Am I now allowed to be a casual user who doesn't pay attention to things like whether I'm logged in or not?) and D) even made it APPEAR that the Arbitration Committee voted against my argument, twice. (man, the entire process settling a dispute on Wikipedia feels like going to court in a third-world country)
And now you find out why I've come to you. First, I'm nearly 300% certain that the editors didn't read the most important part of the debate (and how can you, after reading that huge thing Wikidemo wrote?). That's where other editors have discussed the issue (not in the rant Wikidemo wrote), tilting heavily in my favor, including 3 Third-Opinions posted there (and the discussions following) which lean NOTHING toward the accusations against me that Wikidemo tried to make you believe. (btw, here are those sections: Talk:Webby_Awards#Dispute_w.27_.22Wikidemo.22_Constantly_Deleting_All_Criticisms - notice also the Third and Fourth opinions sections right below)
Second, Wikidemo made it appear that my 15 reverts were out of line, making me look like an complete idiot. Regarding that, 1) Wikidemo's reverts were identical in volume and intent... but also 2) all of my reverts were backed by strong arguments, whereas Wikidemo's were backed merely by empty accusations, such as "you are misbehaving" and "this editor is stirring up trouble". Third, I don't use socks or whatever; I'm either logged in or I'm not (and now I stay logged in, because not doing so is a Wikidemo crime), and any/all user-checks you could ever do will prove this.
And fourth, completely contrary to how Wikidemo worded it, the Arbitration Committee never passed judgment on the issue once. The first time (when the issue was different - My argument now is over whether or not the Chicago Tribune and Slate (a Washington Post mag) are reliable sources or not, for a Criticism section) the Arb Committee saw that me and someone else were trying to use Blogs as citations, and said that you simply can't do that. (Though I presented this case without any prior attempts to resolve the issue, they accepted because I posted with the argument that I was a new user, was completely lost in all the procedures, and didn't have time to learn how the Wikipedia government works) I had another good citation, but it wasn't completely clear whether it was poking at the Webbys or not, so rather than argue it out, I abandoned the issue, because I was just losing too many hours on it, and needed to get a ton of work done. Then, the second time I filed an Arb report (very recently, when I came back to the issue), they simply said I was posting too early, and needed to get a Third Opinion first, and then a Mediation Cabal, and then a smog-check, and have my brakes done. Wikidemo used that to make you believe Arb was against me, knowing full well that it was not only pure fluff, but twisted as can be.
Anyway, if you were to so desire, it would be quite nice if I got some assistance on the issue (or if you could alert other editors who might be able to help spare me having to slog through the rest of these procedures, since I don't have time for them, and will have to abandon the issue again if I it just drags on endlessly). I just presented a refined Criticisms section (here:Talk:Webby_Awards#Proposed_.28by_Dario_D..29_Heavily_Refined_Criticism_Section), and while I see it as flawless, true, and ultimately perfect, Wikidemo will ever persist in seeing its ruin... And, if you read through all that Wikidemo has ever said and done on the Webbys issue, you'll see that he's as nonsensically biased (and desperate) toward protecting the Webbys as one could possible imagine a person being. My motivation is simply that the awards are a pay-to-enter, pay-to-attend scam, which judges less than 2% of all websites out there, and yet passed itself off as "the Oscars of the net." Slate and the Chicago Tribune think similar thoughts, and Wikidemo wants people to believe they somehow aren't valid enough. Under all the pressure, he finally offered a compromise: why not put a single, nearly harmless line at the end of the History section at the bottom of the page? ROFLMAO... I think not. --Dario D. (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, and most importantly, I didn't reach my conclusions about that page and your editing because of anything Wikidemo said or linked to. I reached my conclusions from my own observations of that page. You need to understand that Wikipedia has a core policy Assume Good Faith that basically means that we assume that other people are acting in good faith even if we disagree with them. So though you and Wikidemo disagree on content issues, your constant accusations against him and assumptions of bad faith are putting you critically at odds with Wikipedia. Most of what you wrote above are assumptions of bad faith about Wikidemo and reading it was really quite difficult, so starting out with a string of AGF violations is not likely to get you off to a good start. You really need to stop assuming others are acting in bad faith or up to no good if you want to be effective here. As far as the content goes, I disagree with you and have done so since the start. I do not believe that what you want to add is suitable or appropriate. I don't think it meets WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE and I much prefer the compromise proposed by Jeremy McCracken and if I were to decide to involve myself in the content discussion I would support Jeremy's version or something similar. That said, under the protection policy, we're not going to make edits to the article until you lot have reached a consensus so it would be better if you went back to the article's talk page and tried to reach an agreement with the other editors there so that a consensus can be reached and everyone can move on to other things. Also, 15 reverts *is* out of line! There's really no way around that because edit warring over the content is just not acceptable. Quite honestly, I think you're lucky that *we* have assumed good faith of *you* and tried to give you a chance as a new editor instead of jumping in and blocking you before now because the sterile edit warring is not an acceptable way to resolve content disputes and people have tried to explain that to you many times. Also, please note that while Wikidemo has been the most vocal about the content, he hasn't been the only editor reverting your criticism section. The content has been removed at various times by a variety of editors, not just Wikidemo. Sarah 02:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay, I think I understand your stance on this... Thanks anyway. Btw, just an update: the Webby Awards dispute was resolved yesterday, in my favor, and the article was unlocked.--Dario D. (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, that's an interesting way to describe it. :) It looks to me like a compromise was reached rather than it being resolved in anyone's favour. lol. But I'm glad that you were able to reach a consensus about the text and hopefully that will now be the end of the warring and personal dispute. Sarah 01:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay, I think I understand your stance on this... Thanks anyway. Btw, just an update: the Webby Awards dispute was resolved yesterday, in my favor, and the article was unlocked.--Dario D. (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Punkboi8
The discussion had been resolved before I'd gotten there, but you all said what I wanted to say myself anyway. Thank god ;) -- Longhair\talk 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Torm
I've been working to rewrite the Torm article in order to remove the in-universe style, and was wondering if you could check my work so far. Additionally, do you have any advice for tackling the "History & Relationships" section, which is likely to need a full rewrite? --Muna (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Muna. Well, I think your edits are a very good improvement. I'm glad that you added the reference list as it was sorely needing some citations. It would be good to find another reference to use as a cite for some of the other material so that it's not all cited to the FAP text. I'm not really sure about the History and Relationship section as I don't know much about Dungeons and Dragons other than what I have read on Wikipedia, but I think the important thing is to continue writing it neutrally and with inline sources where you can. Cheers, Sarah 02:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] clear span - speedy deletion info
Hi Sarah. This entry was not blatant advertising. There was one mention of Mahaffey, and that mention is a known fact in the tent rental industry regarding clear span structures. Please explain your reason for deletion a bit further, as there is no blatant advertising. If you disagree, how come companies like Rubb and others can have a full page of advertising, but no comments on their page? The clear span entry had no advertising whatsoever... only a fact. Please advise, as I feel this is unfair treatment. Thank you. Mtc38118 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, reposting the page as soon as administrators delete it is not the way to get your page up and will result in it being added to the protected titles list so that it cannot be recreated. It reads exactly like advertising to me, and I note that I am the second administrator to delete it as such. There's also no assertion of notability which is another reason to delete it. And one of the supporting links goes to a general tent site of no use and of no support to this article and the second goes to the manufacturer of the product which looks like the article was built around linking to the manufacturer. Sorry but it looks like spam for a not notable product to me. Sarah 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- As for why other companies have pages, you'll have to look at WP:CORP for the guidelines for notability for companies and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a discussion of why we don't look to what else is on Wikipedia as a reason for keeping or deleting material. Sarah 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kelly kettle
The author has recreated the article. It has been tagged again by a different editor. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I know, I noticed that in my log but thought I might leave it to another admin so there are multiple admins who have reviewed it and we can then protect it from recreation if they keep at it. I don't really know why people just turn around and repost straight after its been deleted and think not one will notice. Cheers for letting me know, Sarah 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank You
Thank you for your comment on my RFA. When I read your comment, I decided to change it on my userpage, which I am about to do. I didn't think that the making CEO angry part was bad, but now I see is. I will try to think of something else to change it to, hehe. As for your other comments, I will work on them the best I can. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] warning
respectfully, thats patent bull. the article in question uses youtube as a source dozens of times and the claims in question are represented in a video from the article's subject that he made and posted on youtube. it was the only source i had and its the only source for all the other videos besides "Leave Brittany Alone". I asked on the administrators reporting page and they said the warning was unwarranted. i don't think anything i claimed was controversial with regarads the to behavior and "art" that this individual is reported on in the context of this article or his life. see the video for yourself [7] if a video is not a reliable source for the subject at hand i don't know what is.Myheartinchile (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please re-read the administrator's noticeboard Wikipedia:ANI#warning_removal - I was one of the admins who responded to you and none of us have said the warning was unwarranted. We have only said that you may remove the messages if you want to, which is something that all users on Wikipedia are allowed to do on their own talk page so long as they don't do it in a disruptive manner. No one on ANI has told you the warning was unwarranted. YouTube is not a reliable source, again, please read - reliable sources, verifiability and Biographies of Living People. Links to YouTube are used to link to the videos in question but they are not suitable to use as reliable sources for a blp and most certainly not for controversial claims like asserting that someone is in an incestuous relationship with their brother. If you want to make controversial claims, you need to find reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia and if you don't you are going to end up being the blocked. That's the bottom line, really. You can think it's "patent bull" if you wish but you've been warned by multiple admins now and if you continue to make such comments about living people without reliable sources (again, as defined by Wikipedia, not by your own opinion) then you will be blocked. Sarah 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- well how can i talk about it then, how can i ask about it, if i'm not allowed to.?Myheartinchile (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Myheartinchile, as I've stated a few times now, it was the semantics and tone that got you into trouble. Your statement was that Crocker was is a incestuous relationship, instead you can simple link to the source (video in this case) and ask something like, this seems likes it's worth mentioning, anyone else agree or have seen it before? You could even state he seems to be in an incestuous relationship - is that true? It allows other editors to check the source and likely someone will respond with the correct info, in this case that it was a hoax. Banjeboi 03:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- As explained by others, you need to be careful with how you phrase comments on biographies. That question you asked was phrased as though it were a statement of fact and that is a large part of the problem. The other thing is that if it is something likely to be considered controversial or something that might be considered libelous, then you need to have a link to a source. Also, remember that article talk pages are for discussing the article only, not for discussing gossip so it's really not the place to go to to ask if something is true or not. Sarah 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- well how can i talk about it then, how can i ask about it, if i'm not allowed to.?Myheartinchile (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ping
--VS talk 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Madison de Rozario
Thanks for your advice on db-author, and the advice on underage stuff. However, the reason I said that I had to take it down (on behalf of Harshana S. my classmate) was because once in the library he was showing me that he made his first wikipedia page, and the librarian passed by and said we must get consent. We told her that we can't delete pages, so we'd blank them (at that time I didn't know you could do xFDs and other deletion tagging). So we blanked the page, but a few days ago I tagged it for deletion. Thanks anyway, but I'm still going to avoid doing bios on others (even notable) for wikipedia without the parent permission (we're all underage...)! Thanks! juggernaut0102(talk) 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Username change to capital A
Thanks for the help - it looks like Dan has managed it! πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bloody merbabhu
Set last night off by editing the art - I am and never will be a new years day - the last time i checked i was a human being :) SatuSuro 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your comment on 27 November 2007
Sarah: "Sorry but no, absolutely not; your unblock request is denied. I just checked the deleted comments you posted on Nick's page and they gave me chills down my spine. That sort crap is unacceptable and we should not have to explain this to you. I really don't see how could possibly think it was alright to investigate another editor in real life and then post a bizarre gloating comment about how you are "capable of finding [him]". How on earth could you possible think that was within the realms of acceptable behaviour? That you clearly don't get it and state above that you "said nothing wrong" only highlights that you desperately need to be blocked from editing Wikipedia."[8]
Nice comment, madam!
Here is the reason why I attacked Nick Graves:
In June-July 2008, Nick Graves & I communicated through e-mail. During that time, Nick Graves threatened to reveal my nationality on Wikipedia. Do you consider this to be an acceptable behavior? I live in a poor country. I’ve suffered discrimination from westerners in the past because of my nationality. Nick Graves revealed my nationality on Wikipedia. Tell me- How can you consider this to be an acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t Nick Graves be punished for revealing my nationality on Wikipedia? I attacked Nick Graves because of this. If he were to keep quite about my nationality, I would have never attacked him.
You should have checked my behavior with other editors. I have never said anything wrong about anybody. I have attacked only one person- Nick Graves. I would also like you to see my contributions in the past. It will give you an idea whether I should be desperately need to be blocked from editing or not. Thank you. RS1900 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sarah, I am not making excuse for my behavior. I shouldn't have made those comments on the talk page of Nick Graves. It was my mistake. I will never make such comments in future. Thank you. RS1900 12:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
(after multipled edit conflicts)I checked your behaviour and your contributions myself at the time, as did numerous other admins who reviewed your edits and the block and it was subject of extensive discussion on and off-site so your suggestion that I should have checked with others is silly. You violated Wikipedia's policies and were blocked rightly for it; you've been given a second chance and instead of being productive you come here to moan about a comment I made more than six months ago, that I still stand by, and to pursue your now year-old vendetta against Nick? Sarah 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- You *are* trying to excuse it. You just told me you did what you did because of some off-Wiki dispute and that you've never done anything wrong (yet the block log, the histories of your accounts, the ANI discussions and unblock list threads totally belies that claim. I strongly suggest you use this opportunity to make a new start and leave the past in the past. If you are simply here to pursue revenge or "punishment" for Nick then you are going to be very disappointed because we don't do "punishments" here, particularly not for some private and off Wikipedia dispute. Now, if Nick posts personal information about you, *then* we will have something to talk about but at this point you're asking me to take your word for what happened in some private dispute and take administrative action based on it? Also, you say this happened in "June-July 2008" yet we are only just in June 2008 right now, so I can only assume that you are talking about June-July 2007, i.e a year ago? If that's the case, then just get over it already! Please! No admin is going to "punish" Nick for some stupid thing he said but didn't actually do 12 months ago; sorry but that just isn't going to happen. You need to learn to leave your off-Wiki disputes off-wiki. This isn't a battlefield and it isn't a venue to pursue revenge or a vendetta. If you are here to contribute to building this encyclopedia, then please go and edit the encyclopedia productively; but if you are just here to pursue revenge then you need to go and find something else to do elsewhere. Sarah 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sarah, I am not saying that I have never done anything wrong. I have done some terrible things and I admit my mistakes. I am embarrassed about those mistakes. I will try to be a constructive editor again. Thank you. RS1900 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- (ec)well, I am glad that you intend being a constructive editor again. I think you would get off to a better start, however, if you left one year old incidents in the past and just resumed editing instead of pursuing each administrator who participated in the discussion last year and pressing for "punishment" for Nick for a one year old off-wikipedia dispute. This seems to me to be a very bad way to resume editing as it is just going to bring unfavourable attention on yourself but as you wish. Thanks, Sarah 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not trying to spamming all the administrators and editors who participated in the discussion more than six months ago. I just posted messages on your talk page and the talk page of User:Philippe. RS1900 13:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I see. I'm glad that you have stopped because it seems a bad way to return to editing Wikipedia. The facts are that we don't block to "punish" here, we block to prevent disruption. Thus there is no justification for blocking Nick for something he said to you off-site a year ago. Nick was instrumental in getting your account unblocked and if it wasn't for him pressing for a second chance for you, it is likely you would still be blocked, so I think you should also put your past disputes aside. I can only urge you to go back to editing the mainspace and forget trying to pursue admins to get punishment for Nick because it's just not going to happen and you will wind up being blocked for disruption again. Specially with the various records of your previous accounts. Please consider going and making useful edits to the mainspace. thanks. Sarah 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Thank you so much for the advice, Sarah! I do not want to leave Wikipedia, I just regret having chosen my full name as my user name. --Nick 15:31, 12 Jun. 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:Orderinchaos
Hi the admin User:Orderinchaos has locked article Joe Hockey for over two weeks now. I feel the anti-Hockey election propaganda on his page is POV and not appropriate for a BLP because it contains a caricature of Hockey. Rather than support this, User:Orderinchaos has locked the article with the image still in it. Am I being unreasonable, or is this unfair use of admin powers? --Surturz (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are assuming bad faith of another user. Orderinchaos is quite a reasonable fellow in my opinion and I'm sure if you were to go and discuss your concerns with him in a reasonable and calm manner he would be most receptive. I'm not willing to overturn his action myself when you have present your case with an accusatory tone and this underlying sense that he has abused his tools or done something wrong when he has not from what I can see. AGF will get you much further around these parts. Sarah 08:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
