User talk:Sarah/Archive15

Sarah edits this page

Sarah edits this page to remove remarks about this bloody minded ip address banning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.33.210 (talk) 05:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about???? Sarah 05:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeowners Association

Hi Sarah, As predicted, my edits were deleted without discussion. I have attempted to address this in the talk section previously to no avail. It continues to happen. As far as New Jersey is concerned, a major Association trial is in process. The issues in this trial are of national dimension. The ACLU and the AARP (both national organizations) have gotten involved in this trial for this reason. Also, New Jersey is one of the few states with an agency that oversees associations (NJ Dept Community Affairs), and the reports from this agency are very ctitical of associations. Most disturbing is the fact that those who delete my edits seem to have a financial interest in the subject. It is very important that those who provide services to HOAs keep the status quo regarding the lack of laws and oversight that would benefit homeowners, but hinder those with access to the purse strings in these organizations. I would appreciate any help you could provide to keep this article truthful and objective. I could provide an enormous amount of information that highlights the negative aspect of HOAs, but the information from NJ is probably the most objective source. It should not be deleted without comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Reardon (talk • contribs)

Mike, please look at the entire page, not just the top section. This is the difference between your version and that editors version. As far as I can see, they have integrated your quotes and links into the article and formatted it correctly as a block quote. The only thing I can see that they've removed is a couple of lines of editorial commentary which you added at the start of the quote. Also, please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes ~~~~. Thanks, Sarah 02:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Johntex ANI thread

Hi Sarah. I would like an admin not involved in the ScoutingWikiProject to look at WP:ANI#Johntex.27s_dishonesty_.28BSA.29. The project has a few admins but as this involves one of them and it'd look bad of one of us (I'm an admin too and the project coord) took action. I'd like a neutral admin to look at it. I found you because of the post you made on Slim's thread. In the Johntex thread, I personally have to agree with the posts made by User:ThuranX, that this is a single purpose account that is blockable indefinitely for the disruption and point pushing. Make your own decision. I support whatever you decide. Rlevse 11:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Rlevse, I'm not ignoring you, I've just been really, really busy. Sarah 11:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread

This ANI thread discusses a post you made in the context of being approval of something. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

Hi, I thought if there was only going to be a select filmography then it would make sense to have an article giving the complete filmography. If you look at [1] you will see the actors where the filmographies are in seperate articles. It is important to have a complete filmography especially as User:UpDown has already deleted a key section of the filmography remaining on Geraldine Newman, the "other notes" which gave information on co-stars, TV Series and episodes. Please restore that. If he turns up on your talk page then that is proof that he is following me. Tovojolo 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Deactivating outgoing links

Hi Sarah. Based on this thread and the threads at this article talk page, I started Wikipedia:External links - Deactivating outgoing links. Would you mind looking at Wikipedia:External links - Deactivating outgoing links and revising it as needed. Also, if you think it appropriate, would you deactivate the relevant outgoing links in this article. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, mate, I'm checking it all out now, but it is after 3:00 AM here in my corner of Australia, and my brain is in slo mo and I might take a bit longer. Cheers, Sarah 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The only delinking example I know of is the PJ matter. I was impressed with the Solomon like decision. The mm.com links do not surpass the PJ example. My interest there was listing the idea for discussion. I was hoping that you were more familiar with this technique to provide more clarity on when delinking is appropriate and when it is not. If you know of other delinking decisions, please feel free to provide me the links. With enough examples, I probably can come up with some language to give others better guidance when this issue comes up again. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know of any other cases that were similar to PJ. I would think it would be a fairly unusual situation for a website to redirect all our referral traffic to a special page set up to criticise us and then link them to an outing page. I agree with your idea in principle, but do you think it needs special MOS guidelines or do you think it would fall under exercising good sense? Making it part of a guideline or policy might be like BEANS. I'm not sure. Anyway, I see the mm.com issue as being a different issue, as I explained the other day. I think people have to decide if it is a good site or it isn't a good site and I don't see delinking particularly useful because it seems to me that the only thing that would do is cause inconvenience to readers who would have to copy and paste. It won't change the outcome of them visiting that site and what they see when they get there, which is the difference with the PJ delinking - it stopped Wikipedia's referral traffic being diverted. Sarah 11:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

I leave that to your discretion. If it's relatively easy to delete older versions, and it won't be called a cover-up, then please feel free. Thank you! THF 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It will be called a cover-up, and a rather pointless, at that. --Dude Manchap 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're in the news

You and David Underdown are in the news, he for this revert, you for the subsequent block: Friday's edition of Crikey contains an article by Helen Razer entitled Putting the poo bum dicky wee wee into Wikipedia, the opening two paragraphs of which are

Kevin Andrews smells strongly of Roquefort cheese and hate. Or, at least, he did until some upright soul thought to reverse my amendments to the Minister's Wikipedia page. Before I could post further elaborate fiction re the Honourable Andrews, Janet Albrechtsen and a vat of baby lotion, I was locked out by an uber-pedian and his troublesome need for "truth".

Hesperian 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha. Thanks Hesp, I hadn't seen that article. It's a shame she gave us such a belting, though. Some of her vandalism we got in four minutes [2] but I have to admit I got a chuckle out of he "hippy hive". Cheers mate, Sarah 13:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PJ and external links

A more effective solution than deactivating or removing the external links would have been to use Template:Derefer, which strips the referrer URL information from the HTTP request. --Iamunknown 11:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Iam, I didn't know about the template. I will take a look at it and add it to my list. Cheers, Sarah 11:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing though: I intend to see if the server admins would be willing to set up a page like that on the wikipedia server .. otherwise, someone could use the hijack the page the template links to and redirect it to a malicious website. So it isn't the best solution yet. --Iamunknown 11:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No Back Cover

Thanks for your clarification.Kaystar 12:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyall Howard

Hi Sarah. I read that you're sourcing references for Lyall Howard. I just added to the article, with a new section about a battlefield meeting with his father. It adds a further aspect to his notability. All the best, Lester2 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding the word "dummies" in the New Guinea section, it's a rather unfortunate word (it could be confused with "idiot". I considered alternate words, but the problem is that all the historic documents of the time use the word dummies, so it's a bit hard to avoid it.Lester2 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Proxy is an alternate word. The only problem with any alternate word is that we'd have to rip out the historical quotes from the New Guinea Administrator and the Auditor General's report that both use the word "dummying". I'm glad you found some more material, but I haven't received that email yet. Can you resend please? Somehow I feel that the article already has more aspects of notability than so many other biographies in Wikipedia, but I guess it has to be proven to an extra degree. You don't think the million-to-one battlefield reunion of father & son is worthy of the intro? I'm happy with any intro that saves the article from being deleted, but I wonder if removal of historic events (like that reunion) may reduce the apparent notability? Thanks for all your assistance with this article,Lester2 02:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarah, I was re-editing the plantation info at the same time you were adjusting the headings. When I pasted the new rework back into the article, the heading came back with it. Can you review those headings again? I have stuffed it up for you now. However the plantation info is reworded to show it was not illegal, so maybe that's enough to satisfy other editors, even with a heading. Cheers, Lester2 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not intending to overwrite your headings, but I reinserted them just as a temporary measure. Please change them again if you think this doesn't work. I'd really love to put a b&w photo in the War section, but I must investigate copyright first.Lester2 03:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the articles really coming along. I like the new intro & references. The Roy Masters one is the only one I can see that already exists in Notes. I used the one from The Age 'A Family Meeting Against All Odds' (same article), but either one would do.Lester2 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the photo of the ship, HMAT Wandilla. It's the same image that was previously linked to in External Links. I listed it as a copyright image. However, it was taken in 1916. Maybe you could check the copyright situation. I figured it was probably safer to declare it as copyright and add a Fair Use Rational than to risk calling it "free". The War Memorial page actually says it's copyright free, but I wasn't exactly sure what they meant by that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lester2 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you know if there is someone I can ask for advice regarding the copyright of the image? Just to find out if it could actually be listed as free.Lester2 03:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you've done for the tag. Thank you very much, Sarah.Lester2 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Sarah! I didn't knew that talk pages aren't usually deleted. Thank you for the reply. Good luck! RS2007 13:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I would like to change my user name. What should I do? RS2007 13:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, thank you for the help! You are a great admin. I am still relatively new on Wikipedia. Thus, I didn't know all the rules. Good luck! RS1900 08:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problems. Good luck to you, too. I'm glad to see you got your new name. Thanks, Sarah 08:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Advise Me

If I am using an image from wikipedia which in public domain on the Front Page of my magazine, is it compulssary to give the credit to wikipedia as [Source: Wikipedia] or shall I mention the source without bolding it.Kaystar 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's truly public domain, then you can do whatever you like with it with or without attributing a source (though it's always nice to credit the author) - Alison ☺ 15:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Alison. :) Much appreciated. Sarah 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. R Delivery Bot 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Newbie

Hi Sarah (aka, one of my many personalities :-), I'm leaving the newbie up to you. He really isn't listening (unfortunately) and I don't have the interest to revert his vandalism. Thanks Shot info 10:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. :) I've just blocked him for 24 hours for continuing to edit war on Kangaroo court‎. Hopefully that will give him a chance to calm down and review some of the policies and guidelines before he ends up with a much longer block. Cheers, Sarah 11:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okies. Shot info 11:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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. R Delivery Bot 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Delooze

Hello! I created the Matthew Delooze page on the french wikipedia, I'm the fr:Utilisateur:D. Diderot guy, I saw your comment that you wanted to try to help save the page from deletion by puting some ads and I wanted to salute you for that! And ooooooohhhhh I see that you're a powerful admin on the english wikipedia... woaow! :-) Usually admins are always on my back trying to warn me for too much discussion-forum like (specially ironics comments on other users) or deletion of my pages... The english page was deleted before I completed the translation... :-) You seem to speak french very fluently! Where did you get your interest on Matthew Delooze? ♥ --Morfal 19:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Morfal. Regrettably, my French is not very good...I have rarely used it since I finished school. I do not know anything about Matthew Delooze; I was only removing the English interwiki from the French Wikipedia because the article here had been deleted. While I was there, I noticed some format problems, so I fixed them as well. If you really feel that Matthew Delooze meets the English notability guidelines, you could try writing a new version in your userspace and then when you have completely finished it, ask for it to be reviewed. It isn't good to post things into the English Wikipedia mainspace before you've finished them because the New Page people work very quickly and will tag it for deletion before you have a chance to come back and finish. But I don't recommend spending your time on this unless you feel you can make a strong case for his notability because we are quite strict about notability here. Cheers, Sarah 00:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Howard references

Hello Sarah. You changed the reference for the text:

leaving his mother to take care of John (or "Jack" as he was known in the family)

BTW, I didn't write that text, but I searched for a reference, and the Marr article came up. It was not intended to be an attack. I also added many other references to the article. For example, start from the top of the article and see where all those references came from... me.

What I consider to be the important information in the sentence I quote (above) is that after Lyall died, John and his mother were left to fend for themselves in this house alone. The David Marr piece covered that. I'm happy for an alternate reference if it covers all facts (rather than just the nickname "Jack"). I read through the Canterbury Tales article you substituted, but I can't find any mention of Howard & his mother in the house after Lyall's death. I'll read it again, in case I missed it, but if it's not there then I think the Marr reference should be reinstated immediately, and changed only at a time when an alternate reference can be found that fully covers the subject matter. Thanks, Lester2 23:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Covered on page 9 of the Barnett/Goward biography, a longstanding reference in the article. Mind you, this says that JH was left to look after his mother, so that might be another chance for an epic edit war. --Pete 00:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lester, the statement, "leaving his mother to take care of John (or "Jack" as he was known in the family)," is supported by the source. Your assertion that the important part is that "John and his mother were left to fend for themselves in this house alone" is not even in our article and nor is it sourced to the new reference and thus your interpretation and desire for me to find a source supporting it is irrelevant. If you feel the "Canterbury Tales" article does not explain clearly enough the close relationship between JH and his mother, I suggest using "What Makes Johny Run" by Milton Cockburn or "Rise Of A Common Man" by Bill Birnbauer which describes in some detail their close relationship after his father's death and both of which assert the dominating influence she had on John. If you particularly want a source that says JH and his mother lived in the house on their own, take another look at "Rise Of A Common Man" because it does say that Mona and John were left in the house on their own after Lyall's death. It also says that Lyall left them financially comfortable and that Mona "did not have to struggle financially," so I'm not sure that the implications of your claim that they were "left to fend for themselves" is correct. Sarah 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, OK, the words "fend for themselves" was only my paraphrasing in this personal message to you. I read through the Canterbury Tales item twice and I still can't find anything to support the phrase "leaving his mother to take care of John", or anything remotely similar. If you are aware of another article that does cover it, why don't you add the reference? That would save others from having to read through those articles again. If it's not there in a week, I'll get around to it myself. It's an important fact to be referenced properly, as an editor previously wanted to say that John and his brothers lived in the house together after Lyall's death.
Also, as an administrator, you submitted a statement in the ANi: "I've told him before that it would be better to use a different article as the source." Where did you warn me of this? I can't find it anywhere. As far as I know, you only got involved in this deletion-of-references issue after I reported it on the ANi.--Lester2 01:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look Lester, I've told you, if you don't like "Canterbury Tales" then change it over for "What Makes Johny Run" by Milton Cockburn or "Rise Of A Common Man" by Bill Birnbauer, both of which support the claim that John Howard's mother cared for him after Lyall's death. If you don't want to do it, then I'll do it when I've got time. You say you're worried about an editor wanting to say the brothers lived in the house with John and his mother, "Rise Of A Common Man", says "Howard was 16 when his father - who had been sickly after being gassed in World War 1 - died, leaving his mother to care for him and his brother, Bob. By then, two older brothers had left home." So I'm really not sure that your claim that all the siblings had already moved out is correct and it's probably best not to make a claim either way on that point (which we currently don't). I don't understand why you're making this into an epic drama. It's really very simple. Also, you ask where I told you it would be better if we didn't use the Marr article because many people consider it an attack article, I've said it several times and one of them is on your talk page in the section about the Lyall Howard article. As well, myself and others have also been expressing concern about using this article on the JH talk page. Sarah 02:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I've done it myself. I trust you will agree that the statement in our bio that, "Lyall Howard died in 1955 when John was sixteen, leaving his mother to take care of John" is supported by Birnbauer's article which states, "...Howard was 16 when his father - who had been sickly after being gassed in World War 1 - died, leaving his mother to care for him..." Sarah 02:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sarah. I accept that your second reference "Rise Of A Common Man" now suitably covers the text it is sitting next to. I'm happy for it to be a replacement for the Marr article. That's all I wanted. I don't have a complaint when alternate reliable/accessible references that cover the subject matter are substituted. My complaint was that references were simply being deleted, which was making the article look bad.Lester2 02:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, you just deleted an entirely different presentation of the copra information that was more suitably phrased and appropriately juxtaposed with the Howard quote about his upbringing, which is the basis and context for the copra information being relevant.

Why delete relevant facts (the questioning of Howard's upbringing claim is itself a fact) which improve balance when otherwise the result is bias in favour of the article subject (because of the undue weight created by a sole quote from the article subject himself)?

What makes it acceptable to include Howard's own POV reflections about his upbringing, but not mention the critical examination of that reflection with respect what is known from the historical record? That's not only unencyclopedic, it's anti-encyclopedic. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please obtain a consensus before adding this Copra material to the article. You're not stupid; you know saying the Howard family's values of "hard work and honesty and commitment to one’s country, and commitment to one’s community" are "questioned" is a really dodgy thing to say. Gosh, even Lester isn't trying to make a claim like that. Sarah 07:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe consensus exists. A majority of editors throughout the long life of this discussion have commented favourably on at least a brief contextually appropriate mention of the plantation ownership (including me, Lester2, Shot info, Aussieboy, hamiltonstone, Peter Ballard, Lord Chao and Hornplease; see John Howard's secret ancestry revealed and the RfC on the current talkpage).

What would signify consensus in your view? Also, can you please rephrase your above criticism in terms of Wikipedia policy? Saying something is "dodgy" is unhelpful and POV. If the issue is style, why not improve the wording rather than delete the pertinent fact? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Brendan, consensus does not exist. If it existed, you wouldn't continually be reverted by different people. I think you need to read the consensus policy. Please take your further comments regarding the JH article to the article's talk page. I do not wish my talk page to turn into a defacto JH talk page. If you insist on continuing to post here, I will start deleting your comments. Thankyou. Sarah 07:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC) PS As for dodgy, try reading BLP and NPOV. Sarah 07:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Immigration to Australia

Thank you, Sarah. You're a star! Someone is bored at work 09:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. I noticed when I was posting messages to them that Secretlondon had username blocked at least one of them as well. Cheers, Sarah 09:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at my comments about the "Replacement" section in the "Immigration to Australia" article - see the Talk page. Jig-jog 10:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You have now corrected - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.103.190 (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No problems. As I said on the talk page, the paragraph was restored inadvertently when reverting a slew of vandals, sockpuppets, POV Warrirors and SPAs. Protection is not intended as an endorsement of a particular version, it is just a mechanism to stop disruption and sometimes is protected on the wrong version. Thanks for helping on the article and for pointing out the error. Regards, Sarah 02:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 03:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

RE: AnnieTigerChucky

Hi, Sarah, thanks for inquiring; it's getting pretty frustrating. Here's what has changed since I posted to ANI. She (he?) has briefly tried to communicate at Talk:Autism, so we now know she can read talk pages. She also indicated she has a son, so she doesn't seem to be a minor. I also think she's using an IP (forgets to log in?); I posted a note to her talk page about that, just to make sure she's aware of 3RR and sock puppetry issues. I am really at a loss for what to do here, since I do believe there's a communication problem rather than a vandalism intent, but she's taking too much time from other editors, and has now uploaded a lot of copyvio images that need to be dealt with. Maybe a really stern warning (at the *top* of her talk page, since she might not read the bottom?) from an admin as a next step, to see what happens? It's a tough situation, but much too time consuming, and more than half a dozen editors have now tried to communicate with her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah; I'll let you know if I see anything. She pretty consistently edits autism and the Wolff family and their show. I'm sorry you have to be the "bad guy" here; it's a tough one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another copyvio image for deletion; I don't have a sense this is the same editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I've speedied it. Cheers, Sarah 00:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; all is calm. (Two areas I just don't speak on Wiki are images and AfD.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

An image issue (I don't speak images); Image:Touretts.jpg was added to Tourette syndrome in what looked like an attempt to say the person in the image had TS, probably a jab.[3] I have no idea what to do with this image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(Timothy butts in) The image itself is not offensive, but as it (a) has no licensing information and (b) is orphaned (ie, has no pages linking to it), it will disappear. Don't worry about it. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Timothy; these teenage pages are *so* much work. Sarah, disappointed to tell you AnnieTigerChucky still doesn't understand. I just reverted Michael Wolff—the inclusion of a large chunk of copyvio text from the Tourette Syndrome Association and the removal of cited text. I'm afraid ATC just doesn't understand Wiki yet, and if she won't talk to people, I don't know how she can be mentored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ack, still another one -- she created The Tic Code as a copyvio from IMDb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I don't know what to do about ATC. She probably needs to be blocked again. I told her the other day that if she posted material copied from other websites again I would block her for a week, so if she's come back and done just that a couple of days after her block expired, I suppose I have to block her...I just feel very reluctant about blocking people who appear to be clueless rather than malicious. But at the same time, letting this go on is not fair on the people who are having to waste their time following her around cleaning up after her. At least she responded to one of your messages; that's a step in the right direction at least. By the way, I deleted Image:Touretts.jpg. Thanks Sandy, Sarah 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, tough situation; two steps forward, one backward (two blatant copyvios, but finally responding on talk). It's frustrating, but I share your reluctance because it doesn't seem intentional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked her for a week and I deleted another copyright image she uploaded (it's now been deleted three times by two different admins). If she responds to me and gives an undertaking that she will stop copying material from elsewhere and I have a sense that she understands what we're telling her, I would be willing to reduce it to 3-4 days. Cheers, Sarah 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Howard RfM

I lodged a request for mediation for those who wish to discuss a compromise for the article. The page link is here ->Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. People can say whether they "agree" or "disagree" to a mediation process. --Lester2 05:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I think I've already made my opinion clear on the talk page. I am willing to try mediation at a later point but not right now. I think it would be best if there was a chance for the air to clear and for people to have a break before discussing it again given that we appear to have been at an impasse for several weeks. Sarah 06:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear up an issue, I submitted the RfM at 13:52, 16 September 2007. You let your views be known on the talk page on 00:53, 18 September 2007, almost 3 days later. I didn't have prior knowledge of anyone's response. I sent the personal message alerting you to the RfM because it seemed better to "agree" or "disagree" on the RfM page than the talk page, and the J.H discussion was continuing (and still is) on the talk page, which could have also been moved to the RfM. Cheers--Lester2 12:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Village Pump: I would have gladly supplied specific info, but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate on village pump. I was hesitant because I thought that supplying particular usernames on the public forum may not be appropriate. Besides, that incident was over and done with, but the issue of reference deletion (for future cases) was still on my mind. I'd noticed it on a second article, so I raised the issue.--Lester2 12:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You may well have started the mediation proposal that early (I don't know, I haven't looked) but you didn't actually go through with processing it and notifying people until after I said I was interested and after you responded to that comment. It just seems strange to go through with it when you knew it wouldn't be accepted. But I have no reason to believe that you are acting in bad faith or being dishonest, so I accept what you say and I will withdraw my comment. As far as the Village Pump goes, if you are going to ask people about a particular incident that is ongoing, and no doubt if you could, you would point to their responses to support your own view, it seems to me that you should give an accurate overview. The way you asked it seemed very misleading, but again, I have my

doubts about Brendan, but I have no reason to think that you are acting in bad faith, so I withdraw that comment as well. I really think that this copra matter should be set aside for a while to give the chance for the air to clear and for people to digest each other's comments; I really don't think continuing with this dispute at the current time is going to have a favourable outcome and it will most likely spread bad feelings to other pages, as it seems to be doing at David Hicks. I strongly encourage you to agree to take a break from the copra matter and look at other issues and even other articles because there are lots of articles that really should be worked on so we have a good selection of political articles for people to read in the lead up to the election. Sarah 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sarah. My conversation with Vassyana was not a formal submission to any mediation group. It was one-to-one conversation, so it would have been worded differently if it was any official thing. I don't expect Vassyana will be arbitrating on the subject, so I wasn't trying to influence her one way or another. I'm surprised how quickly you follow my edits. Do you manually refresh my contributions list, or can Wiki users install a bot to alert them? Also, you seem to think Brendan and I are POV editors, whatever that is. But everyone always thinks those on the opposing side of a content dispute are POV editors. When I read the Wiki rules, the copra plantation issue fits within those rules perfectly, and is not POV pushing. Sarah, I don't want to have a personal dispute with you, over article content. I like a lot of your work. I like a lot of the things you stand for. We disagree on the copra information. We probably won't agree on that one. In the next week or so I'll try to present a more persuasive argument for why copra fits into Wiki rules, and post it on the talk page. Cheers, --Lester2 15:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I'm not worried in the slightest about arbitration. Firstly, Vassyana is not an arbitrator (though Blnguyen is) and secondly, this is not an arbitrable case. It is a content dispute. It could very easily become a arbitrated case, however, if we wanted to obtain bans or topic bans on people who are bringing their political agendas to Wikipedia articles. What upsets me is that you are forum shopping, apparently looking for a particular response instead of showing some good faith and accepting what you have been told by numerous people, including those actually agree with you, who have asked you to give it a rest and move onto something else for the time being. And it also upsets me that you are making false and misleading claims all over the site. If you are sincere about editing the article within policy, you really should respond to the policy based comments that have been raised, instead of creating red-herrings and strawmen and then you would take up Gnangarra's offer to try to write this material in a way that fully meets WP:BLP, yet not one single person has made any real effort to attempt to do this. I can't help but wonder why people who claim to be attempting to write a NPOV article which isn't disparaging to the subject, don't simply take us up on that offer. I know that Brendan hasn't tried to because he won't be happy unless he can write it in a disparaging way, like he did the last time when he wrote that JH's recollection of his family as people with certain values, is "questioned" by Lyall's investment in legal copra plantations. Are you seriously arguing that that is consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV?

I don't really know what you mean about bots. I don't have any bots and you shouldn't run bots without getting permission from the Bot permissions group because if they malfunction, they can cause a lot of damage. I saw your edit on Vassyana's page when I looked at your recent contribs after I saw you on the Village Pump misleading people and giving them false information. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but I don't advise you to start running any bots on your account or you will most likely be blocked indefinitely.

I don't have anything against you personally and I found you quite reasonable to edit with on the Lyall Howard article, but you concern me very much as you seem to be completely singularly focused to the point of being obsessed with getting your own way. Meanwhile, you seem blinded to the fact that ignoring both pro- and anti-inclusion people when they tell you the same thing about having a break and editing something else for awhile, is only making the situation worse. If you do not have political motivations for editing, I don't understand the complete focus with regard to these edits and this article. Have you looked at your own contributions? You are looking like a single purpose account as you very rarely edit outside this topic. Have a look at any of the other involved editors contributions and you will see how dramatically single purpose you and Brendan look; this would really go against both of you and likely result in at a minimum, a topic ban at both the Community Sanctions Noticeboard and arbitration. Please consider respecting everyone's wish that you give us a break and go and do something else on other unrelated articles for a little while. Sarah 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You ask if I'm "seriously arguing that this is consistent with WP:BLP"? My answer: Absolutely. Let me quote WP:BLP: "In the case of significant public figures... If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article.". But you mention Gnangarra's offer, so I'll go back and review what he said.--Lester2 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. Please consider my comments at Talk:John_Howard#Good_Faith_discussions_please and Talk:John_Howard#David_Marr_feedback. As a general practice in good faith, can you please also direct future comments specifically about my editorial style and character to my user talkpage? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Brendan, I have told you that I am not discussing this with you until a reasonable period of time has passed. Please respect this instead of trying to force me otherwise. Please also stop posting on my talk page. I was contacted privately by someone who knows you and I no longer have any reason at -all- to believe that you are editing here in good faith. You are a WP:SPA with an agenda. Please stop wasting my time and contain whatever you want to say about the article to the article's talk page. Sarah 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, I repeat my apology to you here that I was advising you of the link to, above. I ask you to please consider those comments. I am not seeking to waste your time, but seeking to work together to put an end to the practice of making negative unrepresentative comments about editors in content discussions. My edit history does not reflect WP:SPA so please do not assert that it does. I myself am trying to act in good faith here too. I hope you come to understand that. Kind regards. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For a year

A gift for all your administrative and editorial work of the past year. Acalamari 01:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Sarah, on this date, September 19, 2007, you have been an administrator for an entire year! :) Acalamari 01:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks, Acalamari. I knew the year was up sometime this month but I had no idea it was today. I hope everything is good with you. Cheers! :) Sarah 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well done! Time flies when you're having fun, eh? ++Lar: t/c 04:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lar. :) By the way, on your talk page I did a mean a 'crat on EN. May as well go for a full set of flags! :) Sarah 05:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to think REALLY hard about that one, I reckon. But thanks for the vote of confidence. ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done Sarah. You should have campaigned for the extra vote....then you would have had the Australian record for RfA to yourself!! You've done very well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh thanks, Blng. I don't know, I'm quite happy sharing the spot with you! It's just a shame about that darn Daniel Bryant who pushed us down the list. What a way to show gratitude for my nominating him! :) Sarah 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

*flees* Daniel 09:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And here's the ungrateful trouble maker himself!;-D Sarah 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello Sarah, you're welcome for the star! I'm glad you like it! I had a look at your RfA and old logs to remind myself when the anniversary was, and when I find out that the date was today, I made sure I would get something for you! :) Oh, and I'm fine, don't worry. :) Acalamari 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yarrr, ye got made into a Cap'n on International Talk Like a Pirate Day? Avast! Those scurvy dogs better watch out when Cap'n Sarah makes them walk the plank for their pillagin'!  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 16:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I actually had no clue that I became an admin on International Talk Like a Pirate Day. I'll remember to use that next time I have to rogue up! lol Sarah 02:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Sarah, keep up the good work, and bad luck with the Hawks - next year, eh? :) Cheers, Daniel 09:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. Much appreciated. Yeah, the Hawks were quite disappointing last weekend but at the same time, I'm quite happy that they made it as far as they did this year and hopefully they'll be able to build on it next season. I don't think many people would have tipped us to even make it into the eight this year, so from that perspective it's all good. The pies did well getting as far as they did, too. Hope all is good with you my friend; must catch up sometime on Gtalk. :) Cheers Danny, Sarah 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I do believe somebody is saying nasty things about you on another forum [4]. Shot info 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How idiotic. I removed that edit because it was a copyvio. Even the capped words show up on a google search of that material. [5] Editorial issues are another obvious matter, but the reason I reverted him was purely based on the fact that he had copy and pasted from elsewhere, as noted in my edit summary. Thanks for letting me know. Sarah 10:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca RfA spam

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your taking the time to comment, and plan on learning from the experience and keeping the criticism in mind. If, in the future, you see me doing something that still concerns you, please let me know about it. --barneca (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is strongly suspected

that it's not a friend, but the uh... "good lady" herself. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know that. I've seen that person on other sites (they're obviously very easy to spot) but I thought it was just an obsessed fan who was running her site. Didn't david speak to both of them? The writing is terrible, they need to learn how to use punctuation. Anyway, the IP is duly blocked for a month for block evasion. Let's see if they come back with a new IP. Cheers, Sarah 14:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Tonyx123, who originally created the biographical article confirmed to David that it's not a fan, but the lady herself. I will not argue with your assessment of "obsessed" :) After watching our efforts to verify the information, Tony felt rather duped. As you've blocked the IP, could you please update WP:ANI? Thanks! — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's really interesting...and embarrassing...for her! She is on quite a mission when you see the posts on other sites and arguing with people on blogs and such. It's quite sad really. Thanks Timothy. Sarah 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Sarah,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to Walton^One and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me.

iridescent (talk to me!) 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Credits

This design was brazenly stolen from inspired by Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor's RFA Thanks, which in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.