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.

I know

He contacted me too. I've missed talking to you, Sarah. —Viriditas | Talk 10:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do; let's catch up. BTW, happy one year! You should get your mop bronzed. :-) —Viriditas | Talk 11:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's gone really fast, hard to believe that it's been a year already. Talk to you soon, Viri. :) Sarah 11:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, and thanks for keeping me in the loop. It looks like I was too late to comment as the discussion was closed. Please look for an e-mail from me in your inbox shortly. :) —Viriditas | Talk 19:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just sent an e-mail using the "e-mail this user" link on this page. Hope the e-mail gremlins avoid it, and it goes to the same account as the old one. —Viriditas | Talk 19:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured I was dealing with old information. Seriously, no hurry on the reply, Sarah. Keeps me in suspense. :) —Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert of my comments on User:Skyring talkpage

Hi Sarah. Can you help me by explaining what editors can do when deceptive and misleading comments are being made about them on another editor's talkpage, in what should instead be a content debate, and no right of reply is being given by that latter editor? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

People are allowed to remove messages from their talk page if they wish and you have no right to try to force them to keep messages. The only time when people might be made to keep messages on their talk page is in cases of blocked users removing block messages and recent admin warnings. You have no right of reply on people's talk pages and if you continue edit warring on Peter's page, you are the one who will be blocked. If you want to discuss article content, I suggest you use the article's talk page. Sarah 04:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, I am using the article talkpage to discuss content. My question though relates to the specific instance of what can be done when an editor makes deceptive and misleading comments (on their talkpage) about another editor that go unquestioned and are allowed to stand. I am asking for your help and advice as an admin user. If you were placed in that situation, would you consider that reasonable? What would you do (or suggest doing) in respect of that specific problem (given the lack of good faith that it arguably demonstrates on the part of that editor)? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 05:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If I were in what I understand is your situation, i.e. someone has made a comment about you that you feel is false or misleading, I would try to tell them nicely that they are mistaken, but if they reverted my comment, I would walk away and ignore it, taking their reversion as an confirmation of the fact that they have indeed read it. Have a look at the section above titled "FYI" and you will see Shot info posted a message with a link to a comment on the talk page for the kangaroo court article where someone has posted a link to their complaint about me on Yahoo Answers and accused me, both here and on Yahoo Answers, of being racist and a censor because I reverted them posting a copyright violation. I have friends and family members from very diverse backgrounds and I find being called a racist and a bigot highly offensive, but you don't see me edit warring over deleting the comment. It just isn't worth it and you'll last a lot longer here if you develop a thicker skin and only stake your claims on issues and disputes which really matter, not every little thing that comes along. You also need to keep in mind that admins always look at the behaviour and actions of both parties and if it is obvious that the best solution is to simply walk away but you have chosen instead to continue to edit war and cause disruption, you run the risk of being blocked yourself and of admins subconsciously putting you into the category of people who enjoy making a mountain out of a mole hill and are always crying wolf. If you are worried that Peter's comment might give a third party the wrong impression about you, it is worth noting that you have already denied being blocked for edit warring on Children Overboard Affair and two of those denials are still there on Peter's talk page. Why does there have to be a third denial? I'm sure that anyone who reads that section and cares whether you were blocked or not will click on your name and check your log and see for themselves that you weren't. If you aren't satisfied with that then you are free to copy the thread to your own talk page where you may respond to it to your heart's desire. I have done this myself; this section originated on the other person's talk page and they began selectively deleting my messages, so I chose to copy all the messages here intact in case I needed them for future reference. As far as your comment about assuming good faith goes, if you are following AGF, then it doesn't really matter, does it? I mean, if you're assuming good faith yourself then you won't assume that they are acting in bad faith, right? Sarah 10:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to assume good faith about recurrent actions that seem intended to provoke and mischaracterise another editor instead of focussing on content. That is why I apologised to you in days past, because I felt some of my comments to you could be construed that way, and from your reaction, you seemed to feel the same. At any rate, thanks for the feedback and suggestions, I appreciate it. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you be able to help us with this editor?

Hi Sarah, would you be able to give us some advise here - [6]? Thanks Shot info 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shot. I've been keeping an eye on him but he seems to have stopped edit waring, or at least, he hasn't edited again. I'll check back on him again later. I think maybe he doesn't really understand what Wikipedia is about. Cheers, Sarah 03:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	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 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Amazing Grace

Re your edits to Amazing Grace: would you take a second look at the text you deleted? The Tomlin stuff is clearly copyvio and I'm annoyed I didn't spot it myself. The "last two verses" are allegedly (unsourced anon edit) not written in 1979, but written by John Newton according to a source published in 1979. Also, if the Cherokee lyrics are really a translation by Samuel Worcester, then he died in 1859 and they have long been PD. It might be helpful either to add an explanatory note to the talkpage if there are other factors I'm ignorant of, or apologize to ChrisKangaroo. Matt's talk 09:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thanks for letting me know. I haven't been ignoring your message; I was away for several days when you left it and the bot must have archived it while I was away because I'm just receiving it now. If the material is not copyright then there's no problem with restoring it if you wish. My apologies, Sarah 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at my talk page

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

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

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

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

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

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

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

Unprotect request for Immigration to Australia

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

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

That tag is a "suspected" tag put there [7] by the only person who suspects I am a sock. The checkuser request is currently waiting to be processed. Please take a peek at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Opp2 (2nd) for the Checkuser request which he filed, and scroll down about 4/5ths of the way down the page to see for yourself the flimsiness of his own grounds for suspicion. This checkuser request is related to the article Liancourt Rocks, which is currently subject to arbitration as seen here. Please also note that the user who placed the tag is the subject of a 1-year ban proposal by an arbitrator as seen here - [8] for disruptiveness and assumptions of bad faith [9]. Phonemonkey 20:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

By the way, I removed the sockpuppet tag. The evidence on that page doesn't seem very convincing. If he gets some more credible evidence like a positive checkuser or such, he can add it back but in the meanwhile I don't see why you should have to be tagged like that just because you edited a particular article. Sarah 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for both, much appreciated. Phonemonkey 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

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

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

No way. FenderTele^Criticise 03:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

ATC

AnnieTigerChucky may be back; we have full-on copyvios going on by NakedBros1 (talk · contribs). I just reverted one at The Tic Code; don't know if I should request a CheckUser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; what should I do next time to make it easier, quicker? Just let you know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Sorry for the delay replying, I was just carefully looking through the account and the deleted edits. I am certain that was Annie. I wouldn't worry about a checkuser unless the account posts a block appeal. I think the checkusers would decline a request because it is just so blatantly obviously Annie's sockpuppet. That account was created two days after I blocked her for a week, which would have been the day after the autoblock on her IP expired. I've indef'd the sock as a sockpeppet being used to circumvent policy (block evasion) and I've reset her one week block since she only sat out a day and a half or so and I've extended it by an extra week for block evasion. The autoblock should stop her from editing for the next day but I suppose we should be on the lookout for another sock to appear sometime after that. Sure, you may as well just keep posting any deletion and block requests here as it would take a bit of effort to explain the situation to another admin. I don't mind helping and it seems the easiest way to deal with the case.
Unrelated to Annie, you really should think of becoming an admin yourself. It would make things easier for you if you could just do things yourself instead of having to chase up an admin. Give it some thought. :) Thanks Sandy. All the best, Sarah 01:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I could see you were busy (you've really taken a lot of time and done your best to explain it to her); Raul654 (talk · contribs) checkuser'd and it was Annie, and he told me you were on it. Gosh, she chews up CHUNKS of my time, and on such silly articles, it makes me crazy. She's stuck on the Wolff family; if she comes back as another SP, it will surely be there. Nope, I'm not the admin type, it would make me crazy. It's too bad there's not some sort of semi-admin, though, that would allow me to be more useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's fantastic. I was quite sure that it was obviously her but it's great to have that confirmed. I just checked the Autoblock log and she's already triggered the autoblock so her IP should be blocked for 24 hours now.

I think you'd be a great admin, but I can understand you feeling that way. I don't mind helping with adminy jobs that need to be done, though, so feel free to post anything that you need done and I'll take care of it for you. Cheers, Sarah 02:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Sandy, this looks like it might be the IP to keep an eye on. It looks very stable with edits to the same narrow range of articles going back months, including adding to the light switch article that same material about Morris Goldberg and William Newton that ATC had on her talk page. Sarah 02:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

got it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for gosh sakes, she's been right under my nose, and I even responded to her on Talk:Tourette syndrome without checking the IP even though I suspected that IP address. Sheesh. I've had my head in a funk ever since Yomangani (talk · contribs) left. I should snap out of it and pay attention :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's frustrating, isn't it. Specially when you see that she's been at this for at least six months. And I somehow doubt that ATC was her first account. But at least with a likely IP address, we have a hope of getting control of things now. If need be I'll just try disabling new account creation and anonymous editing on her IP. :) Sarah 03:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Humor

Giving you a humor alert in advance. :) Acalamari 01:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's really nice, Acalamari! Thanks! Sarah 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Humor and a compliment often go together well. Acalamari 02:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, I'd like you to release me from my chest-of-draws prison now - I promise I'll act less roguely next time! Daniel 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. "chest-of-draws prison" sounds dreadfully painful. However, on consideration, it is exactly what you deserve since you repaid my kind nomination (which was actually full of lies about what a great guy you are) by climbing over me on the WP:100 ladder and pushing me down to the equal-ninth spot! And after that, I was quickly out of the Top 10. I mean, seriously, what gratitude!! For that, you can rot in your chest-of-draws prison! Sarah 02:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gnangarra has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: Oh, what talent!

Re your message: Shrug What can I say? It takes a lot of effort to handle 20 10 accounts, but if I concentrate I can handle it. =) -- Jimbo Gogo Dodo 05:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeowners Association

Sarah, you restored the POV tags to this article without even a note in the discussion. The facts in this article have been discussed at great length in the discussion page. The only dispute seems to be that any negative (but factual) information be included. You should know that there is Lobbying group, the Community Associations Institute or CAI (56 chapters USA ) that is paid to diseminate information about HOAs, presenting them as wonderful places. The CAI consists of service providers to associations, but does not represent a SINGLE HOA.They claim they work to create "vibrant" communittees, yet they lobby against ANY legislation that would in ANY way impose disclosure requirements, financial controls or reduce the power of association boards. These lack of controls is directly proportional to the reciepts of these vendors (especialy lawyers and property managers). They work very hard to maintain the status quo.

There have been many editors on this article working toward that end. It seems that these editors would rather dispute the credibility of this article rather than have legitimate information available, if some of it is negative. This article does not deserve the POV tag, especialy when editors refuse to discuss or defend their position.Mike Reardon 12:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop posting messages at the top of people's talk pages. It makes it very easy to miss them because the tradition on Wikipedia is to leave messages at the bottom of pages and it screws up the whole page. I didnt leave a note on the talk page because I thought my edit summary was very straight forward and clear.

Look, I'm really not interested in accusations about your opposing editors anymore than I am interested in their accusations about you. I judge people's on-site activities and contributions to Wikipedia on their actual edits, not on what some unknown person alleges. As far as I can see, the dispute is not resolved, and the article does not represent a world view. So please stop edit warring over removing those tags. Having those tags on the article is not a big drama so please don't make it one. You seem to be really pushing a barrow here and your activities are really troubling me and have been since I discovered you posting copyvios and cut and paste emails into articles. When I look at the article's talk page and your user talk page, I see a number of people complaining about your edits. I don't believe that there is consensus for the version that you prefer, but if there really is a consensus for your preferred version of the article, then you wont have to continue edit warring because others will step up and revert to your version for you. That is how Wikipedia's cornerstone policy consensus works. I also note that you really look like a single purpose account and that really weighs against you when myself and other admins look at your account, especially if we're considering blocking you.. Please look at your contributions here and you will see that you have made only four edits outside your SPA article, Homeowners' association, and those four edits were made to Community Associations Institute, another disputed article where it was claimed that you were also posting copyright violations and slanted material. I em very troubled about your editing style and I highly recommend that you take your warring style back a notch or two, or you risk having your own account blocked. You claim the article does not warrant a POV tag but others obviously don't agree with you. Furthermore, you are not simply removing the POV tag, but the World View tag as well. I note that this article is an entirely American-centric article and thus, does not represent a world view and so the tag is entirely appropriate.

Finally, please note that you have removed the POV tag three times now in the last few hours. If you revert them one more time you will be blocked for 3RR violation. I am going to leave a warning message on your talk page as well, because I don't want you violating 3RR and then claiming that you didn't know about that rule. I ask you to leave the tags in place until there is a natural consensus. Please allow someone else to remove the POV tag if they are in agreement that the POV issues have been resolved in the current version of the article.If you violate 3RR your account will be blocked. Sarah 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Do you have a moment? - Jehochman ^Talk 23:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can jump on gtalk in about half an hour? I'm just heading out for a moment right now, but I shouldn't be long and will see if you're around when I get back. Cheers, Sarah 23:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.- Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again

for removing the vandalism on my talk page - one question - is it possible to semi-protect a talk page, as I assume it is all freshly created accts that are responsible for the vandalism?Sennen goroshi 04:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can sprot it for a while. Say a week? And then we can extend it if necessary. I also blocked that account and I checked the other account but it had already been blocked by someone. Sarah 04:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess I should apologise - I imagine some of my edits, that might be seen as pro-Japanese were the catalyst for this vandalism. It is an annoying situation, because due to my edits, and the vandal's childish attitude, admins such as yourself are constantly having to RV and protect my pages. I'm sorry for making work for you. One small thought in the back of my mind....I have a slight suspicion that the vandal might be the user who was accusing the admin Gogo Dodo, or at least one of that admins cohorts - is it rude of me to go to the checkuser section and request a checkuser, comparing the IDs/IPs that vandalised my acct to a couple of IDs that I have had heated debates with? I feel bad about this, because I only have a suspicion, no concrete evidence....what do you think?Sennen goroshi 05:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems. To be honest, I have no idea about the disputes you've involved in and various editors involved, so I can't really comment about that but there is nothing rude or bad about filing a RFCU request if you think it might help. I don't really understand what you mean by, "I have a slight suspicion that the vandal might be the user who was accusing the admin Gogo Dodo, or at least one of that admins cohorts"? Are you saying you think one of Gogo's friends has something to do with it? If that is what you are mean, I can assure it is not the case. Gogo is a good person and would not be involved with something like that or even be friends with the type of people who would do that. Anyway, let me know in a week if you feel you'd like the s-prot to be extended on your talk page. Cheers, Sarah 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we are are getting things round the wrong way. While I have never had any contact with Gogo Dodo, I will take your word for it that he is one of the good guys (the fact that he is an admin, points to that as well) What I was getting at, was that someone made a claim that about 10 different people were sock puppets/masters - infact I was accused of being the sockpuppet master of Gogo Dodo...LOL - that would be a pretty good achievement, having an established admin as your sock puppet. LOL. What I was suspicous about, was that the person accusing me of being a master, who also accused Gogo Dodo of being a puppet, might be the person who was also vandalising my user/talk pagesSennen goroshi 07:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

You might want to check out the ongoing NPOV dispute here. Actually, it's more than just a POV dispute. It's ultimately coming down to an annoying edit war without any outside opinions. I'd take the issue to WP:3O, but there are IPs occasionally getting involved. However, I'm not sure if the IPs are the same editor as the registered user or not so maybe it is a place for WP:3O. All I know is that everything was quiet with this article until contentious edits were made and then all of a sudden a number of IPs started popping in to edit. Anyway, any opinions you have are always welcome. --Strothra 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't neccesarily think so, but you do think Ottawaman could be back? [10][11] --Strothra 00:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Strothra, I'm really not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if he does come back if and when he thinks he can get away with it. The person who wrote the edits I reverted seems to like using unreliable sources like forums, blogs and so forth, which, of course, is something that Ottawaman used to like doing as well, but then I guess it's also something that newbies do when they aren't familiar with our reliable sources, BLP and verifiability policies. Those IPs seem to be on different ISPs, though, and in different parts of Canada, so I don't if they are the same person using proxies or something or if it's several different people. Which was the user account you're talking about? Do you mean User:GoldDragon? I'll try to help keep an eye on the situation, but feel free to give me a yell anytime if you need to. I can always protect the page if it becomes necessary; that might prompt them to be more conciliatory about their edits. Cheers, Sarah 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's who I was referring to. The IPs didn't to be in the same ranges, so I was doubtful about the chances of it being a return of Ottawaman. Thanks for looking into the article though. Best, --Strothra 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Though it is better if the anon IP used the media sources directly, the blog is really a collection of the media sources rather than an opinion piece. So its best not to consider this an attack edit. Plus, information on campaign advisers and financing is legitimate. GoldDragon 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Danadearmond

Thanks for the heads up! You should prolly forward the e-mail to OTRS just in case if you haven't yet. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From One Pirate to Another

		Ready to swab the deck!
		Another motley scallawag has joined the crew. Thanks for nominating me for adminship and guiding me through the process. Arrrgh! - - Jehochman Talk 23:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne_8#When.3F

Hey, could you please comment on this page with the dates that will suit you and OIC? thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. I will talk to OIC next time I see him about and let everyone know. For myself, I really can't say at this stage but that is okay, we'll just pick the best time for everyone and I will do my best to get there. Will talk to you more this week. Best, Sarah 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Rambutan

Thanks very much! --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure; but please do try to more careful about how you phrase requests on the noticeboards. Cheers, Sarah 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	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 10:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bagel 7

Re: ==

- Ok, Ok you caught me on the whole copyright thing. But there were disparaging comments? Really??? I tried to look at what I had written [12] but I couldn't see what it was. Can you please tell me what the disparaging comments were? - Bagel7^T's 03:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

-

Nope, if you've forgotten, then great, I'm not going to remind you of what was on that page. You can't see it because I deleted it. Please don't misuse your userspace in that way again. Thanks, Sarah 03:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD Issue

I recently nominated Ahwaz territory for AfD, but then the creator of the article deleted it and redirected it to Ahwaz Region, but removed the AfD tag. I have no idea how to handle that, since the AfD tag seems to now need to be placed on both the territory and the region articles. Can you spare a moment? --Strothra 04:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored the AfD tag and speedied the other version as a cut and paste fork. If it needs to be renamed, it should be moved properly rather than a cut and paste move. Sarah 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

haay Please don't remove what I write...ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop blanking AFD tags and attempting to bypass the AFD by doing a cut and paste fork to a new name. I've deleted that fork again and protected the name until the AFD concludes. You have blanked out the AfD tags one way or another at least five times, if you continue doing this, I will block your account from editing. Thanks, Sarah 05:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your E-mail

Hello Sarah, I've responded to your E-mail! After being away for four days, I've had a bunch of people to respond to! Acalamari 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Acalamari. I was wondering who that fellow was for a minute or two! Anyway, glad to see you back on deck. :) Cheers, Sarah 19:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you recognized my E-mail though. :) At least you'll know in future. :) I'll respond again soon. Acalamari 23:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. As to the Negroid discussion you brought up - I think that it's fairly obvious that I was in over my head. I went into that article thinking that it was a dispute with an easy compromise or closure (given that at the time the issue was fairly one sided in that most editors supported the picture), however that quickly changed, and because that whole area of articles is essentially foreign to me, I did worsen the situation. In hindsight I can definitely say it was a mistake to go into that article. So, I'm sorry that you thought that incident was enough to become wary of me, and hopefully if I ever run again I'll have done enough to overcome it for you. Again, thanks so much for voting and I look forward to seeing you around Wikipedia! --danielfolsom 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamid Dabashi

Can you have a look at the article and help? There is an edit conflict going on. It has been tagged for POV check and peacock terms, but it seemed ok to me before a user added allegations of anti-semitism. It has several relevant external links that are well organised and wikified, but someone keeps removing all of them. Thanks. 124.170.158.162 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Things seem to be settled at the moment. To be honest, I think there are too many links and too many publications. And I think the "Selected bibliography" is too extensive. Sarah 05:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome message! Cheers. 124.170.158.162 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Starstylers 12:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

StarStylers

Delete me and I shall return, manifold. If wikipedia is written via consensus rather than peer review, it is an exceptionally sorry excuse for a 'reference' not withstanding it cites from the internet rather than peer-reviewed monographs and or journals. Furthermore, it is rare one encounters a true expert or indeed a resident of the country they supposedly expert on. None of your threats deter me in the slightest, I shall persevere despite the apparent petty possession and or territory issues one must endure. If you wish to address me in English I respectfully request the Queen's or British Standard rather than the bastardised dialect of Australia as "agro" is but a colloquialism unique to that sunburnt land and holds little to no meaning outside of it's rather stultified smallish population. If wikipedia supposedly enshrines the right of Mutliple Point of Views- surely mine is equally valid too.Starstylers 12:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, yes I'm back, though I never completely went away and I still don't intend to be very busy here. Work has slowed down a little, though it may just be the eye of the storm, and this weekend was a bit of a recovery space. I've flushed most of my old watchlist, and I'm just picking things off recent changes, at least for the moment. Cheers, Ben Aveling 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot

I'm disappointed that you chose to restore the ludicrous block on Sadi Carnot, although I obviously support the discretion of an admin to do so if they feel that that is justified. Rest assured that I have no intention of wheel-warring, and that I have commented on ANI as is obviously appropriate. Physchim62 (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the result, you can file an appeal with Arbcom. That's the correct process. I will warn you again, accusing other admins of conducting a "witch hunt" is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL when the accusation aren't supported with evidence. I ask again, please refactor your remarks. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree with you, however, and I feel the block was appropriate because there was overwhelming community support for it. At the time that I reviewed the case, you were the only person who had opposed it with a large number of people supporting the block and endorsing the community ban proposal. Sarah 14:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot

I'm disappointed that you chose to restore the ludicrous block on Sadi Carnot, although I obviously support the discretion of an admin to do so if they feel that that is justified. Rest assured that I have no intention of wheel-warring, and that I have commented on ANI as is obviously appropriate. Physchim62 (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the result, you can file an appeal with Arbcom. That's the correct process. I will warn you again, accusing other admins of conducting a "witch hunt" is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL when the accusation aren't supported with evidence. I ask again, please refactor your remarks. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree with you, however, and I feel the block was appropriate because there was overwhelming community support for it. At the time that I reviewed the case, you were the only person who had opposed it with a large number of people supporting the block and endorsing the community ban proposal. Sarah 14:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Accusation about my edit waring made on ANi board

I'm concerned that you felt it necessary to complain to the ANi board that I'm am edit waring and should get a 1RR restriction. It's a very serious allegation to make about a Wikipedia editor. However, I've got not idea what has brought this on. You need to explain what I have done to warrant a complaint to the ANi, a noticeboard for serious incidents. I'll check back to this page for your reply.--Lester 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh Lester, cut out the melodrama, please. It my personal believe (shared by other admins) that you edit war and that a 1RR applied to PJ should equally apply to his opponents. That is my opinion and as an admin part of my role involves expressing my opinion on the administrators noticeboards. I will continue to do this regardless of your demands and concerns. If you do not like it, perhaps you should stop living there. Sarah 13:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely it is not too much of a "demand", that after I being named on the ANi board for edit waring, with the request that myself and Prester John both get a 1RR blpck, that I ask "why"? Wouldn't you ask why if you were named for something like that? Such a remark has the effect of diminishing one's reputation, and without being offered another reason, I start to wonder if that was the main intention? --Lester 14:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I refuse to believe that you do not understand that you are considered by many to be one of PJ's edit warring opponents. This is why it is inappropriate to follow your wishes and give you 3RR and PJ 1RR. We all know full well what would happen. FYI, I see your previous block log (3 revert warring blocks from 3 different admins) didn't move with your rename so I linked your logs. Sorry if that interfered with your editing. Should only have lasted one second. Sarah 14:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would a block from August spark a request for a 1RR block in late October? I was a newbie back in August, and you seemed to have missed something, that the 3RR/blocking stopped back then. Also, there's a very big difference between opposing Prester John's content to being involved in edit wars worthy of a block. You said, "We all know full well what would happen." I don't know. What would happen? --Lester 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you haven't been blocked recently does not mean that you haven't been edit warring. If it were true that you are not an edit warrior but rather someone who wants to stop the edit warring, then I do not see why you wouldn't voluntarily agree to a 1RR if PJ and others were also subject to 1RR. I think the only reason that you are for 1RR for PJ and against 1RR for yourself is that you want to continue edit warring, you just want PJ to be hampered. Admins are not going to hand you blanket wins in all edit wars by restricting your opponent but not you. It's just not going to happen. Sarah 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm left wondering why you have been so antagonistic towards me. Have I been rude to you? Or uncivil to you? Or reverted your content? If you really believed I was still reverting too much, why didn't you send me a message about reverting at the time of these alleged revert wars? Instead, the ANi is the first stop. I believe I've always used the talk pages for content disputes. I'm starting to wonder if this is about a content dispute, rather than a problem with revert wars.--Lester 03:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out. I have no content dispute with you and other than reverting vandalism and other such maintenance, I don't think we've even been editing the same articles. You really need to learn to separate people's work as administrators from their contributions as editors. My objection to your desire for administrators to implement a 1RR against your opponent is purely administrative: I wont hand either party in any edit war editorial control. By implementing 1RR against PJ but not his opponents, we would be effectively handing editorial control to all articles in this dispute to one side. Now, please stop posting on my page. Thank you. Sarah 04:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Above the Law (group)

Sarah, regarding the problem with this article, I'm not sure if that the content that the other user was adding is WP:OR. Would you clear that out for me? Diff. Thank you.--Tasc0 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be sourced to that website article. Original research is unpublished material, so it isn't really OR if an article is cited to back it up. But I don't think that source is very suitable since the contested material is being sourced to the band themselves. It's okay to use it as a supporting reference, but the person really needs to find an independent reliable source for those claims. Sarah 01:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But the artist is talking about Dr. Dre, which he's not being interviewed. I had a similar problem in Talk:Man_vs._Wild#Criticism, fakeness and what they don't tell you. I had proper sources, but it couldn't get included.--Tasc0 03:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through all of that Man_vs._Wild discussion now but it looks like there were concerns about whether your source meet W:RS and possibly WP:BLP concerns. I don't really see any problems with the Above the Law material as long as it can be sourced to a reliable source (which I think is unlikely). Sarah 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration titled Sadi Carnot. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and consider making a statement per the instructions there. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I've had a most annoying evening, what with my machine clogging repeatedly, and then I had a paying client to deal with for a few hours. I genuinely did mean to tell you that I had unblocked Sadi Carnot conditionally; I apologize. DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs) 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that you were busy and caught up with real life commitments etc. Thanks for your message, I do appreciate it. Sarah 05:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, can you update/follow up on your original comment in the RfAr? I'd appreciate that. DS 17:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would update it, but I really don't have anything else to add at this stage. Sarah 17:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

You've been lucky enough to have been graced with an email off yours truly - enjoy! Ryan Postlethwaite 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr Postlethwaite. I feel truly honored to receive an email from such an eminent Wikipedian and I shall reply to you shortly. :) Sarah 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Email, again

I just sent you one as well. --Strothra 02:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thx, I got it. I'm just looking into it now. Sarah 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Forumn Shopping -- FYI

Hi Sarah, an thread you should be aware of WP:AN#Forum shopping by AFD group Gnangarra 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gnang. Cheers, Sarah 02:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

MelsaranAWB

Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) pointed me to MelsaranAWB. I'm having trouble finding active editors who can do automated without human confirmation to help me out. Any ideas? I've already posted at Bot requests, but no one commented there yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. Is that what R does? I remember reading on his RFA that he runs some kind of AWB-based bot but don't know the details of it. Sarah 08:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for setting the record straight. Sadly, the admin that made the allegations against me has not bothered to reply to my message on his talk page or carry out a Check User on my account.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 11:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Your answers to questions make me feel very uneasy about your experience and understanding of policy and guidelines how that will translate to actions you would take as an admin."

For one thing, I am aware of the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, and I can assure you that I will be correctly using this wikiterminology in the future.

It also seems that I was not clear enough in my RfA that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others.

That said, I am unsure about what your specific concerns are. Could you please elaborate? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

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 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Above the Law (group)

Hello, Sarah. I'm sorry I have to contact with you again about the same problem. The user Cosprings keeps adding information with no reliable sources. I reverted his edit and asked him in the edit summary to refer to the aritcles talk page to discuss the situation. I do not want to enter in an edit war or even brake the WP:3RR. This is not the first time the use was warned about this. Check the article's history.
Please, would you tell the user what the situation is? I do not feel like talking to him, he removed a warning I placed in his talk page days ago. Thank you.--Tasc0 21:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A second later I post this new thread, the user created this one, claiming I'm an tyrannical and egotistical person. I find that harmful and a personal attack. I will ignore this user until you response to any of this threads.--Tasc0 21:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Tasco, for bringing it to my attention instead of edit warring. I'm just looking into this right now. Sarah 12:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have asked another administrator to give an opinion about this dispute. I'm not sure when he'll have a chance to respond, but in the meanwhile, I'm going to talk to Cosprings about his comments. Sarah 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking forward to see what the other administrator has to say.--Tasc0 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:)

And because someone pointed it out to me! Thanks a lot for the defence (even tho I was unaware of it). I've posted to Viridae too as he has a point - such advanced behaviour from such a new person would now have me on quite a high alert - it can be explained if you know where to look! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Herby. I knew that you were a busy fellow as I see you around the projects, but I had to look up your Meta page to check exactly where all your flags are and when I saw how many you have I figured you must be a bot yourself if you have enough time to do all that work AND run sockpuppets! lol. All the best, Sarah 10:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And there's me trying to keep a low profile - I guessed you must have peeked! Take care --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rayne

Thanks Sarah. His answers to my questions seemed a little... odd, and my AGF'ing waivered a bit. Hoping it's not him; sounds extremely awful what you've had to deal with. --barneca (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Barneca, I agree the answers did seem odd but maybe it was just newbiness and confusion. I am going to keep an eye on him, though, and will block if necessary. I don't really want to say too much because the other guy monitors my talk page and edits and I don't want to teach to do a better job. :) Sarah 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

one-seat Senate majority

Your clarifiation here would be very appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, another politics dispute. 8) Sarah 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
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 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

above the law

No, some statments do not need sources. For instance, it is perfectly ok to say that they are sometime credited with the creation of g-funk. They are, sometime. This is true. All real hip hop fans know this. It does not say they created g-funk, it merely suggests they may have, which is true. As for my calling him "names", get off it. Its not threats, nor aggressive language. I just think his (tasco) actions are wrong and self-centered. I think people like him are what will eventually ruin this website, and I will not sit quietly and hide my anger over his outrageous actions. Article on un-important things like hip hop groups do not need to be "approved" by administratorrs, let the people have it their way and keep tasco from deleting information. By the way, you and he both continually delete info not even related to this so-called issueCosprings 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what "all hip hop fans know". If it is true then it will be easy to find reliable sources. You are mistaken, not everything Wikipedia needs to be sourced but it does need to be source-able. And the burden of citing the evidence falls on the person wanting to add the material. The other guy has asked for sources and if you want the material included, you need to find a reliable source. Please go and discuss this with Tasco. Thankyou, Sarah 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't find that way as correct to refer to other editors and administrator. He's claiming he will not "sit quietly and hide is anger". What's that suppose to mean? I think the user still doesn't understand WP:ATTACK. He called me and Sarah "ruiners of Wikipedia". The user is still ofending me. I lighty request a block.--Tasc0 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI I blocked Cosprings and it has been notified at WP:AN/I#User:Cosprings Gnangarra 00:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate how you dealed with the situation, Gnangarra. And also Sarah.--Tasc0 03:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gnang for stepping in and taking care of that. Much appreciated. Sarah 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD in re: David Pearce (Australian soldier)

Good morning. I wanted to make sure you knew that I was attempting to fully agree with you regarding the courtesy blanking of the David Pearce AFD. My caveat was a strong attempt on my part to WP:AGF, as I feel that some of the editors on the page were being disrespectful to Mr. Pearce, if only incidentally. It was not any sort of criticism on your own conduct, which was (as always) impeccable. Sorry for the confusion, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I understood what you mean. Sarah 02:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets on Peace Pilgrim

Aloha, Sarah. What's the best way of dealing with a disruptive user who persists in creating sock puppet accounts on Peace Pilgrim in order to add trollish/vandalism to the article? Here's a list of the suspected accounts:

1. WereBear Of London (talk · contribs)
2. Love Bird 3333 (talk · contribs)
3. Peace pilgrim goddess (talk · contribs)
4. Psychic power (talk · contribs)
5. Juanita M (talk · contribs)
6. Metawoman (talk · contribs)
7. Python goddess (talk · contribs)

Thanks for any advice/help you can offer. —Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Viri, I just sprotected the article for one week and I'll have a look at blocking those accounts. I know I still owe you an email--I haven't forgotten, I promise. :) Cheers, Sarah 02:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sprotection, great. Thanks ever so much, and don't worry about the e-mail, I know you've been very busy. :) —Viriditas | Talk 02:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank's Sarah

Hey Sarah. I read your message finally. Thank's for the fix on the school's block. It was so annoying when I saw something incorrect wasn't able to fix. Anyways, cheers. P.S: I think I'll have a look at WP: AUS Gollod 03:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah

Hi Sarah, could you please discuss internet cafe article with me before you go and delete material? Its not advertising as the project chidiac was involved in ceased in 2006, as you can read. Its an important piece of historical information and references for the article, brief and to the point. I am curently asking others to contribute more photos etc. to balance the pictures of cafes to a more global point of view (see discussion), but no contributors are making themselves known and most of the cafes nominated in yahoo competiton are now closed or have moved out of the internet cafe business! Hopefully in time we'll find more people will contribute material to it, I have my fingers crossed, but we cant be deleting important historical information and references. Ta. --T3Smile 12:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's advertising and self-promotion. There's been a concerted effort to worm "Anthony Chiriac" into a range of articles. I think you might be operating under some mistaken beliefs about the purpose of Wikipedia. It isn't to promote yourself. I remove spam, self-promotional material and advertising wherever I find it, and no, I won't get your permission before doing so. Sarah 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, but I am not Anthony Chidiac. And you are changing my edits. Please Assume Good Faith before you make a hurtful allegation without any basis of truth. Ta T--T3Smile 07:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care either way if you are Anthony Chidiac or not. The person you are writing about is not notable and therefore the material is not suitable for Wikipedia. I recommend you put the article on a blog if you are intent on publishing it. Sarah 08:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm not commenting on the person, but the concept in internet cafe and citing it with credible sources. Please provide reason as to why you keep reverting it without discussion. That is the main issue, you need to get off the subject of chidiac and read the references. thankyou. T--T3Smile 08:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting that material because the article is about internet cafes and slapping that paragraph and the various images into the middle of it looks promotional. Are we going to do that for every internet cafe in the world? Every cafe which is a finalist in a competition? What do you think the article will look like? Sarah 09:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, please stop making false accusations of me, and reverting my edits. The edits made have citations and credible media behind it. Could you please explain "promotional" when the article information is used as a historical resource and the cafe itself doesnt exist anymore? Its discussing the evolution of the internet cafe, not a person, and its written like the article it cites (from the Age), a credible source as per guidelines. Instead of continuing this revert war please put the article back to the state I left it in and put your thoughts on the discussion page, like everyone else does. Being an admin does not make you privy to making such edits without discussion, especially when the content in question is relevant, properly referenced and cited. The rest of the garb in the article isn't, but I am in the process of cleaning it up and over time the article will progress (if the internet cafe in its current form is still around). The competition itself comes up once every ten years and is run by a credible company called "yahoo". I tried getting more info about other cafes that were yahoo finalists worldwide but no credible information with citable references exist. Nobody "won" the competition. There was a finalist in each country that entered. I was not going to start up an article about "o3 convergence cafe" or "opulent" as I believe general consensus if I did such would be to merge article into internet cafe. I'm saving time. Please revert article back to how it was with the addition or cite, or, alternatively, rewrite what you think is promotional to concur with the article. Ta T.--T3Smile 09:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not going to revert it back. I do not believe that material or the images belong in that article and I won't help you compromise Wikipedia. Sarah 10:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• - Blocked as sockpuppet. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/c 15:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jreferee. I don't think any of us were surprised about that. Cheers, Sarah 16:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 00:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reminder, Nat.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them.

Sarah 16:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rangeblock you did

User_talk:64.229.29.190 is asking for an unblock, which was under this range block. Could you look into it? Kwsn (Ni!) 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know, Kwsn. Very much appreciated. :) Cheers, Sarah 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving Message

Thanks so much for moving my message on AnnieTigerChucky's archive talk page to her right page. I Appreciate it! Josborne2382 06:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problems at all. Cheers, Sarah 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)