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)