Jump to content

User talk:Sarah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kaystar (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 3 September 2007 (→Please Advise Me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Sarah/Archive14. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


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)[reply]

Joanna Murray-Smith

Hi Sarah just new to editing. I looked up "Joanna Murray-Smith", one of Australia's foremost contemporary playwrights and found no entry. I decided to try and write one and noticed a previous article on her had been deleted. I can't ascertain why it was deleted and rather than re-invent the wheel I wondered if it could be revived and edited to fix the problem (lack of citation possibly?). Sorry for being a newbie, best regards grant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freman53 (talk • contribs) 05:50, August 26, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

No Back Cover

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks.Kaystar 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sarah&oldid=155438098"