User talk:SarekOfVulcan

Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Re: deletion criteria

Genuinely, this is not a deletion criteria anymore.

When was the last time an article was deleted for being a dicdef?

If enough people agree that a criteria never holds, then it doesn't hold anymore.- Wolfkeeper 23:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank the deity of your choice that it's still a valid criteria - that's why Wiktionary exists. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED

If I'd known there was an RfD (I just found out about it now), I'd have put in my comments over there; I'm not sure why people have their knickers in a knot over it. Everyone knows that Plaxico Burress shot himself in a fantastically stupid manner, why the rush to protect "his privacy"? Am I the only one finding BLP very toxic? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, WP:PLAXICO should still exist - yeah, it's a neologism, but we all know it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow edit war on a 1rr page with ongoing discussion

Hi, could you please have a look at the discussion here. There are constantly edits being made to the article against the consensus being expressed in the discussion. un☯mi 10:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

I reverted your edit as i was only reverting another editor who removed the content undiscussed, content that has been there for a while now and has been stable. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact i reverted myself, gonna discuss it before it turns into a war. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The content should not have been removed without discussion. Especially as we are being told officially can not be added without discussion and more debate on the new proposed wording is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on it in the talk page and stated the problem with leaving it out in whatever form the deleted material takes. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regex link

Removing the entire bit in the opening of the regex page was the right thing to do. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Datejust

Thanks...it's one of those articles I "kind of forgot about". It is a significant design, though. Just needs a little work.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Phoebus de Lusignan

Hi Sarek. Just FYI, I have extended this offer to Phoebus. I assume that's in "the spirit" of the short block you gave him. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Very much so, thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Waste of AGF! Turned out he was a sock of User:G.-M. Cupertino (kudos to DrKiernan for the identification) so I've blocked him indef. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:HisKingdomCome

HisKingdomCome (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of Faw Q. (talk · contribs). You know what needs to be done, I trust. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi-fives!

Nice tag-team improvement on the Salamat Sadykova article there. That was fun. :3 Silverseren^C 16:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. *grin* I still think it looks like a copyvio, though -- I hope someone doesn't track down the original so we have to trash the whole thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh, the amount we would have to trash is negligible, really, we have enough sources to cover the important stuff as it is. And, with any luck, whatever it was copied from might be a reliable source and we would just need to rework things so it's not a copyvio issue, while using the source as a reference. Silverseren^C 16:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey

HI Sarek! LTNS! Nice to know you still have my back even when you are jumping on it ;-) Always a pleasure doing business with you! Your Joy, aka DocOfSoc (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you get a chance

Hi Sarek, sorry to bother you but if you get a chance will you review my behaviour here. I've warned LevenBoy twice and all the WP:BISE people generally a for disrupting this thread. I'm ready to go ahead and prevent further disruption forcibly if necessary but since LevenBoy made some sort of accusation I wanted another sysop to give it the once over. Since you have some knowledge of the pertinent case I thought I'd ask you (sorry for the poison chalice)--Cailil ^talk 19:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Pell Grant For-Profit fraud controversy

There is no "undue weight" for widespread fraud that involves misuse and abuse of grant money, on a page that is dedicated to just that: The Pell Grant program. The page issues were concerning the old section, which I cleaned up, removed biased text, added in-line citations and references to, in addition to uploading images concerning the For-Profit controversy, including a table from the August 4, 2010 GAO report. If some text needs to be removed, this is fine and understandable, but outright deleting a section without discussion is WP:EW and is unproductive. Any and all constructive criticism is welcomed, other than deletion without warning, especially that of sourced text, involving fraudulent behaviour concerning grant money in the Wikipedia Pell Grant or For-Profit School page. Thank you. Projectopat (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Mousetrap redundancy

Regarding you cutting a section as "redundant and inaccurate", I should mention that I copyedited it from a rather cryptic edit about Trotter being "both of two brothers", so that may just be my fault for misunderstanding the gist and the cited source. (I haven't seen the play.) --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I saw that, and I appreciate the attempt. It's just outright inaccurate to say that in the play, Trotter claimed to be the dead brother. (I was just in a local production of the play, so I _do_ know how the script goes. :-) ) I haven't heard the radio play to compare. And the material about the three little mice duplicated the above paragraph. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

• News and notes: Most linked websites on Wikipedia, New York Wiki-Conference, and more

• In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities

• Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000

• Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?

• Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Loosmark

Hello SarekOfVulcan. Loosmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Darwinek (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that it's on hold there, so I'll leave my comment here. The issue is not his interaction with Sandstein, as that's not why the topic ban was imposed. Hence, promising not to interact with Sandstein isn't a terribly compelling reason to unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but he was blocked for his personal attack. I think the block is too long considering his eventual apology. Couldn't it be shortened to, say, 24 hours? - Darwinek (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Real bad idea. Check the recent history of his bans and blocks. Also check out the message on his talkpage for the reviewing admin that he blanked as trolling.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep away from my talk page

I don't need your biased bullying displayed on my talk page.Misessus (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of libel

Curious about this. What makes accusation of libel stand out from any other wiki-accusations of something inappropriate in real life? Copyright violation, identity theft, defamation (distinct from libel) etc.? Libel is perhaps the broadest possible "offence" here, anything remotely negative about a user can be construed as libel.

Cheers, East of Borschov 07:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Sylver counterfeiting/jail time

I think your work on the Sylver page was helpful, but I would ask you to take another look at reverting Sylver's counterfeiting history. The article source is the New York Times, referencing reporting from Theroux's book, published by Macmillan. That's a pretty solid source. Thanks. --Abbruscato (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a newspaper report of his conviction, that would be a solid-enough source to use -- the Times/Theroux report is a little too indirect for my tastes, when it comes to a WP:BLP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

CC probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit email controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. This is just a friendly notice, the log does not show that you have been advised of the CC probation, although I am fairly sure that you are aware of the matter as an admin. Your reversion was not accompanied by any discussion on the talk page of the article, where consensus appears to be in favor of the retention of the material that you removed. I politely would ask that you comment there on the basis for your reversion against apparent consensus, and whether this was an action as an editor or as an admin. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)