User talk:Sarah

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Sarah Ewart/Archive11. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

AfD for IndianaHighSchoolGameday

Sarah, thank you for the support. South Knox is involved in our game of the week this week. It warmed our heart to know that there was someone out there that listened to the little guy. Indianahighschoolgameday 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Project Management Terms

Dear Sarah,

Please can you reinstate the definitions of project management terms which i posted on Friday afternoon. I have direct permission from the Association for Project Management to contribute these to Wikipedia as an employee of the association. The document from which the text is taken is also public domain and available for anyone to download from the APM website.

With regards the issue about Wiktionary can you explain to me what this is? And what is meant by 'Wikipedia Article Style' I've only been using this system for a short time and already wonder if it is a worthwhile exercise.

Cheers

Owain

Wong Fu Productions deletion and protection from re-creation

Wong Fu Productions has definitely become popular and well-known to the point that they deserve a page. It won't be some random page made by a handful of people that like WFP - they have enough fans all over the country. I've seen their movie, and it's definitely good enough to be submitted to film festivals. They're touring all around the country, screening their movie at places like M.I.T. and Google.

I see no reason why this page should be protected from re-creation. I think many fans would appreciate having the page back. (2/3/2007)

Deletion of Project Management Terms

Thanks Sarah,

Can you tell me what sort of permission i would need to give to you? I can confirm it myself as an employee, or should it come from my boss (Marketing Manager), or his boss (Cheif Executive)? What format should this be in?

Cheers

Owain

Joker Account.

According to Geroge Carlin (user), he on his user page said that he is not George Carlin. It seems this account is just a joker account. I'll let you read what he wrote. Acalamari 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it makes nice change when an imposter admits what they're doing. Acalamari 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Per my RfA

I personally find your oppose vote rude and un-necessarly sarcastic. Not because it was an oppose vote, but because of your statement. You've stated that just because I have less than 2000 edits I should have been SNOW'ed. Second, why should I be making 50 or more edits to an article here, if I can do it on a test wiki and get it done in 1 shot? Why should I not strive for a featured article, rather than a mediocre or average one? I do not do things, just to build my edit count, or make non-sense edits. I do not do things to just please certain people. I do thank you for your taking the time to step into the twilight zone, and comment, but it was worded quite inappropriately in my opinion. Thank you, Somitho 12:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Sarah, it was an IRC nomination, and the supporters were personal friends mostly. It's a shame that people think they can play games with Wikipedia like that. Moreso that it was people I respected. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank you for expressing the bafflement I felt at Somitho's RfA much better than I could myself. The wording was just perfect: Twilight Zone is what it was. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Twilight zone? Feh.

I'll give you "twilight zone".

I'll tell you about my bizarre dream I had last night.

It involved watching a movie, going to a cat pound (which I didn't even know existed), Googling "flameviper", going to Germany, communism, flying penguins, driving a car (cool), more communism, being blocked from Wikipedia, going to an auditorium, and then going to my school.

No further explanation needed. It would creep you out anyway.

And also, did you block me in your dream? Because it was either you or Shanel. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Dog

Hi, Sarah. I was just looking at your page, and wondering if I can add your dog picture to the Golden Retrievers page. Thanks. Real96 03:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I won't add. Can you please semi-protect this talk page because the user keeps deleting the warnings (User talk:68.229.7.234. In addition, I am not trying to barge into the conversation, but I noticed on Riana's two RfA's below, Kyoko and Spawn man voted on the wrong RfA. Should their votes be moved to the current RfA? Real96 13:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Riana's RfA

Hi Sarah, just read your message to Riana; do you really think overriding a declined RfA is a bad thing? I did it as a) People may think she's had failed RfA's in the past if it said Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Riana dzasta 3 or even 4 as there has been Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Riana dzasta 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Riana dzasta2 (all three by User:Spawn Man), those two immediately after she declined the first one (which I dont think is really fair), and, b) because I'm certain she's ready[1]. As you are the reigning nomination queen I'd certainly appreciate your input here :) Glen 08:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He didn't start them? How bizarre! Yes, I really don't see point in them, especially as they are duplicates. Funny, your thinking that people hold weird things against others in RfAs was exactly the reason why I didn't make it #3 or #4! ;) I've added a note re the prior declined nominationto the nom under General comments for clarification - however if anyone takes issue with this I will move the entire thing (will probably have to delete the old, move the page, then restore the old into its former position to keep it all intact). But hopefully the note is enough to keep it all kosher. Thanks for your reply :) Glen 08:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind if you do, Sarah :) riana_dzasta 10:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

200! No pressure at all, I'm sure. Let me just pull a featured article out of thin air first... :p riana_dzasta 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bishzilla Rfa

Sorry My apologies. --Parker007 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

an RfA proposal I'm thinking about

(copied from Peter's page) Hi there, I'm sorry if I'm intruding, but Peter's page is on my watchlist and I would like both of your opinions on this matter. I've been thinking of proposing a change to the RfA page text because over the past year, I've observed quite a few unsuccessful RfAs by well-meaning people who don't seem to realise what they are getting into. It makes me feel sorry for these editors who may be wonderful people but who stand little chance of succeeding in an RfA at the current time due to their inexperience.

The RfA process is harsh, and I think unavoidably so, because candidates have to undergo such scrutiny and face criticism by people they've never met. Perhaps with some changes to the RfA explanatory text, lesser-experienced Wikipedians will be better able to understand the process and judge whether or not to proceed, and hopefully spare themselves from undue stress. Again, I'd welcome both your comments.--Kyoko 18:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, this is a proposal I came up with for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and I thought I would run this by you before posting it to the talk page:

"Because the position of administrator is not a right but rather a privilege granted by the community to users it trusts, candidates for administrator should be advised that their record of contributions will undergo intense scrutiny. Such candidates should be prepared to receive criticism. Likewise, all participants in the requests for adminship process should adhere to WP:CIVIL regardless of their choice to support, oppose, or remain neutral."

I still think the text could use some modification, especially in making clear the need for experience, but at the same time, I don't want to turn this into "gaming the system". --Kyoko 07:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just put up the text at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I think the subject title was "proposed text for RfA page". I remember your RfA, and I think I even supported you during it. I can understand why it would be a stressful process, which is partially why I don't want to become an administrator in the future. Thanks for your feedback. --Kyoko 08:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm Dreamin'

You really have taken an interest in hounding me and destroying any articles I create. I mean, why do you follow my EVERY move? Are you going to do this forever? I need to know if I have an administrator who hates me following me around all the time. Fair enough that you nominated the article for deletion, but doing it before I had time to research and see if there was any more information is plain unfair. You nominated it mere hours after it was established, in the hopes of destroying the article before I had a chance to put new information on it. You really are a bully. You are a bully plain and simple, because all you and Kiran90 do is bully me around. I'm not on the BGS article for God's sake, and you have AfD'd the article before I even had a chance to research the song more (I do need to go to sleep you know, and my whole life doesn't revolve around wikipedia). You are so mean. I know you hate me, and are always threatening to block me. And you AfD my article before I can research the song further. I just know that you are going to abuse your administratorial powers to bring me down, and the thought sickens me. You sicken me, hounding me like I'm a pest, when YOU are the pest. I am sick of your negative, anti-Paaerduag edits, and AfDs mere hours after I add the article, to purposely not give me enough time to flesh them out. That is just mean mean mean. You are SO MEAN. I suppose this is your and Kiran90's master plan: bring me down. --Paaerduag 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I am deeply insulted and hurt because of the horrible accusations you put to me. I am NOT making personal attacks, I am defending my integrity. I am not a fool. I am not evil. I am not any of those things. I don't want you to hound me, and threaten me, and make me feel worthless, which is what is happening right now. You have harassed me with threats of blocking and other horrors, which continue to make wound upon wound. I have not recovered from some of the accusations, and now you simply put a tag without speaking to me tête à tête. I would appreciate if you could at least ask me what you want without resorting to the tag scare tactic. I know that you are seriously considering blocking me, and I find that idea delves into and reopens wounds long covered. If you want to talk, don't do it in tags. Talk to me like a human (I am one) and I will talk to you like one as well. --Paaerduag 11:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

see, in that comment about not making personal attacks, you made about 5 of them. 58.162.106.140 12:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) - ha, forgot to sign in again Kiran90 12:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

oh, and this whine-fest is justification for reverting the grammar page... why? 58.162.106.140 12:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)- ha, forgot to sign in again Kiran90 12:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiran90

once again your teammate Kiran90 has decided to join forces. He is saying that my 'guilt trip' tactic on you is not working, and has commented twice after my post to you. What am I supposed to think? YOU are not talking to me, you are letting Kiran90 do the talking, and that is plain rude. WHY can't YOU just have a normal conversation, instead of going on a wild reversion spree of every single article I edit or create? --Paaerduag 01:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would voice your opinions about why I am a bad editor on my talk page WITHOUT Kiran90. I would also like the same opportunity to say why I think I have been treated unfairly, without the threats of blocking which in my opinion are unfounded. I am not a vandal, and I do not launch personal attacks, and I have never launched a personal attack against you unless provocked, and even in a case such as that you have got what you gave, in my opinion. I want to converse in a civilized manner, no threats, no personal attacks, NO Kiran90 to butt in. This fight is becoming dangerous for me, because in your frustration I know that you have the power to easily block my account and delete my pages. That is why I want to talk, before you do anything rash, without Kiran90. If that is not possible, I will consider this whole enterprise to be extremely unfair, only further contributing to the invincible nature of administrators, which HIStory clearly proves. I don't want to spill any blood on the dance floor, but this thriller of a fight is just off the wall. --Paaerduag 01:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry i got you involved in all of this, sarah... i didnt think he would fly off the handle like this. :( Kiran90 03:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

St Paul's School, Bald Hills

Just thought I'd draw your attention to this "Recent controversies" section which I've deleted! Tyrenius 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Tyrenius 07:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha

That cracked me up. Probably the most appropriate response all day... riana_dzasta 07:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too! ;) Glen 07:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I know, I kinda transcluded and went 'oh, crap!' which is my usual reaction when I'm trying to do something proactive. Anyway, thanks for the thought. I'm off to see him in a bit, so... let's see. Take care! riana_dzasta 07:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'll get that far, I'm definitely not as deserving of it as you are! But WP:100 - maybe it's just something about the class of 9th Feb, they all seem to be going really well. riana_dzasta 13:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Paaerduag

Ha, yeh, i know, i wasnt planning on saying anything, but thanks for sticking to this. you did the school a great justice. Kiran90 13:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

check out your barnstar page. you earned it.... big timeKiran90 13:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

haha, well you really did deserve it. you blocked me with good reason, and i accept that. lets just hope paaerduag does too. Kiran90 13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

first of al, am i allowed to voice my opinion on paaerduag's blocking. second, may i voice my opinion? 58.162.106.140 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC) - Kiran90 09:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DavidLeslie

Hi. FYI, DavidLeslie (talk · contribs) is confirmed to be a sockpuppet of General Tojo (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidLeslie), and has been blocked indefinitely. Thanks for your work -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

sexual abuse

Honestly Sarah, how much longer will you remain stubborn and stop all my edits? I am only trying to add to the article, and I believe that the old version is better. The consensus was about the POSITIONING of the article, not the new vs. old version. This is really mean. I get the feeling you are bullying me, because you are the first to revert all my edits. Did you even READ the talk page? Sarah, why are you being so nasty? What did I do this time? You don't even comment on the talk page, you just click on that 'undo' button. PLEASE give me a chance. I'm reverting, cause that wasn't very nice. --Paaerduag 07:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to cool down, but every edit I do is reverted by you. And you always say I'm assuming bad faith, and blaming everyone left right and center. I am not, but you seem to have a thing about reverting my edits. I don't want to fight. It's over. I do not want to fight with you because I am tired of this incessant bickering. C'est fini. Now, I will respect your edits and voice my opinions, but I reserve the right to make justified edits without them being reverted instantly. That is my wikipedia-guarded right as an editor, and I will ensure that that right is upheld. That is all I have to say. --Paaerduag 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I justified my reversion, so isn't the common practice for people to prove me wrong with their reasoning? since when was wikipedia stone-solid. you yourself said that even if something has already been 'treaded on', that's no reason for it to be up for discussion again. I 100% agree with that statement you made, and am upholding the principles of that statement. --Paaerduag 08:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, I may not have rights per se, but I do have the right not to have bad faith constantly assumed. Sarah, all you ever say to me is how I assume bad faith. I am not breaking any rules. So why are you penalizing me for something I haven't done. Why are you dragging and creating this argument. I want to leave it alone, and I ask you to do the same. --Paaerduag 08:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

user pages

hey, i was just curious. are users allowed to edit their talk pages at will, or can they not delete information, merely archive it. Kiran90 08:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

that's enough

You have bullied me for the last time. I will seek help in any way I can. You bully and torture me on wikipedia, and then you say that it is ME who is assuming bad faith. How dare you. You are an administrator yes, but I will not be pushed around by you. I will get help, no matter what you say. And DON'T YOU DARE HARASS ME ALL THE TIME. Do what you want on the BGS page, but if you follow me around, I WILL NOT LET YOU GET AWAY WITH IT. I hope you understand. I am officially THROUGH with talking to you. Just get a life away from seeking pleasure at torturing non-administrators. I am sick of you. You are a bully. You don't scare me. --Paaerduag 10:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

chill-out sarah, there's nothing he can do to incriminate you. you've done nothing wrong. Kiran90 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete.

If I tag this page for speedy deletion, will it be the right thing to do? It looks like a promotion-page to me. Acalamari 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Acalamari 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a big help! I'll know exactly what to do next time! Thanks. Acalamari 20:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, 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. Ralbot 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note of apology

I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Wikipedia afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

You are most welcome. Hubby, two dogs and two cats are doing fine. I am swamped with work, so I guess that is a good thing. I do know that writing a couple of briefs, and brushing dogs' teeth and tweezing dogs' ear hair are enough for one night. G'Day!  ;-) Jance 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hi there Sarah, could you please look into this? I'm not pleased about getting attacked over good-faith contributions. – Chacor 10:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nick has handled it. – Chacor 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening at Talk:Andrew Bolt

Thanks for your comments there. You'll see that I've written a long response to various issues. I did several rewrites trying to avoid "accusations and comments about each other" ... I hope I succeeded.

In any event, the connection between Andrew Bolt and Alexander Downer on this issue turns out to be completely bogus: Downer made his comments two days before Bolt's column appeared. Woops!

Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Me and Wikipedia

Sarah, thanks for your comment. I'd like to be here too, but I have had enough of being plagued by vandals and crazies (like your friend Paaerduag), 90% of whom are excluded from CZ by the "real name" rule. I have several big projects in mind, like a new Holocaust article and new Lenin and Stalin articles, but I won't post them at WP because they would be picked to bits by cranks and communists. At CZ I can post them in the reasonable expectation that they will be edited only by people who know what they are talking about and whose real-life reputations can be scrutinised. Furthermore, they will eventually be declared "approved" and put before the public as FINISHED articles, which not one of WP's 1.5 million articles can claim. As I say, I am happy to make my CZ contributions available to WP, but not actually to post them here. I could however post them in my namespace here, so they would be signed by me, and then others could decide what to do with them. Adam 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)