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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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.

References

SarekOfVulcan,

Please revert all of the External Links edits that you had made to my articles using Connecticut Explorer's Guide as References. These links are references citing copyrighted material and you do not have my permission to remove these sources as references. This is in violation of copyright law and against the policies of wikipedia. Czimborbryan 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

crossposted from user talk page

Actually, I do have your permission to make whatever changes in the Wikipedia articles you edited I see fit. If you scroll down while you have an edit window open, you see the following text:

• By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.
• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Also, please, review WP:NLT at your earliest convenience. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though the GNU gives permission to edit the content mercilessly, it does not give permission to remove cited sources under References. This is a copyright matter and protected by law. Otherwise, it would be assumed that the information posted is original to the author. Czimborbryan 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT Legal complaints A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". I have requested repeatedly that you revert the external links edit back to the appropriate References label. Yes, this is protected under copyright and no this is not a threat. It is also a Wikipedia policy to cite all sources appropriately. You have denied my right to have my copyrighted material cited as a source. Czimborbryan 13:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Accurate and inaccurate bbile translations

Hi Sarek. You say it's POV to speak of accurate/inaccurate bible translations. Not at all. The King James, for example, is based on the translations available in the 17th century, and therefore inevitably inaccurate (it has poetry, but not the access to modern scholarship that would produce what today would be called an accurate translation). The bulk of American bible translations deliberately give translations that will sell to fundamentalists - this becomes an issue when they get to OT passages that the fundamentalists regard as prophetic of the Messiah. So, no, accuracy is objective, not POV. PiCo 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed your note that my links don't work. You're right! Something strange seems to have happened to the Uni of Virginia site.PiCo 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Munisport

Hi, Sarek. Thanks for your help with the articles. I am having a hard time finding online sources to back up some of my entries on Biscayne Landing and Munisport, a lot of it was going off of memory. Also, can't find anyone who has hard-copies of some of my stronger points. I am going to tone down the articles for now and move on to other subjects. Feel free to modify/revert/whatever my toned down versions. --RandomStuff 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. As long as what's left is properly cited, I'm happy -- I just got really ticked off by Marketingsupport deleting stuff saying it was uncited when clicking through to the cite showed the exact line that you quoted.--SarekOfVulcan 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AtwaterDulcimer.jpg

I have tagged Image:AtwaterDulcimer.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hyperlinking in Articles

Hello Sarek,

You recently commented that it is Wiki-policy to highlight only the first occurrence of a term in an article. Sometimes users have no need for an entire article, but only a particular section. Forcing the user to navigate his way to the top of an article in search of a term's hyperlinked instance can be equally as distracting as I agree over-hyperlinking -- or, if you will, hyper-hyperlinking :-) -- to be. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that perhaps the first occurrence of a term in each of an article's sections be hyperlinked. What do you think?

Thanks for your time,

An Anonymous WikiWanderer

Anon -- that's actually part of the policy I may have been misapplying.

However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.

--SarekOfVulcan 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

rena silverman

how do i maintain this article. please give me specific details. i'd be happy to add any references. i have so many. thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rena Silverman (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance request

Sarek, on editor assistance, you said you'd be willing to be an extra pair of eyes on article disputes. If you have time to take a look at such a dispute, please leave a note on my talk page (which already has a note indicating the problem article, a bio of a deceased U.S. religious figure which keeps being censored by one person over and over, long before I contributed earlier today). I've never been in this situation and am bewildered about how to stop a dedicated partisan from deleting such neutral bio info as numbers of children and marriages. Any help you have time for would be appreciated. -- Lisasmall 06:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for spending time on this. I hope it won't become a burden. -- Lisasmall 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/SarekOfVulcan

I reviewed you. Shalom ^Hello 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Soxman

Well, if it's not him, it's clearly a SPA. Assuming it is him, one thing I am a bit puzzled by, though, is why he would want to push his commentary on the shock troops controversy at this stage (which is seemingly more of a non-controversy as more details are revealed), which makes me think it might just be a devoted fan. Meh, I dunno. · jersyko talk 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

CHIP

LOL... MSJ and I had quite a time convincing a brother from one particular state Jurisdiction that this should be discussed in a general article as opposed to one article on HIS GL's program.

By the way... could you respond to the quick poll on UK vs US English. It may help us choose one over the other. Blueboar 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy With Lisasmall

Hi Sarek,

You seem very neutral in your edits and perspective with the Armstrong article. What is your take on my controversy and deliberations with Lisasmall on the discussion page, if you've read the postings? Though I acknowledge that I make some strong aruments to persuase third parties, and vigorously try to thwart certain kinds of edits (ones I objectively see as POV ax-to-grind editing--making the article look bigoted toward a religion), she is currently contacting Wikipedia administrators and describing my efforts with the article in the most negative light imaginable, even being dishonest about it. Any advice?

208.253.158.36 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jeb, I don't know if I have any good advice for you. It doesn't seem, from checking her contribution history, that she's actively doing anything involving your edits at the moment. About all I can advise is keep cool: when you and I started talking, instead of just reverting each other, we got a lot more productive.

Also, you might want to keep your paragraphs short: it's much easier to keep track of what's going on when you don't have to wade through lots of text looking for the ideas the author is trying to get across. :-)

And please, please go up to "My Preferences", "Editing", and check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". I have that one turned on myself! Several editors have told you that you need to use edit summaries with your changes, and you haven't been listening. Also, I'd strongly suggest checking the "Show preview on first edit" book, but I won't beg for it like the blank edit summary one.--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't realized others had asked me to do that. I'll do that ASAP. I actually don't edit much in terms of volume of text (I've been adding citations though).

I want to keep my postings short, but explaining the context and bringing in facts that provide that context ends up involving a lot of text; I feel like the default view toward the articles subject is one of suspicion with 80-90% of those who take up an interest, and the burden of proof sort of rests with the lone dissenter. Does that make sense? Hopefully, the administrators will see that and take the time to read carefully--and not think I was trying to dominate in any way except in terms of proving in detail the unworthiness of a certain approach to the article.

Thanks again. Any further thoughts on down the line, let me know. I'll check back on your page in this slot.

208.253.158.36 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jeb, reading back, I don't see that anyone has obviously mentioned it besides me and Lisa: two editors != several. My apologies for misstating the case.--SarekOfVulcan 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Jebbrady 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Armstrong article nominated for deletion

Sarek,

Have you seen the latest development with the Armstrong page? I was directed to add citations and the editor driving the controversy said they would hang back until then, ans there was talk og puttingin a section on "controversy" which I had proposed. I spent hours putting the citations in, now she has put the article up for deletion, without any discussion. Someone with knowledge of the subject and some neutrality needs to intervene.

208.253.158.36 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Fixed. Actually, I wouldn't assume that this was Lisasmall: she's an established editor, so I think that she'd do it under her own username, instead of creating a throwaway one like Pos777, who did the nomination here.--SarekOfVulcan 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, uh yeah. I knew that (yeah right).

208.253.158.36 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Sarek, as you've pointed out, it wasn't me. I didn't know the article was up for deletion, and I disagree with deleting it. Armstrong was a newsworthy figure in 20th Century religion in the U.S., and Wikipedia needs a solid, neutral piece on him. I have, in fact, hung back from the article as I said I would; I haven't even looked at it and I won't be looking at it until this weekend at the very earliest. The initial hang-back was a courtesy to let Jebbrady do an extensive rewrite, as he had requested. If the rewrite produces a comprehensive NPOV article, I'll have no further interest at all.

Also, Sarek, since you have more luck modifying Jebbrady's behavior than I do, in addition to the edit summary request, can you repeat my request that he stop using multiple accounts? Even the "yeah right" comment immediately above is from an IP account, not his Jebbrady account (the name is only typed in, not generated). This creates a confusing edit / contribution history and will make life much harder on the mediators / arbitrators if they are brought in. He's had at least one formal[1] and one informal[2] WP:SOCK interventions, with at least two sockpuppets identified[3][4] and still doesn't cooperate with this basic Wiki rule; the note immediately above here on your talk page is from a third distinct IP.

Using multiple IP's also keeps people from easily accessing his history of reproofs at User_talk:Jebbrady. Formal actions taken against him (mostly WP:SOCK) are scattered all over, and dilute his record of misconduct. BTW, the User_talk:Jebbrady page now features a remarkable new barnstar, from a remarkable new user, see [5]. -- Lisasmall 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: I can't find the AFD, even going back three days. Was a formal AFD actually filed? -- Lisasmall 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It used the {{prod}} template, so as soon as I removed it, it was no longer up for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan 03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with templates and would never have figured this out. Thank you, and thanks for your endurance. -- Lisasmall 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The block

You're welcome. :) That user was both a vandalism-only account and an account created to attack you. Acalamari 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I gathered that. :-) Did you notice he started out at StatenIslandsLame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?--SarekOfVulcan 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no; I didn't see those edits to that page. Someone else reverted his recent edit there. Assuming the vandal used the same IPs for both the account I blocked, and that one, he'll be unable to edit for some time, as I enabled the autoblock. Acalamari 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked the other account you mentioned; vandalism-only. Acalamari 20:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Wonder if he'll be persistent enough to borrow someone else's computer...--SarekOfVulcan 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Great couple of weeks, rough 48 hours

Sarek,

My friend, you have been quite possibly the best third party I've seen yet in this article--one which rouses lots of passion. I'm going to proceed under the assumption that your actions and comments towards me--which have been distressing--of the last couple days have been due to extenuating circumstances. I had never disrespected you in any way, but your tone changed dramatically toward me even after I apologized for the clumsy decision to revert (based on false information, as I explained--I'm not necessarily the brightest bulb in the bunch and never claimed to be). You seem to have, at least for the time being, developed a sort of kinship with a user who has been very difficult for me and apparently others to deal with, and who snipes at me incessantly, and I'm struggling to get them to move forward constructively (I have not read today's postings so that may be changing). But with you, I've seen a very reasonable, likable, and intelligent spirit in the recent past, and I guess I just will go ahead and expect that to continue as if this never happened. I hope that you can disagree with me as in the past (and I have yielded to your ideas at times), yet can at least acknowledge and respect that I am sincere, though at times very bold in criticism of a certain editorial approach that I decry. I am sincere in my distaste for it, and I hope you can respect the stand I take, whether or not you agree with that stand. I hope you can see that I have to deal with personalities, but that, for me, is not about personalities. I have a passion for the subject of religion and Armstrong, and how the former and the latter are portrayed in the media, and have high expectations of Wikipeida--much much higher than the mainstream media--as you do I'm sure--and I hope you can respect that too.

Well, have a good weekend. Peace. Jebbrady 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

What's this?

"I was brought in by User:Lisasmall as an extra pair of eyes on the article, per my listing on WP:ASSIST. When I got here, I found that referenced material was being deleted as superfluous by User:Jebbrady and his various (2?) non-logged-in IPs. He feels that WP has an anti-religious bias, and is battling to keep out changes he regards as problematic, such as Armstrong's marriage (after his wife's death) to a divorcee with a living ex-husband, despite having taught for decades that remarriage in this case was unacceptable.[19] I would like to see a wider selection of references, and a more balanced presentation of the subject."--SarekOfVulcan 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring too in most of the accusations you make here, and the others are obviously out of context. Please remove this passage form the posting, and we can then proceed according to the olive branch I extended above, written before I saw what you wrote.

69.115.162.235 03:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Formatting

I disagree, but feel free to change it back. Perspicacite 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now, but thanks for the permission. If I find myself spending much time on the article in the future, I may revisit this.--SarekOfVulcan 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor Case

Hi SOV,

I am aware of the arbitration case. I guess Jebbrady has to make a statement before it will go anywhere...

Cadwallader 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Most probably: I don't know what happens if he elects not to. I didn't notify you on your User Talk page because you hadn't run up against him like the rest of us had. If you have any comments, please feel free to chime in there anyhow.--SarekOfVulcan 19:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sarek. I added a comment to the case without adding myself as a party, as has RelHistBuff. I kept it short. You say "1996" in your initial presentation; maybe you meant 2006? Would a strikeout correction work best there? I've placed the "stuck" template on the WQA, which effectively closes that. Jebbrady did not comment there, and he didn't comment on either of the sock cases nor, so far, on the RFARB. I assume that eventually, the ARBcom will decide whether to take the case regardless of whether he's commented on the request or not. Thank you again for getting us off the dime and for all the heavy lifting. -- Lisasmall | Talk 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oy. Thanks for the heads-up on the date: fixed.--SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC/U

It's been suggested by an Arbitrator that it be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct first. Let me know if/when that happens. 24.6.65.83 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarek, the RFC/U has two signatures on it now besides yours, RelHistBuff's and mine, both prior to the deadline. I also added this list of "attempts and failures" in the evidence section as a subsect with my name. It wasn't clear to me where it should go, but that seemed most likely. I put in links, I put in diffs, and I tried hard to guess where the line is between trying the reveiwers' patience by giving them too much and not giving them enough. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 20:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added my evidence to the RFC/U. I used a lot of diffs and if you click on each of them, I think the story unfolds pretty well. All his long responses speak for themselves. And I never got angry with him. I do hope something good will come out of this and this would restore some of my faith in the Wiki project. --RelHistBuff 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we ask people to endorse the summary? --RelHistBuff 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it, but be aware of WP:CANVASS.--SarekOfVulcan 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarek, I'm reading over the evidence and I noticed two things.

• One, I'd be happy to take care of this but only with your permission. You used : indents for some of Jeb's lengthy passages, but there's a few other places in your presentation of his responses where they would help make things clearer and easier to read.
• Two, oddly, the format doesn't seem to provide a place for the sig of the person who actually filed the RFC/U, only the endorsers. Maybe they were expecting your sig at the bottom of your evidentiary presentation? Or there's some other place they can see it? At the moment, it seems confusing to me because the evidence provided by RHB & I has sigs, but your initial narrative is out there and I don't see how a reader can tell who wrote it. Maybe a parenthetical at the end, something like (For clarity, please note "I" above refers to me, SarekOfVulcan; I prepared this narrative the day I filed the RFC/U.) with your tilde sig -- or is that somehow redundant? I didn't notice a place where the RFC/U page identifies the original complainant, but maybe I'm having a dimwit day and looked right past it.

Hoping for a swift and conclusive resolution to the RFC/U, -- LisaSmall ^T/C 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lisa, I went through and broke out a few of the lengthier quotes into indents, and italicized the rest of the comments. How's that?--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's better. And I see your authorship line, too, that's great. I probably would break that very large paragraph at the beginning at "RelHistBuff responded that..." just so it's not such a big unrelieved block, but that's up to you. Thanks! -- LisaSmall ^T/C 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am keeping an eye on the RFC/U on Jeb; I haven't added to it because I'd rather not create the impression that there is a cabal out to get him. Pairadox 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, Pairadox: the appearance can be almost as bad as the real thing. If you disagree anywhere with something I've misstated, though, please let me know.--SarekOfVulcan 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that any further discussion about this happen at the RFC/U's talk page; the discussion is starting to fragment too much. Pairadox 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient vs. Antient

We seem to be having a project wide revert war over whether to use "Ancient" (with a "c") or "Antient" (with a "t"). We need to hammer this out and reach a consensus, and we should do so in one central location. Since this impacts several articles, I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Ancients vs. Antients... consensus? to be that central location. Please discuss at that thread. Thank you, Blueboar 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rob Morris

I happened to take a look at Mackey's Encyclopedia today, and he has an entry on Morris, but there's less info on him than you already have. He was involved in a lot of stuff, though, so it may be a matter of cross-referencing from other material as opposed to a straight biography. MSJapan 01:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking -- it was fun researching the material for the article. Anything you can find to add, please do.--SarekOfVulcan 01:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

What are you referring to? I haven't made any in a long time.►Chris Nelson 01:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't consider any of that a personal attack. It's all true and there's tons of proof.►Chris Nelson 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Smith Article up for Deletion

The article Tom Smith (filker), which you have contributed to has been listed as being considered for deletion. Please add you comments to the discussion. Shsilver 12:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your improvements to Tom Smith (filker). You have saved it from certain death. Bearian 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user talk --SarekOfVulcan 18:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC bot

Due to the CAPTCHA mechanism being implemented, it caused the bot to log off. I have put the bot back online and the RFC pages will be updated shortly. MessedRocker (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Living Church of God

Would you mind taking a look at Living Church of God? User:Webrown70 is in the midst of a major rewrite of the article. I'm not entirely comfortable with the edits because of the appearance of WP:COI problems (see his/her talk page) and heavy reliance on LCG self-published sources. Pairadox 18:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I started cleaning up the referencing style. I have no major problem with self-published sources, as long as they don't make claims they can't back up. I did trim down the number of external links, though: didn't think we needed to have every language they publish in.--SarekOfVulcan 21:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. Personally I don't mind SPS in a lot of cases, but according to WP:SPS they really shouldn't be used when it involves claims about third parties (independent accounting reports, Neilsen ratings) and if the article is based primarily on such sources. Pairadox 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your editing of the article. As for the claims about third parties making certain statements, I see where you are going. However, the comment in the article about "independent accounting reports" is verifiable. If you look in the pdf document cited, there is an actual letter from the accounting firm that confirms the claim made in the article. Thanks again.Webrown70 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Clifford Borg

With reference to your note below:

Clifford Borg Hi there. I just came across your Clifford Borg article, and while I was searching for information to confirm his notability, I found that the biography was lifted word for word from another site. Please fix this. Also, please review the notability guidelines and make sure that this article addresses them, or someone will come along and nominate it for deletion. I think he may meet them: without more information, though, someone may disagree with me. Good luck improving this article!--SarekOfVulcan 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nevmic"

Please note that this is the official biograph supplied by the artist which is found on his website. He told me that he uses this biography everywhere so what is wrong with that? He has written the text and has all the copright rights on his text.

Thanks

He gave me all the rights... he gave me all the text and images to insert on the wikipedia since he does not know how to do it and I offered my help .. you can see his email below:

<<Clifford Borg Wiki.doc>> <<per5.jpg>> <<drifted1.jpg>> <<briandark2.jpg>> <<cliffordborg.jpg>> Hi nev,

These are my details…….

So there is the info on the word document…….

Cliff01: please include it as a main pic

Briandark2: external links section

Drifted: in the discography section

Per2: in the performances section

Thanks alot and if you have any problems please let me know through msn ……i will not check this mail during the weekend

Clifford

Clifford Borg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevmic (talk • contribs) 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ever hear the saying, "Never piss off a bard"?

Fame at last... --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I can't decide if I'd want Tom to write a song about something I'd done, or if I'd want to do everything in my power to avoid it.... --SarekOfVulcan 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just followed on to the post on his Livejournal. Crikey. What it is to be loved... --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Visual FoxPro Infobox

I was meaning to do that but it slipped behind other WP Projects I'm involved in. Well done. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. If you think you can come up with a more-representative screenshot than I did, please do. Also, do you think a FPD shot for comparision would be good? I don't have it installed to do the shot myself...--SarekOfVulcan 19:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really (and I don't have it installed either). It's been a few years... Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SarekOfVulcan! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Worry not! :)

Dear Sarek, please, don't pay attention to that notice; like I told my friend LaraLove a couple of days ago, it's there for mere decorative purposes, as the requests keep coming... and I simply can't turn them down! :) So this means, yes, I'll gladly redesign your userpage, and that very soon; in fact, as soon as you let me know about the preferences you may have in terms of color, or layout. Or, if you prefer, you may let me weave my imagination upon it. Just let me know this, and I'll put myself to work :) Love, Phaedriel - 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

TWINKLE

I have been doing antivandalism work by the bucketful for the last few months. I use VP which is nice (albeit with a few new unresolved bugs lately). I have looked at Twinkle's page before. Q: How do you modify your .js page? When clicking on the link I get a R/O text file out of Firefox. If I modify it, how do you send back the changes to .js to the server? (you can email me the answers if you want or put in my talk page, whichever you prefer). Thx. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OES

Oh, please, _let_ them link to Jack Chick. It only makes us look good -- anyone who believes what he says isn't going to be convinced by facts anyway. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 22:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That definitely crossed my mind, but the section and the cited sources looked so silly, and a little embarrassing. BTW, I used to live in Vulcan (Alberta, Canada that is). Cheers.--BC 00:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

reason for my username

well you see i dont really know why you dont think my username is appropriate, im not sure what your affiliation with wikipedia is but, the reason is because everytime i would put in a typical username like for instance johndoe or whatever, it would not accept it so i just randomly typed Gjsrdh gpjkasf and from then on its been my wikipedia username. thank you for your time, i also would like to know the particular reason for this concern. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjsrdh gpjkasf (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

yes hello, im sort of new to wikipedia, but i would like to know how to create a page on a certain topic such as a genre of music or a band not yet listed in wikipedia, could you tell me how to do this? thanks a million! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjsrdh gpjkasf (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

McAlester

okay, i am not sure what you are talking about. Tiptoety 05:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but when JoeFriday removes that much content without giving a reason, it appears to constitute vandalism. I apologize for any confusion i may have caused, Happy Editing! Tiptoety 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Angelo's Civita Farnese

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Angelo's Civita Farnese, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Phgao 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I did miss that, if I saw it of course I would have waited. As a new page patroller, I tag articles that just come out so of course they would be tagged straight away, but I apologise and if you can get it referenced, feel free to remove all tags! Thanks! Phgao 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CCARlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CCARlogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Last of the Time Lords

Thanks. I try my best. :) — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Reynolds

Hey. It looks like your reversion to re-insert an image overwrote a few copyedits. Screwing up on occasion is no big deal, but you might want to start being more careful if this happens often. --Kizor 12:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for helping with Firefly's image copyright issues. Those things are a *****. --Kizor 12:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries - though I have noticed, and it only took three years, that backing down and walking away from the computer tends to be a better option than editing when enraged. (Things like heated policy arguments and AfDs in their final stages are naturally exceptions.) --Kizor 19:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Martha Jones

[6] What exactly was the purpose of that edit? It removed much character history in particular references to Torchwood, under the claim of "OR related to different character"- how? Was the edit a mistake or something else? --OZOO (What?) 17:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, glad that's sorted. Sorry for accusing you of vandalism in the edit summary. --OZOO (What?) 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Clanton

See [7] Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

HWA

Hey Sarek, what ever happened to the arbitration case about the Herbert Armstrong article? I can't find any trace of it in the open or closed case lists. Cadwallader 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Maine Architectural Trail reference formatting

Hi -- I just saw your Beth Eden Chapel article for a NRHP in Maine, and another also announced at the WP:NRHP page. I've been adding complex PDF file references to many NRHP/NHL articles for a while, and was encouraged to use a reference formatting that showed the PDF file size, that is "named" and hence easy to call repeatedly, and had some other advantage, i am not exactly sure what, but the referencing starts out differently. I edited the reference in Beth Eden Chapel to the Maine Architectural Trail to "improve" it in this way, giving it name "metrail" for Maine (ME) Trail. To cite the same reference again in the same article, you would invoke it by <ref name="metrail"/>. If you are embarking on creating an entry for every site in that Trail guide, please consider this variation of usage. Any which way, welcome to NRHP if you are new to it, and keep up the good work! Doncram 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Doncram: I was a bit confused when I saw that edit. I'm not convinced the ref is better this way, but adding the size was definitely useful. I'm hoping I can expand those articles a bit with some more local research -- if nothing else, I can run my camera down to Brooklin. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 13:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, glad you understand. BTW, there was a typo, an omitted keystroke, within the reference, that i just fixed. As if to underscore getting a good reference model is not easy. It displays the filesize better now. By all means take a photo, those are worth 500 words or more....  :) doncram 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Another tip. On the E. B. White House article, i noticed the NRHP infobox was sparse. Perhaps you are not yet aware of the Elkman infobox generator tool for NRHP infoboxes? It is based on the NRIS system, and is very handy, though its output usually can use some editing. I used it to fill out some more fields in the infobox. doncram 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's a sweet one. :-) Thanks for the pointer!--SarekOfVulcan 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong

You can't just think of a new article to delete what good is me making contributions if every Wikipedian wants to delete it.--Angel David 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maine Meetup

I'd be down for it as long as it was south of Bangor area... Bangor's a 2hr drive for me, and going that far to meet only one or two people would be pointless imo.... if we had commitments from enough people however, I wouldnt have a problem traveling that far. Keep me informed as to who contacts you, and what your plans are.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

L/A

I'd consiter going if it were in Lewiston/Auburn Chamberlian 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper deletion discussion

You are hereby notified that further bullying on the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper topic discussion will NOT be tolerated. The list of articles I posted is objective evidence resulting from MY research and efforts at defending the topic. FYI, I consider your addition of a "Hide" attribute on the list a personal affront. KNOCK IT OFF please. Let ME present my case. This is a discussion page that relates to a topical and contentious subject. Show some respect, Garrett! StevenBlack 15:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I am showing you respect. You shouldn't have gotten that article deleted while you were working on it, and I've changed my !vote on the AfD to reflect that. If you make that AfD impossible to read, you're not going to have anyone in there long enough to vote keep.--SarekOfVulcan 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If I read the related pages, Garrett, it's not a "vote". Why are you misrepresenting it as a "vote"? You had AMPLE OPPOIRTUNITY to consider my side of the issue, both in official and back-channels, and you changing your so-called "vote" after the piling-on had begun is ZERO comfort now. BACK OFF. GO AWAY. You're a bully, and I will NOT stand to be pushed around by you, or anybody else. Let me make my case, please. This is now all about the abuse of power, and I'm in no mood today to take any more crap from you. Am I clear?

Garrett Fitzgerald of Bangor Main, pay attention.

• For EIGHT YEARS, since 1999, you frequented a technical wiki that I hosted at continue to host at http://fox.wikis.com
• For EIGHT YEARS, since 1999, you did so unfettered in any way whatsoever. In complete anymosity, and in complete privacy, and complete safety.
• For EIGHT YEARS, since 1999, I never said Boo to you though several hundreds of edits of various quality that you made on and throughout my extensive domain.
• For EIGHT YEARS, since 1999, you were free as a bird on the FoxPro wiki. you could say anything you wanted, and take anything back, and you were always empowered, never impeded.

No more.

Now I ask you again: please move on to other Wikipedia aricles. I am not your bitch, and you WILL cease to shadow everything I do here. UNDERSTOOD?

Frankly, you ought to be ashamed.

How many times have I asked you in the past two days to please move on, even for just a short while? I was assaulted in the first two hours and AfD'd by user-freak BSF on day one, hour 2 (ridiculous!) and where were you? Right behind him, along with bunch of admin-types wiki peanut-gallery suits getting heavy on me and this young, young article.