Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kuru (talk | contribs) at 01:52, 28 April 2011 (→Avanu block: sigh.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Deletion review for Alice (programming language)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alice (programming language). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leandrod (talk • contribs) 12:56, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism of Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations article

You have inaccurately suggested that I am engaging in "warring" after attempting to undo repeated vandalism of the above referenced article by a clearly biased editor who apparently knows little or nothing about the history covered by this article. I thought article vandalism was not allowed by Misplaced Pages. It would appear that you may be taking sides with a clearly biased editor who is engaging in article vandalism without careful review of the substance of deleted and contributed content for this article and the Southern Baptist Convention article. Is that the case? The same editor who has waged a campaign to degrade this article also recently tried to delete the entire British America article and was reversed for that attempted sabotage. That evidence of the editor's pattern of frivolous and improper deletion of verifiably accurate content should properly be taken into account when weighing the merit of that editor's editing of this article.

April 2011

Regarding your comment: Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large

Hello. I did not receive a reply to my earlier question (above) about the continuing vandalism of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations article. Novaseminary has engaged in what you call canvassing to recruit involvement of other editors to support her biased viewpoint concerning Baptists and possibly other subjects. I notice you issued a warning to me and not to her. Why is that? My contributions are not indiscriminately posted at all. You have also deleted project improvement tags on the discussion page for this very poorly developed article. You asked about the relevance of the constitutional, historical, Jewish and Christian dimensions of the history of the colony. All of that was in a stage of improving development until Novaseminary improperly deleted content from the article just as she improperly deleted content from the British America article. Have you reviewed the content deleted by Novaseminary before deciding to remove those content improvement tags? It seems very clear that this article has been vandalized through erroneous deletions when it is in need of improvement and expansion. Thanks for your guidance on this.

FYI

Per your comment at C&A, AFL already has its own article. - Haymaker (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Copied that back into the article and cleaned it up a bit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ADHD RFC

Go for it. Dbpjmuf (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Peachy. Dbpjmuf (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Medical images

It might be a good idea to get some consensus at WP:MED before you continue deleting images from pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Archived RS/N edited again by User:Dlabtot

On 27 October 2010 you restored a previously archived RS/N that had been subjected to post-closure editing by User:Dlabtot. While recently attempting to review that RS/N on the subject of World Net Daily's WP:RS status, I noted that User:Dlabtot, subsequent to what should have been your final resolution to his previous breach of WP guidelines for archived content, edited the archive again, this time rendering the previously accepted closure to an unreadable status except by horizontal scrolling (he left a hanging "}".

While I believe that User:Dlabtot's persistent and demonstrated unwillingness to abide by even administrative intervention on this issue should be cause for sanctions, I'll leave that to your discretion but would appreciate your consideration and restoration of the archive to pre-User:Dlabtot's post-archive editing. User:Dlabtot has been notified of this communication. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored the archive, but not taking any further action since that last edit was 5 months ago. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

JakeInJoisey, please don't post any more 'courtesy notices' on my talk page. You are welcome to pursue your wrong-headed vendetta against me, ask admins to ban me, whatever. I'm just not interested. Please leave me alone. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection of Elizabeth Sladen

Please undo this. I strongly object. The article is currently being discussed and developed and is not the target of heavy vandalism, we don't do pre-emptive protections. There's no basis for this.--Scott Mac 18:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering how many people jumped in and made that change based on the episode already, I have _strong_ objections to unprotecting before The Impossible Astronaut airs in the majority of US time zones. (Has it aired in Australia yet?) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

However, if you feel strongly enough to revert it yourself, I won't consider it wheel warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article is receiving many helpful edits, and stifling them is inappropriate. So, some people change the dob, we revert. It really isn't a lot of work, nor is it a serious problem if it is wrong for a few hours. There's no vandalism and no basis in policy for your protection. If you want it protected, please get a consensus.--Scott Mac 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that every edit today was to the birthdate, in one direction or another. The majority of them came after The Impossible Astronaut aired using her claimed birthdate instead of her recorded one. Have fun reverting.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Silence AfD

Needless drama. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You seemed to be opposed to the first sentence of the edit about the lodger episode. Are you telling me that a plot description of the only episode where the creatures appear is OR? μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied on article talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please respond to my further question:

AN - Ban

Hey Sarek, Just noticed the ban you proposed on AN. Only had time to look at "current" talk page of the user. Has anyone tried to talk to him/her about these stubs he's creating? Maybe if he was clued in he'd understand a bit better, and work on things in his user space first, then roll them out once they had a bit more meat to them. Just wondering. — Ched :  ?  15:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

He removes it and discusses it on the other person's talkpage. Check the history. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And he does that because he doesn't want negative comment on his talk page - see User_talk:Orlady to see him say this. It is as if he is trying to deflect attention or something, but who knows what his objection to negative comment is. Most if not all of us get it from time to time and the vast majority live without going to these lengths (although I know some who blank their pages, esp. IPs).

How long do I have to form an opinion on the topic ban proposal? I need to think, even though I have suggested a moratorium on creation of new NHRP articles by him. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Until consensus is clear, basically. Not less than 24 hours, usually, but given that it's unanimously against the proposal at this time, it might be WP:SNOW closed. I'd suggest posting something to the effect of "tentative support, but still considering" until you make your final decision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Speed Printing

The move of Speed Printing (Grand Forks, North Dakota) was not exactly uncontroversial. I had previously moved it to Speed Printing because there's no other article using that title. I was hoping to see how the discussion would develop. But not that big a deal I suppose. Station1 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I was considering leaving it there for further discussion, especially in light of the "disambig" page he created to support it, but when I checked Google, there were too many other companies using the name for me to feel comfortable with leaving it at the undisambiguated title. Now, if you want to open a RM to get it back there, be my guest -- I would be interested in seeing if there's consensus for the other title, but not interested enough to open the discussion myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I kind of feel the same. The movereq is still open techically, so I think I'll leave it for now and see if anyone responds. If no one does, I'll just redirect Speed Printing, unless you object, since doncram says in his movereq he wouldn't mind that. Station1 (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oy. Can't believe I forgot to close the movereq.... Fixed, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen excess HTML comments

I see you have removed the comments I placed before the dates here in pursuance of an idea I had that editors get to the date and don't read any further before changing it. I think it will be interesting to see what now happens, and whether the current comments are enough. Britmax (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think they will be enough, but I don't think 3 will be enough, either. :-) So, might as well go with the principle of least annoyance. :-) (Check the history of The Sound of Music for similar frustrations....) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably you seem to have a reasonably watertight argument there (!) Britmax (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Maine Question 1

You're right; Maine Question 1 (2009) is currently a redirect page. Are you able to delete that page and move the article to it? Or is there a better solution? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a better solution. Maybe we should bring it up on Talk:SSMinME and see? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe there's an elections WP that has some sort of standards for this. *runs off to check* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen

You seem to have reverted her DOB to 1948 Was this deliberate? Britmax (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because that was someone else's comment, apparently showing the state of the article at that time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might be afterward, triumph of enthusiasm over concentration there. Britmax (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete unblock?

Hello, I notice you posted this to User talk:Aspire Communications, indicating you had unblocked them. However, near as I can tell, the user is still blocked. I wasn't sure if this was intentional, or perhaps a momentary glitch in a tool, such as Twinkle, which is why I thought I'd point it out. :) Just a friendly heads up. _ennasis @ 22:11, 23 Nisan 5771 / 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Momentary glitch in brain, I think. Thanks very much!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User:BimboStauner

Could you do the honours with this sock. Mo ainm~Talk 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Avanu block

Sarek, I beg you to reconsider your block of Avanu since you were quite clearly involved in the edit war, and on the opposite side as Avanu - . Unblocking and leaving the matter to an uninvolved admin would be the right thing to do. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kuru offered to reblock Avanu while declining his unblock request. How about unblocking and letting Kuru reblock so that the matter is settled?Griswaldo (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fun. I can pad my block count! Kuru (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Last time I took ownership of a block, I just unblocked and reblocked myself -- no coordination needed. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kuru's offer and the note above were sarcasm. I'll use the <dry wit> tags next time. Kuru (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)