Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Werdnabot (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 6 December 2008 (Automated archival of 2 sections to User talk:Sarah/Archive19). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Werdnabot

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #46

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Singer's Midgets deletion

Hello. I see you speedily deleted the article Singer's Midgets on October 4. Just out of curiosity, would I be able to get a copy of that article? The Singer Midgets were a pretty important performing troupe in the 1930s (they have their own entry in this Vaudeville encyclopedia), and I think they should be covered in Misplaced Pages somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I will email it to you in a few minutes. Sarah 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Would it be possible for me to start a new article on the topic? I'm confident that, with a little research, I can write something that's fully compliant with all policies and guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, Zagalejo. I deleted the article on the merits of that particular version and it doesn't prejudice any future article on the same subject, so if you want to write a new one you're most welcome to do so. Sarah 08:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

List of television stations in North America by media market

Hi Sarah,

Would you mind unprotecting the List of television stations in North America by media market article? I'd like to move it to List of television stations in North America; because there are no other lists of television stations in North America on Misplaced Pages, the method of sorting should not be included in the title. I would also like to add a navbox at the bottom. No one seems to have been working out the problem for which you originally protected the article; there has been literally no discussion on the talk page.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah,

I do apologize for bothering you. I was incorrect in assuming that List of television stations in North America by media market was the main list of television stations in North America. I no longer wish to edit that article in any way. Feel free to leave it protected or unprotect it as you wish.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problems Neelix (love your username). I was actually just looking at the article and I might try unprotecting it anyway and see how things go. All the best, Sarah 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of television stations in North America by media market (Part 2)

I will keep an eye on the page and hopefully the user that kept changing the information over and over and over to the copyrighted Nielsen information won't start up again. If he does, I will let you know so you can reprotect it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 4, 2008 @ 02:34

No worries. It's been a couple of weeks so it's probably worth giving unprotecting a chance. I've added it to my watchlist and will try to keep an eye on it but please don't hesitate to give me a yell if need be as I'm quite happy to block or reprotect it immediately if they start up again. Cheers, Sarah 02:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Roleplaying"

As I expressed at user talk:Moondyne I found the discussion at Misplaced Pages:AN#User:_Moondyne_and_User:_Sarah mysterious. I've interacted with "Topology expert" for a number of months. I followed the link from your allegation of "role-playing" and I couldn't understand what you meant by that. Can you explain? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't, sorry, for reasons I think would be quite obvious to anyone who looked through his non-article edits. Sarah 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've seen a number of his talk page edits over a number of months, and none of those make it "quite obvious" why you can't explain your statement that he's "role-playing". Michael Hardy (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I think it would violate policy and he has already accused me of "outing" him so perhaps you could ask him? If you can't read things like his contributions to the Wikiquette page where he sounds like a kid in a school ground choosing which side to take and work out what's going on here then that's your problem and I'm just not prepared to spell it out for you for the simple reasons of policy and basic common sense. "Obviously a competent professional in his field" my arse. I'm not really interested in continuing this discussion with you and I'm going offline now so won't be responding further. Thanks, Sarah 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he's a hothead and sometimes seems childish, but your comment that I am unable to understand his contributions a "Wikiquette page" seems to presuppose that I'm aware of such contributions. I have looked at his edit history somewhat, but guessing just which of his writings you have in mind is more than I should need to do, when all you've said is "non-article edits". Michael Hardy (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm not just talking about the WQ edits, I'm talking about his non-article edits in general and the WQ edits are just one example. I reviewed a very large number of his non-article edits was left with certain beliefs regarding this editor. His school yard behaviour on WQ is just one example. Sarah 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just noticed that you unblocked him without bothering to discuss it on AN or with the blocking admin. That's extraordinarily poor judgment, Michael. I think there's been sufficient ArbCom cases about admins doing just that sort of thing that have resulted in desysopps that this sort of wildly maverick behaviour had been drummed out of admins. I'm really quite shocked that you would storm in and, by your own admission, not understand the block or the discussion and overturn it anyway without bothering to discuss it with the blocking administrator. I really think you need to read up on the blocking policy which quite clearly says: "In general, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Sarah 01:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Those who blocked him" (you do realise, only one person blocked him, right? There was not group decision to block and I didn't even know he had been blocked until I logged on this morning) "disrespectful to me" (you weren't involved so I can't possibly understand how you were disrespected but for arguments sake, IF it WAS disrespectful to you then you had no business whatsoever overturning the block! Hello? You don't realise that it should be left to a neutral admin who doesn't feel disrespected???) I'm seriously worried about you and your behaviour in this case. Sarah 01:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)