Misplaced Pages

User talk:SarekOfVulcan

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fanoftheworld (talk | contribs) at 17:15, 26 March 2010 (→Brand names and infoboxes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:15, 26 March 2010 by Fanoftheworld (talk | contribs) (→Brand names and infoboxes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archiving icon
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.
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Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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 Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Re: Wildhartlivie

Just want to point out that it looks like she was mistakenly blocked. I've examined the diffs, and she did not revert SRQ at all, but added content. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to follow, and I agree that it was a good edit, but it was in violation of the ban.
So, unfortunately, that name change, though apparently correct, was a direct revert of SRQ, and hence blockable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right. That was tricky. I didn't even see it until you pointed that out. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I commented at WHL's talk page and also at the AN/I page. I just want to bring this to your attentions. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 23:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Levineps

Thanks for stepping in. Don't forget to log the block here. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Two questions please

First, with the one year block of SRQ, can the interaction ban between her and WHL be lifted? The reason I ask is that a couple of us want to rework the Charles Manson article which includes WHL. WHL would not be able to make a lot of the changes we want to do since SRQ did a rewrite of the article against most of the editors that were working the article in the past. We all pretty much just gave up on the article to prevent more heat than light.

Also, there are a few editors that would like to see the Charles Karel Bouley article unprotected. Is this at all possible now? Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal 10:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking these questions to the AN/I board where the block has been supported. I hope this is the correct thing to do to get the communities input about it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 14:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. I'd rather get community input on the question, although I'm pretty sure I know what the answer will be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I was worried I was wrong to do so. Do you think it will be no? I would think that with the other editor blocked for a year that this sanction would now be moot. --CrohnieGal 14:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be a bit surprised if the answer was "no", but since WHL was the first one blocked for ban violation, it might not be a bad thing to leave the ban in place until it's clear that her edits would not be direct reverts of SRQ. We'll see what the community says -- it'll probably say there isn't a problem. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining and also for lifting the protection at the Bouley article. You are a very fair and good administrator. :) I say that not because of anything other than I really believe it. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 14:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Chinatown670

You issued an indefinite block against this user a couple of days ago following a discussion at AN/I with the reason 'blocked indefinitely from editing for declaring that you would "fight until the usurpers and censorors of Misplaced Pages are defeated and their attempts at hegemonic censorship revealed for the thought control that it is." Misplaced Pages is not a battleground', however I cannot see where the user said these words and you haven't provided a reference to support the claim. Is it the responsibility of the blocking admin to provide references to what caused them to block a user or does anyone interested in their reasoning have to go through every edit of the blocked user til they find it? For example in the case of an unblock request would an uninvolved admin then have to go through the entire contribution history of a blocked user in order to verify what they were blocked for?

Also I was wondering about the AN/I thread itself - that page is pretty clear... 'As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed.' Neither you nor User:Beach drifter informed Chinatown670 that there was a discussion taking place about them nor gave them a chance to participate in that discussion.

Considering that phrases such as 'fighting the good fight' and 'fighting for what you believe in' are very common phrases and seldom imply a combatitive element do you think that an indefinite ban for 'declaring that he would fight until the usurpers and censorors of Misplaced Pages are defeated' without giving the user a chance to answer the charge was justified? Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this was an editor who was here to contribute to the encyclopedia. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Nevertheless the AN/I page states "You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use 'subst:ANI-notice' to do so." with the 'must notify' bit in bold type. You failed to do so and thereby failed to give the user an opportunity to defend themselves or elaborate on their intentions. Out of your four diffs the first is irrelevant and the rest were responding to rudeness from another editor. Should you not have followed the rules for posting at AN/I and do you really think an indefinite block without affording the user a chance for discussion was warranted? Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't discuss on AN/I before I blocked them, so while the OP should have notified them, I didn't need to. Also, the second link isn't "responding to rudeness from another editor", it's putting an anti-Misplaced Pages screed into the Censorship article -- not the talk page, the article. If you have further problems with my actions here, feel free to bring them to an appropriate noticeboard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry to post here, but I posted this at the user talk page in response to that statement: "Don't be ridiculous. Mbz1 was refusing to discuss her changes and simply removing material. That is vandalistic." My edit was removed. I of course have no right to post my explanation at the user page again, but I would like to bring your attention to my response please. Once again I am sorry to bother you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Factsontheground's page

Sorry about that, I didn't realize that he removed it. Thanks for the heads up. Breein1007 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

NP. Since his edit summary was "Get out and stay out", I figured it would be needlessly inflammatory to leave it up while he was unable to remove it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

SRQ talk page comment removals

Just want it on record that I firmly disagree with allowing this, SRQ's removal of a section of discussion she didn't like. I know users are given a fair amount of control on their talk pages, but I think that is limited to removing entire sections of discussion, not selective comments. I think the opinions on the issue from myself and Doc are just as pertinent to the situation as others she left on the page, and should be in view for any admin who considers her request. Equazcion 22:36, 22 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Hi SarekOfVulcan. Excellent form on your part and good call.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Not my desired result exactly, but just as well. Thanks. Equazcion 04:23, 23 Mar 2010 (UTC)

SRQ's talk page

Just wanted to drop you a line to say I support fully your lock of SkagItRiverQueen's talk page. I agree there was no point in leaving it open for purposes of prolonging the drama, or for letting other editors still engage her. Good call. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic insults by Wildhartlivie

Hi... I just wanted to point this edit out. You edited what I thought to be a much more minor comment by Jean-Jacques Georges, so I thought you'd want to do it here as well.—Chowbok ☠ 08:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, as I noted when I removed the personal attack template you've already left at my talk page, which apparently led you to come complain here, you seem to have missed the extensive other side of this, wherein expressing concern over inclusion of untranslated sources in both Italian and French led to the same editor, whose own personal attacks to me were redacted on AN/I and whose recent post to me was disparaging because I am not fluent in French or Italian, and who had just posted the disparaging comment "Try to learn basic skills in some other languages" prior to my saying he is being arrogant in his approach to this. He and his supporter at AN/I proceeded to blatantly call me stupid because I do not read either language and struck out other personal attack comments. At one point, one of the other editors said "You are complaining about him using sources in French and Italian when you yourself don't even understand English?" Saying to a Frenchman that he is being arrogant for chiding anyone for not speaking or reading his language is not an ethnic slur, unless France has suddenly become an ethnicity, but it most certainly was condescending and arrogant, not only in my view, but others who responded to that editor at AN/I as well. It would be most helpful if before you run off to tattle if you would actually investigate that of which you complain. I remain mystified why the first and actually the only thing you did after being mostly gone from Misplaced Pages for a few days was check my edits and then run to not just one, but two separate administrators to try to stir up trouble for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

question

Hi, SarekOfVulcan. You have redacted comment made by Breein1007 at factsontheground talk page. May I please ask, if you believe you could consider redacting two comments that were made by factsontheground at the very same talk page, in which the user accuses me in being "racist", which IMO is much bigger offense, and much worse in general than comments made by Breein1007 said? Thanks for consideration.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to edit FotG's talk page to remove a FotG comment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you could elaborate? Are you agree with the comments, or you believe that because those were said at the user own talk page they are OK? Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 edit

Hi,Sarek. Actually an op-ed can be regarded reliable. Quote from wikipedia: Reliable Sources "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author. Best wishes, Oleg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.21.49 (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone told me that you could edit the stuff on WIKI, I did'nt belleive it and wanted to try it, I always thought the information on here was real, I've used it to do research papers and etc.... I didn't think that it was to work, sorry! :)Shokacon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockacon (talk • contribs) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor judgement

You have shown poor judgement in your recent admin actions. You seem unable to distinguish between polite communication and personal attacks. Here, let me teach you the difference.

Personal attack:

- Get over yourself. You finally ran out of things to say so you resort again to personal attacks about her English level? Anyone with half a brain can understand what she meant, and I know you have that, so please don't pretend to be dumb.

  • Completely unnecessary and hostile
  • Accuses other editor of "playing dumb" and of not being sincere
  • Accuses other editor of having half a brain for not understanding "And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?"
  • Tells user to "get over yourself" a common insult implying that the user is arrogant or egotistical

Not a personal attack:

- "And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?" Sorry, but that is not proper English. I can't understand you.

  • Polite request for clarification
  • True (And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed? _isn't_ comprehensible English)
  • Uses "sorry"
  • Other users have also had problems with this user's English in the past (, )

Since you seem unable to tell the difference between a personal attack and polite conversation, a necessary skill for any admin to have, you should probably quit.

And in response to your snide comment about making content contributions, I have created the following articles in the last month.

What have you contributed to Misplaced Pages recently, apart from using your tools to harass people? Factsontheground (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ogrish.com

Sunnie (meatpie) is sending out his members from his site to edit the ogrish page now in his favour so he can continue to spam through them. I reverted it and probobly may get a block here, but if wikipedia whom i used for so much and wanted to contribute to is this easily manipulated, it is like i do not care if i get block. The page should be blocked from any editing, there is nothing more to add since the site do not exist anymore. All it brings up is spammers promoting different sites. Slego7771 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article -- existing editors will still be able to work on it, but new folks can't drop in and spam sites. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind semi protecting?

I have an IP who is vandalising the Sarah Jessica Parker article. Please see the history. I think the IP should be blocked from some time if it is possible since it's just a vandal account right now but I'll leave that up to you. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 14:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and so quickly too. :) --CrohnieGal 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You got lucky -- one of the noticeboards might have gotten you a faster response under other circumstances. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yea I know but I hate those boards.  :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Brand names and infoboxes

I'd appreciate your input on this matter. User:Fanoftheworld has been changing some infoboxes for classical and popular pianists to show the Steinway brand name as a "notable insturment." I have read the applicable template and I believe that adding the brand name is out of scope. User:Fanoftheworld has stated that it's justified as "custom musical instruments with which the artist is strongly associated". For example, for some violinist articles, the specific violin(s) they played are listed (see Jascha Heifetz), but these violins were their personal property. Pianists, with rare exceptions, do not bring their instrument with them. They simply play whichever instrument is available to them. I don't think of a Steinway grand piano as a custom instrument, unless it has been "customized" in some way (like special color, or other unique characteristic) and it travels with the pianist. What's your opinion?THD3THD3 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd take that to the template talk, and maybe Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classical music. The way it's worded in the template instructions, it's hard to find fault with the way FotW is using it -- see the specific example of Tori Amos for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty finding the right page in Template Talk to, well, talk about this. Do you have a link?THD3 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
You're overthinking it. :-) Template talk:Infobox musical artist --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Lol. Eminently logical. Thanks.THD3 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that User:Fanoftheworld is back to the same shenanigans as he was before he was blocked, I really think we've got a single-purpose editor who is out of control. His recent comments on talk pages indicate that he is clearly not interested in building consensus nor in acting in good faith. Can you point me to the noticeboard so this matter can be arbitrated? Thanks & LL&PTHD3 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And remember to write on the noticeboard about the users who make comments about my talk page, edits, and more. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I wrote an email to you to avoid getting in trouble for violating a ban, but didn't receive a reply. I hope asking here won't be an issue. I wanted to know if this means the ban is now lifted and I am now able to edit on articles where another editor previously has edited? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I never construed the ban as strictly as to ban you from articles she had touched -- just direct reverts like on the Lizzie Borden article. In any case, you should be ok now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I know you didn't, but I was playing it safe. There is an article desperately in need of rewriting. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384

I told him to "grow up" for the solitary reason that he was behaving in an entirely childish manner. He posted a reply to my message, and then told me that I wasn't allowed to respond, and he would remove anything that I put there. How in the world is that fair? He has quite the habit of running to administrators whenever he dosen't get his way. As you can see, he repeatedly removed longstanding, sourced information from the John Pershing article, and twice took the utterly absurd step of asking for administrative intervention when the article wasn't presented exactly the way that he wanted it.Mk5384 (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion on your talk page, Sarek (cool name, BTW), but you should see this diff . I feel it necessary to point that out to you, given the comment above that I had "repeatedly removed longstanding information". -OberRanks (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

According to wrong information on talk page(s) and your own edits

An editor has removed the "All-Steinway Schools" category from St. Mary's University of Minnesota. According to the universities official website and according to Steinway's official website, St. Mary's University of Minnesota as an All-Steinway School. Fanoftheworld (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC).

You are too hurry about making edits. Please, consider the possibility of the information in an article being correct. TW. Fanoftheworld (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC

Hi Sarek, NancyHeise has said she would like to open an RfC on the Catholic Church issues, so I've created a structure at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Catholic Church, in case she wants to use it. I'm letting you know about it because you're an admin who's been involved in this issue before, so it would be great if you could help to keep an eye on the RfC if she does indeed initiate one. Best, SlimVirgin 16:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)