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

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)[reply]

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

Hi Sarah, please take a look at his (still rather uncivil) "olive branch": "i just suggested you learn how to properly write a current events blurb (including proper grammar)", "If you want to see how current events "should" be written, explore my contribs", and best of all "If you have any further problems with me please approach me directly so we can handle it like mature adults (if you are one)."

I see no reason why after being told to be civil he veils it in an "apology". Can you please do the necessary? – Chacor 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Also sending to ANI btw) – Chacor 01:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

Generic thank you notes will probably come later :) But in the meantime, thanks for the nom, and for all your support - I appreciate it! Take care, and ta once again, riana_dzasta 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help again on implant page

I'm sorry to bother you. I had taken a few weeks off the breast implant page while focusing on my actual job, and unfortunately much of the hard work that was done (with your help! and with Samir's support) has been undone. For example, the published findings of statistically significant increases in auto-immune symptoms was deleted -- for no reason. It was replaced with generalized statements about "everyone agrees that these implants don't cause disease" which is, of course, not true. Most worrisome, science-based evidence was replaced with political documentation, which holds to a different standard. Sarah, I know you're busy but I would be very grateful if you can help again Drzuckerman 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See This.

Sarah Ewart, I know you were probably irritated with me over the incident with "Theangryblackwoman," but I didn't think that this would happen. I posted this message on HighInBC's talk page:

I hate to bring this up, but I just did a search on my name in Google, and I found this:1

What do you think? Acalamari 20:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:Look at this too: 2. I didn't realize how much of a problem I would cause. What have I done... Acalamari 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my reporting of her to RFC was not done out of hatred to black people or women. Please believe me when I say that I do not hate women or blacks. Acalamari 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do anything, as there's nothing you can do. I just wanted to bring it to your attention, as you were involved in that case. Acalamari 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

Ok. Apologies to all in the community. - Fred 09:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jolley

That was a werid one - I thought there'd be genuine news stories if someone was to post something like that - unless family have put an embargo in some way - really odd. She is in a nursing hme.Satu Suro 09:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABC - no sign - I'd have thought they'd picked it up - but there might either be a lawyer/family member whose not revealing till after burial/cremation - but why/how the poster knows is another matter - probably leave off till it goes public, if its true. gees i dont envy your current stable of trouble makers! Satu Suro 09:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My intiution was correct- it came out today... cripes - and the family had put an embargo - which means the early poster might have been a nursing home insider... oh well, ..we all gotta go sometime Satu Suro 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paaerdaug

Its OK. He's now well and truly on my watchlist. Sing out if there's anything else I can do. —Moondyne 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of Pop

I just wanted to clarify some things on this issue so that you can better understand what I am doing. I am well aware of the earlier consensus reached; that's why I ceased my activities last time around. I did not want to cause trouble and maybe the time was not right. My intention this time around is simply to get some dialogue going and see if it leads anywhere. But I also believe that just because we reach consensus on a certain issue in Wikipedia does not mean that we took a fair action. Sure we performed a fair process, but the end result may be less than desirable, and this is one of those cases.

Second, a slight matter of Wikipedia policy that apparently has not been raised before, although I'm not too sure. Not including KOP in the lead is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's global perspective requirements; all articles must be written as if they were being read by somebody from New York in the United States or Harat in Zimbabwe. As was pointed out before, scores of Michael Jackson articles in other wikipedias include the KOP label. Only in the English Wikipedia is this an issue, and that's mainly because of disgruntled Americans (I can't imagine it's because of the British, who are head over heels in love with Michael Jackson, even though their press is a different story). Anyway, I write this not because I hope that you will agree with me, but simply to let you know that I do have actual policy concerns, ones that ostensibly have not been raised before.UberCryxic 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually take back my statement about a "fair process." Per my new comments on the talk page, I have reviewed the procedure that lead to this decision and can confidently say it was botched pretty badly. This is a shoddy "consensus" at best.UberCryxic 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, I wanted to say something about this revert today. I actually agree with the particular decision you took here, but the user's contributions highlight something that's missing from the article: a failure to highlight the musical stature of Michael Jackson. For example, in the Elvis article we have:

He remains a pop icon and is regarded by some to be the most important, original entertainer of the last fifty years. Presley is one of the most talked about and written about performers of the 20th Century.

His voice, which developed into many voices as his career progressed, had always a unique tonality and an extraordinary unusual center of gravity, leading to his ability to tackle a range of songs and melodies which would be nearly impossible for most other popular singers to achieve.

Well, much of this also applies to Michael Jackson. Lots of people think the same thing about him, but this is not included in the article. Right now, the lead of the article just basically lists records, achievements, and awards. It's quite literally a quasi-useless laundry list flooded with mostly irrelevant and arbitrary facts. Nothing is mentioned about Michael Jackson's vocal abilities or his moves. The user that you reverted might've taken it a bit over the top, but the larger point remains.UberCryxic 16:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not to be too upfront and rude, but I detect somewhat of a misunderstanding on your part regarding what Wikipedia means by NPOV. Things like "Elvis is reputed to be the King of Rock and Roll" or "Michael Jackson is reputed to be the King of Pop" are allowed because, although they both are POV statements, they are major opinions regarding the subject in question. And if you take a sociological analysis of Wikipedia, you could easily argue that all documented information is basically a major opinion. So you can't just delete things because they're POV; you can only do that if they're believed by such a remote part of the general global population that the information is not worth including in an encyclopedia. If someone came in the Holocaust article and said it did not happen, then that has to be deleted. But it's not groundbreaking news to say that Michael Jackson is one of the greatest entertainers of all time, or at least the 20th century, because it's believed by a significant percentage of the relevant global population (ie. those that listen to music).UberCryxic 17:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also for Beethoven, for example, it says: "He is generally regarded as one of the greatest composers in the history of music, and was the predominant figure in the transitional period between the Classical and Romantic eras in Western classical music." This is actually a more POV (too Euro-centric, although I myself agree with it) opinion than saying something about Michael Jackson because Beethoven was not known to the world at large when he lived, whereas pretty much everyone knows who Michael Jackson is today. But the point is: obviously this IS POV, and there is pov on Wikipedia, so lay off a little.UberCryxic 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for a final thing, to give you a heads up: once we move past the KOP issue, I'm going to rewrite those two middle paragraphs dealing with his music career. Right now they're pointless data dumps. I'm keeping you in touch with all of this so you don't freak out when you see something different. I will say that the body of the article is quite appropriate and nice, but the lead is pathetic and horrible.UberCryxic 17:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passionate statements like the ones you wrote about in my talk page are (very) unacceptable, but I doubt that KOP falls under this category. KOP is simply an informal title, but one which is very prevalent, much more so than Wacko Jacko. Speaking of which, I noticed that in the discussion way back, you did a Google search comparing the "popularity" of Wacko Jacko versus KOP. The results you got were about three (maybe two and a half) times or so greater for KOP, but when I ran the search today, "KOP Michael Jackson" got 2 million hits (see here) and "Wacko Jacko Michael Jackson" got about 150,000 (see here). I'm not quite sure if you were using quotes, I'd have to go back and review, but if you were, then that was being unnecessarily stringent, since most references (casual and news) do not put them in quotes.

Also, divorce the passionate statements like that of the earlier individual from those sorts of statements that have encyclopedic value and highlight the notability of the subject. Someone reading the lead of the current article would think Michael Jackson is notable because he won some silly Bambi or whatever award, whereas in fact he's notable musically because of his distinctive style, among other things. Those are the kinds of descriptions I want to make in the lead; how is a list of awards that most people have not heard of establish his notability? Plus, he's a won a bazillion prestigious awards in his life: who's to say which one belongs in the lead above others? Or for that matter, why is it relevant that Rolling Stones ranked him 35th out of rock and roll artists? All the information currently there just does a bad job at conveying his musical importance.

Finally, I am sure you are very busy, as am I, but I am doing this because I believe that there is something wrong here. I am not doing this because I'm looking for an adventure. I have genuine reasons for wanting to change some things in the article, and actually just the lead of the article, not the body itself, which is more or less ok.UberCryxic 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your standard presupposes that there would be wide confusion with the subject in question if we did not adopt quotes, but there isn't. Just type King of Pop Michael Jackson and go to like the 40th page; you'll still find virtually all the references are to Michael Jackson. The same is true for Wacko Jacko Michael Jackson; the references towards the end are still to Michael Jackson, but there are about 1/15th to 1/20th fewer overall. I don't even think the name Michael Jackson is necessary. King of Pop should do just fine, and again, many of the references towards the very end are repeatedly, though decreasing in frequency, about Michael Jackson. The highest thing ever that Wacko Jacko attains (just by itself) is 350,000 hits; KOP goes up to 40 million. Surely you can imagine plenty of pages where the nickname KOP is used, but Michael Jackson is not identified by name. Well now apply that standard to Wacko Jacko and you see how low a stature it has. Also, there are plenty of foreign sites that will just have KOP but not his name. But again, if you don't find this appropriate, King of Pop Michael Jackson still beats out Wacko Jacko Michael Jackson by nearly 20 to 1. "King of Pop" Michael Jackson beats out "Wacko Jacko" Michael Jackson 420,000 to 125,000. That's on Google.

On Yahoo, "King of Pop" Michael Jackson trounces "Wacko Jacko" Michael Jackson 1.6 million to 230,000. On askjeeves.com, "King of Pop" Michael Jackson beats out "Wacko Jacko" Michael Jackson 120,000 to 20,000. Even if you detect bias anywhere here, at least this much undeniable: no matter what standard you apply, KOP always beats out Wacko Jacko, and sometimes pretty badly. Seems to me like it should receive more consideration (and it actually has anecdotally in the article history; plenty more people have tried to add KOP to the lead than WJ...I'm not saying that says too much ontologically, but it is fishy, no?).

I'll take up your idea on writing something, although it's really not anything that requires consideration. All I was thinking was something along the lines of "For his contributions to the music industry, he is regarded by fans and some media as the King of Pop," the qualifier to eliminate WJ being that much "more" media regard him as the KOP.UberCryxic 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: the name 'Wacko Jacko' is a term with Anglophone bias in the distinct sense that it is known mostly to the Anglophone world, but not, for example, to the Albanian world (or the Japanese world, or the Francophone world, or the German world) where I'm from and grew up knowing Michael Jackson as the King of Pop. That's also an Anglophone term in denotation, but not one in recognition (ie. most Albanians would know who the "King of Pop" is, but they would have no clue what "Wacko Jacko" means, much less that it refers to a person).UberCryxic 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and I have to ask this, why would you use this as evidence, "Google News brings up 16 news articles for "Wacko Jacko" +MJ, "Whacko Jacko" +MJ gets 1 and "King of Pop" + MJ gets 239"???? 240 to 20...that's a 12 to 1 ratio in favor of KOP and just highlights what I've been saying all along: Wacko Jacko is being given disproportionate attention in light of the empirical evidence that suggests its use is not as widespread as that of KOP.UberCryxic 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you would at least agree that we need some sort of standard to decide if KOP is more prominent than Wacko Jacko, if it's vice versa, or if they're both equivalent. I'm not saying Wacko Jacko isn't prominent, but I am saying that it is prominent among a very specific community in the world, the Anglophone community. KOP, on the other hand, is neutral; everyone knows about it. Nobody around the world has to think twice when you say "King of Pop." I mean, if we don't adopt a standard, then what happens? It would seem like it's just your word against mine, so that's why we need the evidence.UberCryxic 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a suggestion in the talk page on how the statement should be phrased.UberCryxic 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by standard was some way to establish if what you are stating or what I'm stating is true. But forget all that. Here's another way to think about what I would like to see in the lead: the Elvis article. Read the lead of that and tell me what you think. Now, I realize that because of issues some have with MJ, at least currently, this article will not look like the Elvis one any time soon (that is, KOP is not going to be bolded now or anything), but this shouldn't prevent us from highlighting MJ's musical stature like the Elvis article. For example, this statement for Elvis, "is regarded by some to be the most important, original entertainer of the last fifty years" applies to Michael Jackson times one thousand. I mean, MJ did completely redefine the limits of physical expression, and he is mainly responsible for the modern domination of pop. This is pov, but it's a pov that's held by a significant percentage of the relevant global population. It's stuff like this that I'm looking for in the lead.UberCryxic 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing (this is more of an amusing fact rather than anything too serious, although I think it has some merits): on Youtube, King of Pop returns about 2,800 results while Wacko Jacko gives about 150. As with Google, virtually all the results related to MJ. One could argue that the high number is due to his fans putting up videos, which is true, but by the same token, if Wacko Jacko had the same notability and stature, it should have been put up by an equal number of Michael Jackson detractors. Like I said, it's more humorous than anything else. Finally, can you give me your opinion of my proposal, which is now in the talk page (under the "Proposal" subsection)?UberCryxic 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calton

Calton's bullying (among other things) has landed him a RfC. If you would like to comment, you can by clicking here. If you wish to stay out of the RfC thing, that is cool and I will respect your decision. I am just letting people know of the RfC that might not know it exsists. Have a good weekend....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome:) - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "wikistalker" comment in the WP:CN discussion is supposed to be me, but I am not stalking Calton. I have much, MUCH more interesting things to do. Do I have him on my watchlist...yes. I have all the people I have messaged on my watchlist. Him, I have to have on there because I often have to defend myself on other people's talk pages, as that is where he likes to really bash people, he then calls that "wikistalking". When he says that, I think of a kid who has gotten caught with getting into the cookie jar and they blame their imaginary friend for their actions. It is kinda like this. I respond on a page to his rude comments about me, he calls it "stalking" cause I actually read those comments he wrote and sometimes posts them on his RfC for all to see.

If he wouldn't badmouth me all over Wiki, I would GLADLY take him of my watchlist, but I am not about to have my name dragged through the dirt by him. I do hope though, that you don't incure the rath of Calton by responding on his RfC....if you do, then I deeply apologize. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 15:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His ill-considered RFC and his continual canvassing ([1], [2], [3], [4]), his sudden interest in the mainspace edits I've made in the last few weeks ([5] and [6], [7] [8] readding spam readding spam re-readding spam [9], and his repeated removal of the {{db-repost}} tag from WRAJ Internet Radio) and {{ifd}} tags from four now-deleted images; his canvassing of everyone I've had a disagreement with for the last few weeks, looking for support ([10] [11] [xxx]); his continual pestering of my Talk page ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] and [23], the last two about his out-of-policy removals of the {{db-repost}} tag, so particularly rich) despite his repeated claims of "staying away from" me ([24] [25] [26] [27]); and, of course, his cute little "open letter" to "an editor who shall remain nameless"; all of this with the clear intention of seeing me "punished" ([28] [29] [30].

Other than that, nope, not Wikistalking me in the least. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am going to say this here and then we can continue this on my or your talk page as I am not going to argue with you on someone else's talk page. The WRAJ Internet Radio thing, a mistake on my part for which I do believe I apologized to the necessary people and all was forgiven. The "ill-considered" RfC, no matter how is considered, more and more and more people are signing it and signing in my favor, so must be working. You just get upset when I tell someone new about it....and yes, I want to see you punished for actions like the above. You post any and every little detail of something I have done (no matter what it was) that has pissed you off and then you consider yourself the good guy and call me the stalker?! HA! If I didn't keep a damned close eye on you, I wouldn't see all these little posts (like the above) you make bashing me.

Now, Calton, I consider User:Musical Linguist, User:El_C, User:Firsfron, User:Sarah Ewart, and others friends on here and they have been nothing but kind to me. You are the ONLY editor that I am currently arguing with. User:A Man In Black and User:Metros232, I believe, have put our differences aside and are working together on things. You have CONTINUED a little spat that started with the KXGN page some, what, 3 weeks ago?! That is a tad on the psychotic side, dontcha think?

To Sarah, I greatly apologize to you that this continued arguement between Calton and I has spilt onto your talk page and I will leave your talk page now. Again, my apologizes. Calton, I think it would be fair to User:Sarah Ewart if you did the same and if you wish to continue this, we can take it to your talk page or mine (if you want to talk, not argue, and want to actually read what I have to say and not delete everything). - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 07:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for work on Brisbane Grammar School

I was a reasonably active editor until aroung May last year when Paaerdaug started his jihad against the BGS page and eventually became so completely frustrated that I basically quit wikipedia. Now that some action has been taken against him, I feel ready to start editing again without having to feel like I'll accidentally start a talk page flame war. So again thanks for your help and all other administrators who have been involved. --Cornflake pirate 10:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters of Mercy

Maybe you can explain how linking the Sisters of Mercy page to a Sisters of Mercy school site is considered spamming. It seems clear that many subjects in Wikipedia are censored to such an extent that it fails in its purpose of providing accurate upto date information and even worse gives a misleadinging impression. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth Doctor (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On the contrary I would imagine most people who go on to a Sisters of Mercy Site would want to learn about the current activities of the congregation. But then an article about the Sisters of Mercy that doesnt refer to the Magdalene Laundry shows that the Wikipedia pages are just as incomplete and selective in their reportage as any other part of the web. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth Doctor (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Given that you consider anyone who critises Wikiepedia yet also attempts to post on it a hypocrite seems to indicate that Wikipedia is very much a Web Community with a 'if you are not with us you are against us' mentality. That's fair enough every community has its own attitude to outsiders and I now see what yours is.

Frederick Baron

Hi Sarah. I may need help or an objective view on this article. A venomous lawyer hater is wanting to use Overlawyered and Reason to write an attack piece on another lawyer. This lawyer was exonerated by the Bar for ethics violation re coaching witnesses. (I have read what supposedly was done, and it did not appear unethical, anyway. "Coaching" witnesses can also be deemed preparation, without which the lawyer would have committed malpractice). And that is what the Bar found as well as independent ethics experts. However, this editor is baiting me. When when I suggested that he write a criticism section but without such political citations, he then accused me of refusing to follow WIki rules. I really don't have time for this jerk, and I hate to see the article turn into the muckraking character assassination it first was. Baron has been controversial so a criticism section is probably warranted....but not the way it was before I changed it some months ago. He has been a high profile asbestos lawyer - and as you probably know, the asbestos claims are controversial. Some, rightly so, I might add. I understand the desire to preserve one's rights in a settlement/suit, but have a hard time justifying compensation for someone who has no proven illness. ANyway, that is beside the point. I don't want to get into it anymore with this editor. He seems to be more interested in a fight than in legitimate editing. My patience is thin right now, so I probably need to avoid this..Jance 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, this person is not allowing me to avoid it, since he continues harassing me.Jance 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for my Archive Set-up

I'm slowly learning the ropes ... you've been a great help. Pura Vida (Pure Life ... national Costa Rican saying).Ilena (chat) 06:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jance

You edited a complaint about a user who is currently harassing me avoiding sanctions by deleting it and saying "These matters were dealt with months ago." Can you point me to that resolution? And how do I deal with the harassment? -- TedFrank 14:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SARAH PLEASE HELP

I edited a complaint re me, because it was using names that I do not go by, and he is using my real name, which I have NEVER gone by on WIkipedia. In fact, if he continues this I have a legal claim for invasion of privacy. He is digging up issues that you know about Sarah. Please tell this person to stop with the personal attacks. This is outrageous. He is attacking me personally. Something needs to be done NOW Jance 18:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I do need to escalate this, I fear. I do not use my real name on WIkipedia or elsewhere on the internet. I do not advertise myself as a "civil justice Wikipedia editor." I deleted this one reference, and ask that my real name be deleted from all history. I did not intend on using my or my husband's name on that site, and if it is there I am going to ask that editor to delete it. I did NOT place it there.

Ted continues to bait and harass me, for what reason I do not know. I don't even edit on the TortDeform website as I do not have time. Ted must have really done quite an exhaustive search, because I do NOT use my real name on the internet or on Wikipedia.

Jance 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I have filed an An/I. Ted's conduct is an invasion of privacy, and pure harassment. There is no sane reason for him to continue this.Jance 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I am restoring the following comment that Jance deleted to make it seem like I wasn't apologetic. -- TedFrank 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize -- I did not realize that Jance does not use her real name on this site, when she is on "highly political websites" advertising herself as a "civil justice Wikipedia editor." I will not use her real name on this site again. But one has to acknowledge that Jance's threat of litigation is inappropriate. It's not the first time she has threatened lawsuits in editing disputes]. -- TedFrank 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used that comment of yours, TED, in my AN/I complaint. Your "apology" had more personal information which is why I deleted it. I also deleted your dredging up alleged past misdeeds.

I am not going to debate this with you, and I don't think that Sarah should, either. Your badgering me and complaining about me has gone beyond anything even sane. Why don't you tell us all what you want. What exactly do you want Ted? I suspect anyone with half a brain can figure this one out. What I don't understand is why you haven't been blocked already, for clear harassment. Any other editor would have by now. If nobody stops your behavior, I will take further action and that is not a threat, but a promise.04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I want you to stop harassing me, stop making personal attacks, stop threatening me with lawsuits, and stop reflexively reverting legitimate edits I make. I have been acting in good faith: for example, when I created a controversial article (as a compromise to avoid problems of undue weight), I added a POV tag, and proposed an AfD. In contrast, you have deleted my edits on multiple articles (even when they were factual corrections of issues as neutral as federal jurisdictional law), and have personally attacked me for adding POV tags when I have documented the violations of NPOV in the talk page. -- TedFrank 04:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example of bad faith harassment from Jance: I added a NPOV factoid to the Fred Baron article that came from Professor Issacharoff. Issacharoff is well known as a supporter of the plaintiffs' bar; I disagree with him about a lot, but I wanted a balanced article, so I included his law review article on asbestos litigation which had a notable fact about Baron. Jance simply deleted my edit with the misleading comment (REmove POV and blatant smear introduction) Jance is indiscriminately deleting my edits simply to harass me. -- TedFrank 04:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most outrageous and utterly incomprehensible attempt at banning someone I have ever seen. Sarah, he is actively lobbying to permanently ban me. If you agree with this, then I wish you would say so. If not, I would appreciate some support on the An/I. If I am banned for this, permanently, it is the most ludicrous and utterly insane thing I have ever seen. Jance 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My note to Rebecca

Hi Sarah,

I wasn't trying to time my complaint for maximum effect. I'd only come across the edit summary that day.

Also, I didn't use a template yesterday. Thanks, Andjam 14:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please withdraw your accusation that I used a template on her yesterday? In response to your comments, I'll try to avoid posting on her talk page in future. Thanks, Andjam 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this section of my talk page, I've outlined in bullet points 3 to 5 how I plan to change my behaviour towards Rebecca in future. I hope it covers your concerns about my behaviour towards her. Thanks, Andjam 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope all is well Down Under

Hello Sarah. I have been wanting to drop you a line since Riana’s RfA was still active (I’m glad she decided to apply for adminship). I have been really busy lately, really busy! In fact I may take an extended break. In a nutshell - Hopefully things are going well for you and yours. Take care ‘till later. :-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 07:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jance and User:TedFrank

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war turns into real-life harassment and threats of litigation

Thought you might like to know about this thread. Currently, it looks like Jance has been blocked indefinitely, due to some heated comments and legal threats. You seemed to be at least somewhat familiar with this case, so was wondering if you might comment on the events leading up to this, or any other relevant material. Thanks if you do, understand if you don't. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This situation has become extremely serious. Prior to today's developments I had received comments from Jance but been unable to follow all of them. Please take a look at the ANI discussion. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TALK ARCHIVED FOR SARAH

Apologies

I'm taking the first oppourtunity since being unblocked to apologise to you.

I did mean what I was saying, and it was very heated, but if you were offended I do withdraw, and I understand your frustration with subsequent events. I hope this doesn't come across as groveling, or cowardly, but as an honest statement.

It would be a pity for this project to loose any of us. I am sorry. michael ^talk 01:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to tell me what you think, honestly, no holds barred, do not hesitate. michael ^talk 11:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Michael, I appreciate your message and I agree that neither off us should leave over it. I want you to know that this honestly is not about you. You ask what I think, I think you're an excellent editor, but I wish you would tone down your responses to other people. The regular editors might be used to it but I fear that new people might look at some of those pages and be scared off contributing at all. My block of you was only for 24 hours, it wasn't a long block and I would have unblocked you straight away if you had indicated that you understood that abusing people was not on and that you would try to be more careful in future. It concerns me that you think you don't have to follow NPA and CIVIL just because you don't intend being an admin and It concerns me more that other people seem to be condoning that idea. But thankyou for your kind apology, I do appreciate it. Sarah 12:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I apologise for the damage that my unblock has caused. At the time I presumed that you were away and did not receive my email in time. I do hope that I am not licensing him to attack you or any others, or contempt for your performance as an administrator which I find to be excellent, but rather that I unblocked him by looking at the responses on his talk page, because it appeared to give the outcome that would be the best for the future. Unfortunately the opposite appears not to have been the case for all. I do appreciate your hard work here over the last 1+ year. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bl, thanks for your message, it is appreciated. I didn't receive your email until the morning and I was in the process of replying to you when I noticed you'd already unblocked Michael. I am not worried about the attacks on myself. I grew up as the only girl in a family of five boys, and I've been nursing for fourteen years. Between the two there's not much left that can seriously shock or offend me. However, I am concerned about new people who may be scared off those pages. You said you feel that it's better to ignore a good editor when they lose their cool. I do agree with this in general, however, Michael didn't just lose his cool, he was being abusive towards many people and over a period of time. I didn't mind you unblocking him, but I personally wouldn't have unblocked him without an undertaking from him that he understood that abusing people was not acceptable. It also concerned me that your unblocking him amid his threats to leave the project if not unblocked in a certain amount of time, looks like capitulation and I don't think that is good.

But I hoped we can all leave this in the past now and move on. I would hate for this to cause any rifts between any of us. Sarah 06:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going?

Please come back when you're ready, you're an asset to the project. It'd be a shame to see you go over this. Kyle Barbour 05:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah

Only through clicking the signatures in the above posts was I able to learn the reason your name suddenly went redlink. As you can imagine, I, and a great many others, earnestly hope this is strictly a temporary situation. I've myself been learning about some of the ups and downs of adminship—but the downs will be worse than I feared if they cost us the services of one of our sanest and most level-headed people. Be well. Newyorkbrad 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I hope this is stylistic (shazam!) rather than indicative! ++Lar: t/c 05:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, I tried to e-mail you, but you've turned off your mail access. You're welcome to e-mail me if you want to keep things off-wiki. I didn't fully investigate the reasons for your departure, but I do wish that things hadn't come to this. I think you're a great user and admin, and Wikipedia will be a poorer place without you. I hope that this wikibreak will just be a temporary one, but whatever you choose to do, I wish you all the best. --Kyoko 10:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope this is just a temporary calm-down thing. Take all the time you need, but please do come back - we need people like you around here. All the best, – riana_dzasta 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need for time out - from what I see, you are completely within your right to feel the way you do. But come back please!! Merbabu 12:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please, I appreciate your messages but dramatic departures followed by "please don't go" pages make me cringe and it's not what I want. This isn't about Michael. It's about a whole lot of things and the emails I got about Michael were just the final straw. I consider myself to be joining John in Hotel Wiki Recovery. I don't consider myself to be leaving, so there really is no need for this. Sarah 12:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Wiki....I hear they have a huge pool there! :) Enjoy you "stay" and we will see you when you get back. Bring me back a souvenir :) - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Blnguyen where consensus was reached that Michael should be allow to make PAs on people. All I see is what's on Michael's page, which I don't consider sufficent. If I don't receive satisfaction, I'll be going to WP:AN and starting a discussion on whether Michael gets to serve the remaining 02:34 of the block you placed on him. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that as well, and was concerned that there's no record of discussion at any admin noticeboard, and no evidence of any attempt to discuss with Sarah before unblocking. Unblocking should never be done without discussing with the blocking admin and perhaps also some kind of AN/I discussion, unless there's a clear and obvious error (e.g. the wrong person was blocked). Personally, though, I'd feel that reinstating the remainder of the block at this stage would be punitive. Sarah, I know you don't want lots of "please don't go" messages on your talk page, so I won't leave one, but I just want to say you have my full support, and I'll be looking forward to seeing your name in blue again. Thanks for your efforts to be so fair to Gordon at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. Musical L inguist 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Musical Linguist that we don't reinstate a couple of hours of a block two days after the fact, even if we disagree with the unblocking. It is in order, however, to tell the user he was treated leniently this time and he can't count on it happening again if he reoffends. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, agreed. Everyone seems to be on the same page on this. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. The reason why we are forbidden from using our admin tools when we are involved in a dispute is because even the best of admins (which Sarah is), when attacked and mistreated (as Sarah was), may find their judgment sufficiently distorted by events that their actions do not accord with community will. Blocking Michael was a minor breach of policy, which was quickly correctly by another admin. I endorse blnguyen's unblock on those grounds, and I desperately hope blnguyen isn't made a scapegoat over Sarah's decision to take a break. Hesperian 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there had been a content dispute between Michael and Sarah, which I don't see, the block was made on valid grounds and should not have been revoked without either Sarah's OK, or a discussion at WP:AN. Sarah made a judgement call that the community would back her, and it surprises me that you apparently believe that this confidence in her own ability to recognise a PA was such a bad idea that it overrides the fact that the block was justified. The only reason to unblock should have been to then reblock as a clear signal to Michael that it's not personal, it's just plain unacceptable all round. But nobody is going to be made a scapegoat, or be punished over this, more than they already have been, and I'm not sure why you seem to want to run the risk of turning it back into a live issue. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting little passive-aggressive trick: I can't reply to your last accusation without validating it. Hesperian 04:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can. Hesperian was merely saying don't make Blng the scapegoat and I'm certain the last thing he (Hesp.) wants to do is re-liven the issue. Blng has explained his rationale and apologised to Sarah above. That should have been the end of it, but it does seem from my reading of this that that some would like to have the last word and pin some blame. —Moondyne 04:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't in a content dispute with Michael. I stepped into the dispute because I saw Michael repeatedly abusing people, I just happened to be his final target. I know when I feel compromised and I know when to ask someone else for help, for example, I recently asked Tyrenius to step in and handle Paaerduag when he was abusing me and I asked the unblock list to take over dealing with Merbabu's professor. I'm not convinced that I was compromised, but even if you accept that as correct, it has never, as far as I know, been cited as a reason for unblocking. Also, I should say that I wasn't upset that Michael was unblocked. I was upset about two things, firstly at an email (not BL's email) which seemed to assert that Michael has special PA privileges. And secondly, that when Blnguyen unblocked Michael he didn't tell him that he needs to stop abusing people.

However...neither Michael or Blnguyen are in any way responsible for my break and I don't want either of them feeling they may be. I've been feeling wiki-exhausted since dealing with Merbabu's professor and this was just a case of the final straw. Also, I have some real life family stuff that I need to deal with and I'd probably be having to cut back my Wiki time now anyway. So I don't blame anyone here and I'm not angry or upset with anyone who was involved or who has commented since. You boys are all very special and I don't want you arguing about it. There isn't anything to argue about as far as I'm concerned. It's all resolved and dealt with and in the past. Sarah 05:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shout out if you need anything

If there's anything I can do for you while you're in "recovery", please let me know. Actually, you have a great store of good will over here in the west; I'm sure Moondyne, Gnangarra and SatuSuro would all say the same thing. Hesperian 12:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cant agree more with the comments left by Hesperian we're here help just yell, email, sing, laugh or even throw stuff at us we'll respond to all kinds of requests even if you Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Gnan garra 12:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This again...

Hey Sarah, sorry if I seem to be a parasite, but I would really appreciate your comments on my proposal. After all, you were the one who suggested I offer something for consideration, and since you seem to be pretty much the only remaining editor from the old days (and maybe Funky) when the straw poll was taken, I think it's most appropriate if you say something on the issue. I don't want to change the lead and get reverted like a damn fool, so I'm taking your advice and doing this thoroughly. Whenever you have time, please go to the "Proposal" subsection and leave your thoughts. Thank you so much!UberCryxic 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:(

Your link's red - are you leaving? :( Glen 13:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Tried emailing you but email's disabled too (even sader face :(( )

See Sarah's comment higher on this page. Newyorkbrad 13:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues over at the MJ Discussion Page

Hi Sarah, sorry to bother you but there appears to be a problem over at the Michael Jackson discussion page with the user HarveyCarter. Not only is he posting defamatory comments, not giving evidence to back up his claims, and also making insulting comments such as "Jackson fans tend to be very young, mentally disturbed and unemployable which is why they don't realize just how massive Bing was.". I always forget what to do in this situation - delete the comments, or warn the user, or what. But if you could suggest what action be taken (or take action yourself) that'd be great. I have a feeling this is the same person who we seem to have an issue with every few months (although it seems he's now created an account). Thanks Sarah. :: ehmjay 15:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More breast implant page editing without discussion

Thanks for your help! Unfortunately, in the 6 days since you and I were on the breast implant page, Dr Oliver made some changes (despite a "staw poll" supporting my latest version on the discussion page by Dr Carter and an editor from Our Bodies Ourselves, a well-respected international book on women's health). A few other editors also made some changes to the article without discussing them first. They were mostly ok/not too bad, but added more detail than needed, added a link of photos of breasts (since we otherwise don't know what they look like), and added some more breast photos on the article itself. Since the rule is to discuss changes BEFORE making them, I reverted back to a version after mine (which deleted a semi-pornographic photo that I didn't know how to delete).

Can you protect the page, or warn Dr Oliver? He just keeps changing things to reflect his POV, even when the other editors disagree.

I have to go pick my son up. Thanks for your help! Drzuckerman 03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Wiki Recovery

What the heck is going on? I came here becaue my watchlist was about to explode, and I find out there's some hullabalo about something or another. Sarah, will you e-mail me at some point? I hope everything is ok, and I'm sending my best to you and your family. —Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your great work is loved and appreciated by many, please remember that. —Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn Man blocked

I'm not making the same mistake as last time, so I blocked Spawn Man for his comments. I wish last time that I'd blocked him before he got so out of control. Hopefully the cool down time will help him gain some composure. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needle in haystack: There is a reply!

Although I have posted far less than others (hence I have proof here that others are lying when they claim I am verbose), nonetheless, I have made a slew of minor edits, so my reply to you might get lost like a needle in a haystack. My reply to you, calling you on a double standard, is here, right above where I fixed the numbering and spacing typo. Also, for what it's worth, I think we are all guilty of violating Wikipedia policy on voting, as I elucidate in the reply to Calton. I personally think this whole RfBan thing is a big waste of time for ALL parties -and it has the extra added "benefit" of potentially generating hard feelings, but, hey, if people lie, I have a right to correct them -and sometimes I exercise this right. I don't wish to offend you -or, for that matter -anyone else, and I hope my various brief replies stops short of offending anyone, but, do know, those who have accused me of being too verbose are now known to have lied! The numbers are quite clear -and objective as well. Oh, one more thing: Regardless of how others feel, I would ask you (and others reading your page here) to read the arguments for and against whatever -before voting or expressing an opinion on a matter -like my request for ban here: Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts--GordonWatts 09:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you (and even though you are on apparent Wikibreak here), nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 07:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back Sarah!

My talk page: Hello Sarah! I'm glad you came back! I know you hadn't totally left (which was why I did say that on Pschemp's talk page that you had left "for the moment.") Let me be the first to say: "Welcome back!" Acalamari 20:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, welcome back

Firstly, the great news: welcome back! I hope you had a nice break off; a lot of things have happened, as I'm sure you'll be reading with amazement.

Secondly, (this is a brief form of a longer comment I wish to write tomorrow), you have my apologies if it was my misguided comment that you were referring to in that post you made to your talk page prior to taking your break. Although I will have to agree to disagree with you - as we have on numerous occasions in the past - on that instance, I realise that my comment was lacking in tact and the appropriate respect you deserve. Although, as I mentioned, our opinions differed on this, my comments were totally inappropriate, particularily via email, and I sincerely apologise for them.

But, on the happeier side, welcome back, and I hope you enjoy your new username! (By the way, given you mentioned it a while ago, I had my alternate account - Daniel-Bryant - renamed to Daniel). Cheers, and all the best, Daniel Bryant 09:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Mr Bryant, thank you for your kind comments and welcome back message. However, you do not owe me any apology for anything at all. And I find the concept of agreeing to disagree most agreeable!;) I intend replying to your message properly via email but I probably won't be able to now until tomorrow morning. Thankyou for your kind message, twas very much appreciated. :) 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back, Sarah! Hope the break went well, and we'll see you in full form ASAP :) Lots has happened while you've been gone, as Daniel mentions above, and I can't say that you'll have fun reading all about it, but... well, everything happens for a reason, I guess. Take care, and enjoy the new username - mine should be underway pretty soon :). – riana_dzasta 09:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou my friend. :) I'm not really back at full strength yet, though. I just came on-site this morning to create an account for someone who requested account creation assistance at unblock-en-l. I will probably just continue to potter along peacefully for a while. Thank you for your email and messages, Riana. They were much appreciated. I shall be replying to you properly by email but it probably won't be until tomorrow now. I look forward to seeing you as Riana. I think it is very Cher of us to go for first name only usernames! :) Sarah 11:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messages For You.

Are these messages supposed to be for you: User talk:Sarah Ewart? Acalamari 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your neutral

I have responded to your question on my RFA. Cheers, – Chacor 14:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smurfy thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 14:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 06:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Welcome back!! Good to have you back, Sarah! And as for your comments in my last RFA, I've explained everything on my userpage, so if you're wondering, it's all out in the open now.

Are there any articles you're working on that I can help you with?? --sunstar net^talk 19:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should you want verification, just email me! --sunstar net^talk 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another

As someone with whom you have had little interaction, but who nonetheless has a great deal of admiration and respect for the work you do here, welcome back! --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa thanks

Sarah, I'm just popping by to say thank you so much for supporting my Rfa in the end. Your oppose was the hardest to handle as I respect you more than just about any other editor. I'm so sorry if I let you down with the copyvio's, it was honestly just a mistake and I feel so bad about it at the minute, I promise you it won't happen again and I won't abuse the tools, anyway, thanks again Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor

Good luck? I think assigning myself as a Mentor would be like inviting Hannibal Lecter to dinner. Somehow I don't think a mentor will be needed. I'm getting back to contributing to the encyclopedia. My days of acting as the "training wheels" for problematic editors are over. -- Longhair\^talk 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Proposal.

I'm dropping my proposal; your arguments raised some points I hadn't thought of. The newbie-biting really bothered me. Thank you for participating in the discussion. Acalamari 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Welcome back! Though I have to admit that I didn't know you disappeared for awhile. =\ It appears that I'm not very aware of how the alliance is doing. Hmm... Anyways, glad you're back and I hope all is going well. =) On a completely different note... oy vey, glad that was closed quickly. -- Gogo Dodo 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a community ban if there was one. The RfC thing, the vote for a new mentor (uhh, yeah...), the choice of "sacked", and the idea of admin coaching (shudder) is just bad. It's pretty obvious that it is not going anywhere fast, even withstanding the latest excuse. The mentoring seems to have failed. It feels like he went through the motions of reading whatever was assigned, but didn't follow through with the editing suggestions. And with the admin coaching thing, it's obvious that adminship is still his ultimate goal. -- Gogo Dodo 03:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding message to Viriditas

Dear Madam,

I would like to state that your recent intervention onto my talk page was that of complete stupidity. Please do not bother people in all ready deep disputes. I would just like to state the user Viriditas is, as yet, upholding the fact of his ridiculous belief that I am a meat-puppet of Arcayne. I have never met the person Arcyne as I stated on his talk page. Is simply ask of him to refrain from having such ridiculous assumptions. Viriditas also called my messages trolling, which they were not, I was just being as polite and cordial as possible.

I however, hope that all this ugly business shall be resolved within the next few days.

However, Accept my most distinguished salutations, Madam, Yours Most Sincerely,

Booksworm Talk to me! 09:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I inform you that as of 10:57 CET, Viriditas has chosen to continue with the idea that I am a meat-puppet. These are very serious allegations. I just want to see Viriditas grow up a bit. I am 13 for heaven's sake and I can behave better than him!

Thank-you for your understanding,

Booksworm Talk to me! 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking.

WikiThanks

Don't worry, I'm not giving up on the proposal; I'm just going to come up with a better one. You see, your opinion got me thinking; I didn't actually want that proposal to be turned into a newbie-attack weapon (that's not why I suggested it), and you pointed out that that would happen. I want to give you this thank you flower as a gift for your input. I'll tell you when I write the better proposal. Acalamari 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my new proposal: User:Acalamari/IWN. Acalamari 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Up Appearances

Will your not keep reverting me please. An annoymous IP address (User:70.53.94.125) changed the British date format to the American one (he did this on many articles, including John Cleese, John Inman, Patricia Routledge). As it is Wikipedia policy to have the date format for the country of the person/programme I reverted his edit. I do not understand why you are reverting me? --Berks105 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this article I was in fact reverting someone who had done just as you say, purely changed the case (in this case to the wrong date format). For you then to revert me is disruptive. I am aware we are not meant to do round purely changing dates and I do not do so, I will change them when I am generally fixing links in an article; and will only change them if it a British based article. --Berks105 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My preferences are set, I am thinking about the millions of people who don't have accounts and use Wikipedia. If you had read what I said above I do not just change the dates, I only do when I do other things to an article. In the case of Keeping Up Appearances I was reverting someone who had purely change the dates to the incorrect US format, you should be moaning at that person and telling them to stop. And I think you are the first person to start an edit war with me about this, if you had just let me revert someone else incorrect edits in the first place we would not have had a problem. --Berks105 12:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if "NO" came across as screaming. I was frustated that you kept reverting for no reason, if you had explained your reasoning in the first place instead of "rv" maybe it wouldn't have happended. And in fairness to me, there wasn't an edit war before you came along; I reverted one edit, that was the end of story. But, I agree with you one thing, I will move on, there seems little point continuing this. --Berks105 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very delayed response

Indeed welcome back and safe travelling Satu Suro 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT

Just to point out that you didn't need to add "|Target, Simon" to all the category tags in the Simon Target article: the DEFAULTSORT tag does that automatically, on account of that's what it's for. --Paul A 05:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]