User talk:Sarah/Archive18

Query

Hi, I'm just wondering what an appropriate course of action might be if a user gives the title of a Wikipedia essay, as opposed to a guideline, in an edit summary for an edit which is non-trivial (and not vandalism). Thanks in advance. :) --Muna (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Muna. Well, it depends on the circumstances. Is there a specific case you're concerned about or are you asking generally? People can give whatever reason they like in their edit summaries and they can refer to essays if they want to, but it doesn't trump policy, so if their edit conforms with an essay but violates policy then the edit likely isn't appropriate. But it really depends on the circumstances and the essay they're referring to. I'm quite happy to take a look if you have a specific case you're concerned about. Cheers, Sarah 00:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

BobDay account

Thanks for your message. Yes please go ahead with giving me the BobDay account as you suggest. I'd appreciate if you could email office@sa.familyfirst.org.au regarding the Bob Day article, and I will reply via that. TemporaryBobDay (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder about Islam and children

You are receiving this message because you are listed as the protecting admin for Islam and children. The page has been semiprotected for longer than 2 months without an expiry date set. Because Wikipedia relies on contributers to make the encyclopedia, I'm asking you to review your decision and either

• Unprotect the page if protection is no longer needed, or
• set a reasonable expiry date for the protection instead of leaving it on forever

I hope that you will do one of the two in order to reduce the backlog of pages that have been semiprotected for very long period of time. Thank you. -Royalguard11(T) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Why am I receiving this message?

Recall criteria

You will notice that I have restored myself to the recall category. My criteria page has been online since January,[1] but I was unsure about it, so I was not "advertising". Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't really want you to be in the category unless you really want to be in it. I just didn't think it was fair to assume that Elonka's criteria hadn't changed since her RfA when you yourself had changed your own. I don't like recall myself because I think it is too prone to drama and misuse and I can't imagine ever adding myself to the category so I would not hold it against anyone if they changed their mind about it. I don't want to fight with you Jonathan and I'm sorry if I have said things that have been hurtful or felt like personal attacks as that has not been my intention at all. I'm just very concerned about what has been happening. Sarah 01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in for now. Don't worry, you can say whatever you want to me. I'd rather hear it and have a chance to reply. Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This probably was not intentional on your part, but it is rude to talk about somebody in a forum where they can't respond. I left a note for you at Elonka's talk page requesting that you move the entire conversation elsewhere. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not going to move or refactor my posts. I feel what I have said there is very relevant to the discussion so I shall be leaving everything as it stands though I don't really have any intention of pursuing things further there unless I have to. Thanks. Sarah 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine, but please understand that I may respond on any page of this project where my integrity is questioned, notwithstanding any other agreements in place. Hey, have you seen this? [2] Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment case

Could you review this harassment case involving Fritzpoll (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). [3] Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it took me a while to review that properly. That's appalling. I think the way he is behaving in general, going from page to page lecturing people, and specifically towards Fritzpoll is disgraceful and I'm quite prepared to block him myself or support a block. Sarah 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold fire for a little while, but do keep an eye on the page(s). Carcharoth wants a chance to talk to Abd, and thinks he/she may be able to resolve the problem without a block. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's after 4 am here so I'm heading off but I'll check back in the morning and see what's happening. That pontificating and lecturing people into submission needs to stop asap so I hope he listens to Carcharoth. If he continues I would support an indef until he gives an undertaking to stop and especially to stop harassing Fritz about his closure of the topic ban discussion. Sarah 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard lock / block

Sarah, I wish to protest about your locking of the Howard article, and the blocking of user:MickMacNee who was only one party in the ensuing edit war. The locking of the article is not appropriate when there are only 2 parties involved in this current edit war. Also, you have only blocked one of the waring parties, whilst showing leniancy to the other party whom you have had a long history of agreeing with on content matters concerning John Howard over the past year. You are as involved in the content of that article as anyone else, and there needs to be more of a separation between administrive decisions and content. --Lester 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate. As Gnangarra said on the talk page, this is the third edit war in the last week or so. Enough now. MickMacNee violated 3RR, reverting four times against two different users, a block was appropriate. Peter did not revert four times and I've disagreed with him many times on many subjects and I supported and helped with enforcement of his arbitration sanctions when he was banned. I really find your "suggestions" about me offensive, Lester. You lot can go and sort out whatever you want in or out on the talk page first. I'm as involved with the content as anyone else? That's just rubbish. I haven't edited the article since last year! And other than commenting on you using of the talk page to co-ordinate a user RFC a few months ago I don't think I've been on talk page for months either. That's not "involved".Sarah 11:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why MickMacNee was just blocked for 48 hours and not longer since it seems they have a past history (Infact I would say that they're close to a indef ban)? Peter did the right thing (in away) as the content was just one source that didn't support the content but should have sorted help from an Admin. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinions only, as always, but - while I disagree with Skyring's reasoning, and would note that calling something BLP and using that as a reason to revert isn't appropriate behaviour, I support the text in question's temporary redaction just because the section of the article in question already looks like one of those snowmen that's been constructed from throwing random snowballs at a single point and calling what stands a snowman, and this particular addition, which had escaped scrutiny owing to the ICC business, stood out like a sore thumb. I think it will be reincluded as soon as we can figure out how to do that. I'd additionally support Sarah in saying that she has not been involved in the article or its poisonous editing environment. I would have to admit I myself am now involved, although I came in as a neutral party earlier this year. In answer to Bidgee: as an admin I would feel uncomfortable making a decision that is really the community's to make, he's not a vandal or SPA and he has been of value on the project, and blocks are intended to prevent damage rather than punish the user. Any significant action would need the support of the community, on the basis of whether the risks/problems outweigh the benefits, and if it's felt that is needed, somebody should draft it. I am not sure that I would support it, though. Orderinchaos 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest strongly that you are not an uninvolved administrator given your commentary at WP:ANI and WP:AN and should have left the block and the page protection to absolutely uninvolved administrators. Although you note at User talk:Skyring The only reason I'm not right now is that he was edit warring against two of you and reverted four times, but another admin might decide that you should be blocked too. I don't see how that material violates BLP so I don't think you were reverting under that protection. Given that you did the block, there is no apparent report at WP:3RR there is no reason for an uninvolved admin to even be aware of the case. Skyring asserts he It's still a 3RR vio, and I'll hand it over to the admin cadre for action. but did not report (and nor did he necessarily need to). You may be within your rights to perform admin actions but your assertion So I have not been involved with these content disputes but I have been watching it at WP:AN is disingenuous in my view. you cannot watch, comment on WP:AN and ANI on it and not be involved - you have strong views and have expressed them as is your right but thereby become "involved" .
  You suggested that I share Orderinchaos's concerns about some of Matilda's actions on this page. ... I am quite concerned that she has become so involved that she has compromised herself and should not be using her tools at all in regard to this page or any of these users. - I suggest you look at your own actions and reconsider whether you are uninvolved. That applies to any admin who has been watching the dispute and has formed a view. I call again for uninvolved admins - not pseudo-uninvolved. --Matilda ^talk 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It was reported to RPP so of course there was reason for administrators to be aware. I reject completely the suggestion that I'm "involved" with that page and therefore cannot protect it when necessary. I would like to respond further to a couple of things you've said but I'm just on my way out for the rest of the day. Maybe tonight. But seriously, you hardblocked the account being used to write an RFC about you... Sarah 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly - the RfC had been lodged - I did not interfere in anyway with the development or lodgment of the RfC. --Matilda ^talk 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the RFC was finished or not, do you really think you were sufficiently uninvolved to implement any administrative actions? Sufficiently uninvolved by your definition of "uninvolved"? Or does your definition of "involved" only apply to other admins? Sarah 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The request for block may have been reported at Wikipedia:RPP#John_Howard_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 but is now marked a fulfilled thus no reason for anyone to revisit - the 3RR violation by MickMacNee was not as far as I am aware reported and thus the editwarring by other editors was not scrutinised by other than involved editors and admins or you.--Matilda ^talk 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please check your facts - [4] The protection request and the edit war and the 3RR violation were reported to RPP. No need to be bureaucratic and respond to the protection request but send Gnangarra to WP:3RR to report the 3RR, hmm? Seems kind of silly to suggest that users should have to file multiple individual reports. As I said on Mick's page, I think your definition of "uninvolved" is highly unique and would result on paralysis to numerous pages if it were the criteria used by the community. Sarah 01:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC) I really am going now so any further replies will have to wait...

(copied largely from my answer to from MMN's talk page but explanded here to deal with other points raised by Sarah) I by no means suggest I am uninvolved - perhaps to quote Orderinchaos While personal attacks are never justified, reasonable questioning of actions is expected and not to be discouraged at all. - to suggest that your actions cannot be questioned by me or any other editor is an extraordinary defence - so is the ad hominem or pot calling the kettle black argument.
I have already explained on your usertalkpage and on ANI that I hardblocked sockpuppet accounts used by an abuser in the past of sockpuppetry only when he had finished using them to file the RfC - I in no way interfered with his preparation or filing the RfC - the block had an unintended consequence of inconveniencing Skyring slightly, which he did not ask me to fix but took to ANI. I acted in good faith to try not to inflame an already inflamed situation - I failed - quite prepared to admit it and that it would have been handled better if handled differently. I have taken on board your criticisms of my actions which were after the event - I am really not sure what else i can do except say Noted !?!
Your actions (and inactions - for example not blocking Skyring for editwarring too) subsequent to your comments on WP:AN and WP:ANI have not helped to calm the situation.
My definition of uninvolved in this case is that there are in excess of 1500 admins out there, many of whom have not been talking on or off-wiki with involved editors and admins. I suggest that almost any of the Australian admins comes with prejudices about the content and some of the participants and has quite possibly been corresponding off-wiki on the subject. This has become an incredibly complex situation which is incidentally very little to do with content. I can write further but ... I will save it for another time. I would be absolutely appalled that you could consider violating OTRS and I would suggest that even mentioning that there may be a Wikipedia:OTRS case or cases is in fact improper. This situation is not dying down and needs proper resolution and that in my view is best supplied by uninvolved (like really really uninvolved as per my definition) admins who come to the issue with little to no prior involvement with involved editors. I do not propose that that solution has to apply for all times - but this is messy - and in fact just got messier. --Matilda ^talk 01:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR is pretty clear. One party breached it, the other didn't. One party got blocked, the other didn't. Yes, the other's behaviour was not behaviour to be encouraged. I think we're all agreed on that. But I am really not seeing the problem here - we have a policy and it got enforced in the exact, clear terms in which it was written. The person who got blocked was well aware of the policy and had been blocked for it numerous times before in unrelated circumstances in unrelated venues. There was certainly no breach of policy in enforcing it.

Re OTRS, you yourself have stated your intent to write to it, I was under the impression you had done so based solely on on-wiki comments by yourself, and your edit to a project-space talk page. Again, not seeing the problem. You've been levelling some fairly major allegations and accusations at people who you've been working with for two and more years, and I'm really not sure how you expect it to "die down" by doing that. It makes no sense to me. None of your response to this is in any way calming the situation—quite the reverse.

This situation is making a mockery of the lot of us, though. We are all normally able to collaborate and cooperate on WP:AUS and I'm not entirely sure to this point what went wrong. I think some thoroughly silly things have been done and said by several parties (and I do not exclude myself from this), it's probably coming a time soon where we should draw a line under it and move on, especially as it seems the John Howard article may just improve out of it all. Orderinchaos 02:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On that note, may I put in a request that MickMacNee be unblocked early, so that he can participate in discussion? --Pete (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I hadn't let you know but you have an email from several days ago - if you don't want to reply, I think I understand - and things of course have moved on. I had thought you were going to per [5] --Matilda ^talk 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Darth Mike-- editor review?

Hello. User:Darth Mike is attempting to remedy the deficiencies revealed in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darth Mike. He seems to be going great guns, but I fear he needs to Huggle less and build more. As he found your oppose comment helpful, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind doing an editor review and offering him some advice. He seems like an eager, sincere, helpful, knowledgeable, editor, and I'd hate for his next RFA to wind up on the rocks for lack of proper guidance. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Namasté

Quiet of late - is all well?--VS ^talk 23:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

What must I do to be granted rollback permission? Is there any criteria or conditions I must meet in order to have the right to use this feature? Thank you. Cristian Cappiello (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ears burning?

I have dropped your name at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI - My Big Love (film)

Just to let you know that I've updated the article that's transcluded protected at/to your user subpage User:Sarah/PT. It's a legit film in this revision - looks like there was some move problems in the past. It needs work, but is at least a decent stub. Perhaps a move protect? Ideas? Thanks! SkierRMH (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard lock / block

(copied largely from my answer to from MMN's talk page but explanded here to deal with other points raised by Sarah) I by no means suggest I am uninvolved - perhaps to quote Orderinchaos While personal attacks are never justified, reasonable questioning of actions is expected and not to be discouraged at all. - to suggest that your actions cannot be questioned by me or any other editor is an extraordinary defence - so is the ad hominem or pot calling the kettle black argument.
I have already explained on your usertalkpage and on ANI that I hardblocked sockpuppet accounts used by an abuser in the past of sockpuppetry only when he had finished using them to file the RfC - I in no way interfered with his preparation or filing the RfC - the block had an unintended consequence of inconveniencing Skyring slightly, which he did not ask me to fix but took to ANI. I acted in good faith to try not to inflame an already inflamed situation - I failed - quite prepared to admit it and that it would have been handled better if handled differently. I have taken on board your criticisms of my actions which were after the event - I am really not sure what else i can do except say Noted !?!
Your actions (and inactions - for example not blocking Skyring for editwarring too) subsequent to your comments on WP:AN and WP:ANI have not helped to calm the situation.
My definition of uninvolved in this case is that there are in excess of 1500 admins out there, many of whom have not been talking on or off-wiki with involved editors and admins. I suggest that almost any of the Australian admins comes with prejudices about the content and some of the participants and has quite possibly been corresponding off-wiki on the subject. This has become an incredibly complex situation which is incidentally very little to do with content. I can write further but ... I will save it for another time. I would be absolutely appalled that you could consider violating OTRS and I would suggest that even mentioning that there may be a Wikipedia:OTRS case or cases is in fact improper. This situation is not dying down and needs proper resolution and that in my view is best supplied by uninvolved (like really really uninvolved as per my definition) admins who come to the issue with little to no prior involvement with involved editors. I do not propose that that solution has to apply for all times - but this is messy - and in fact just got messier. --Matilda ^talk 01:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR is pretty clear. One party breached it, the other didn't. One party got blocked, the other didn't. Yes, the other's behaviour was not behaviour to be encouraged. I think we're all agreed on that. But I am really not seeing the problem here - we have a policy and it got enforced in the exact, clear terms in which it was written. The person who got blocked was well aware of the policy and had been blocked for it numerous times before in unrelated circumstances in unrelated venues. There was certainly no breach of policy in enforcing it.

Re OTRS, you yourself have stated your intent to write to it, I was under the impression you had done so based solely on on-wiki comments by yourself, and your edit to a project-space talk page. Again, not seeing the problem. You've been levelling some fairly major allegations and accusations at people who you've been working with for two and more years, and I'm really not sure how you expect it to "die down" by doing that. It makes no sense to me. None of your response to this is in any way calming the situation—quite the reverse.

This situation is making a mockery of the lot of us, though. We are all normally able to collaborate and cooperate on WP:AUS and I'm not entirely sure to this point what went wrong. I think some thoroughly silly things have been done and said by several parties (and I do not exclude myself from this), it's probably coming a time soon where we should draw a line under it and move on, especially as it seems the John Howard article may just improve out of it all. Orderinchaos 02:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On that note, may I put in a request that MickMacNee be unblocked early, so that he can participate in discussion? --Pete (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I hadn't let you know but you have an email from several days ago - if you don't want to reply, I think I understand - and things of course have moved on. I had thought you were going to per [6] --Matilda ^talk 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Darth Mike-- editor review?

Hello. User:Darth Mike is attempting to remedy the deficiencies revealed in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darth Mike. He seems to be going great guns, but I fear he needs to Huggle less and build more. As he found your oppose comment helpful, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind doing an editor review and offering him some advice. He seems like an eager, sincere, helpful, knowledgeable, editor, and I'd hate for his next RFA to wind up on the rocks for lack of proper guidance. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

What must I do to be granted rollback permission? Is there any criteria or conditions I must meet in order to have the right to use this feature? Thank you. Cristian Cappiello (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Darth Mike-- editor review?

Hello. User:Darth Mike is attempting to remedy the deficiencies revealed in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darth Mike. He seems to be going great guns, but I fear he needs to Huggle less and build more. As he found your oppose comment helpful, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind doing an editor review and offering him some advice. He seems like an eager, sincere, helpful, knowledgeable, editor, and I'd hate for his next RFA to wind up on the rocks for lack of proper guidance. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

What must I do to be granted rollback permission? Is there any criteria or conditions I must meet in order to have the right to use this feature? Thank you. Cristian Cappiello (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI - My Big Love (film)

Just to let you know that I've updated the article that's transcluded protected at/to your user subpage User:Sarah/PT. It's a legit film in this revision - looks like there was some move problems in the past. It needs work, but is at least a decent stub. Perhaps a move protect? Ideas? Thanks! SkierRMH (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't the existence of it, the problem is that it is being posted by sockpuppets of User:Gerald Gonzalez AKA Aiza00. No doubt this current version of the article has also been posted by one of his socks. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Aiza00, Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Gerald_Gonzalez, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gerald_Gonzalez. Sarah 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

request for restoration

Hi Sarah

A copy of the page I created List of number-one albums in Australia during the 1960s was deleted by someone in North America and replaced by a substandard version. The new version deleted my work on how many weeks each album was at #1 position in the music charts for and broke the page up into seperate years instead of one page for the whole decade. I was not notified before this was done and I lost all my work and am not very happy. The person who did this did so under the auspices of a "wiki albums project". I feel like a school kid who has had their work stolen.

Could I please have a copy o the original encoding for this page? Thank you.

Rusty201 (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed you a copy of the article, but I wouldn't advise you to simply repost it, if that is your intention as it has been through an AFD discussion. If you think the AFD was closed incorrectly, you'll need to start a deletion review discussion because if you just repost it it will just be deleted as a repost of an AFD deleted article. Also, I really think you need to read WP:OWN as no one owns anything here and by submitting edits to Wikipedia, you open your material to being edited by others. If you don't like that then you should really post your articles somewhere else. Sarah 02:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Howard lock / block

(copied largely from my answer to from MMN's talk page but explanded here to deal with other points raised by Sarah) I by no means suggest I am uninvolved - perhaps to quote Orderinchaos While personal attacks are never justified, reasonable questioning of actions is expected and not to be discouraged at all. - to suggest that your actions cannot be questioned by me or any other editor is an extraordinary defence - so is the ad hominem or pot calling the kettle black argument.
I have already explained on your usertalkpage and on ANI that I hardblocked sockpuppet accounts used by an abuser in the past of sockpuppetry only when he had finished using them to file the RfC - I in no way interfered with his preparation or filing the RfC - the block had an unintended consequence of inconveniencing Skyring slightly, which he did not ask me to fix but took to ANI. I acted in good faith to try not to inflame an already inflamed situation - I failed - quite prepared to admit it and that it would have been handled better if handled differently. I have taken on board your criticisms of my actions which were after the event - I am really not sure what else i can do except say Noted !?!
Your actions (and inactions - for example not blocking Skyring for editwarring too) subsequent to your comments on WP:AN and WP:ANI have not helped to calm the situation.
My definition of uninvolved in this case is that there are in excess of 1500 admins out there, many of whom have not been talking on or off-wiki with involved editors and admins. I suggest that almost any of the Australian admins comes with prejudices about the content and some of the participants and has quite possibly been corresponding off-wiki on the subject. This has become an incredibly complex situation which is incidentally very little to do with content. I can write further but ... I will save it for another time. I would be absolutely appalled that you could consider violating OTRS and I would suggest that even mentioning that there may be a Wikipedia:OTRS case or cases is in fact improper. This situation is not dying down and needs proper resolution and that in my view is best supplied by uninvolved (like really really uninvolved as per my definition) admins who come to the issue with little to no prior involvement with involved editors. I do not propose that that solution has to apply for all times - but this is messy - and in fact just got messier. --Matilda ^talk 01:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR is pretty clear. One party breached it, the other didn't. One party got blocked, the other didn't. Yes, the other's behaviour was not behaviour to be encouraged. I think we're all agreed on that. But I am really not seeing the problem here - we have a policy and it got enforced in the exact, clear terms in which it was written. The person who got blocked was well aware of the policy and had been blocked for it numerous times before in unrelated circumstances in unrelated venues. There was certainly no breach of policy in enforcing it.

Re OTRS, you yourself have stated your intent to write to it, I was under the impression you had done so based solely on on-wiki comments by yourself, and your edit to a project-space talk page. Again, not seeing the problem. You've been levelling some fairly major allegations and accusations at people who you've been working with for two and more years, and I'm really not sure how you expect it to "die down" by doing that. It makes no sense to me. None of your response to this is in any way calming the situation—quite the reverse.

This situation is making a mockery of the lot of us, though. We are all normally able to collaborate and cooperate on WP:AUS and I'm not entirely sure to this point what went wrong. I think some thoroughly silly things have been done and said by several parties (and I do not exclude myself from this), it's probably coming a time soon where we should draw a line under it and move on, especially as it seems the John Howard article may just improve out of it all. Orderinchaos 02:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On that note, may I put in a request that MickMacNee be unblocked early, so that he can participate in discussion? --Pete (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I hadn't let you know but you have an email from several days ago - if you don't want to reply, I think I understand - and things of course have moved on. I had thought you were going to per [7] --Matilda ^talk 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't been doing any such thing; I haven't been here since then as my contributions will show. Yes, I received your email and I looked at the pages but I still fail to see harassment. I see very bad behaviour from a variety of people on both sides who should have been blocked and no doubt would have been if it wasn't for the bungled way the page is being managed, but harassment is something else entirely. I must say that your comment that I was considering violating OTRS is utterly absurd. You are the one who posted in various places on-wiki that you had written to OTRS and what about so my acknowledging the existence of the ticket was in no way a violation of OTRS. When I commented about violating OTRS, I was simple observing that I was unable to discuss further your idea of "uninvolved admin" because it would mean responding to comments you made in your email to OTRS which was something I was unable to do. I most certainly was not saying I was "considering violating OTRS" and the suggestion is utterly absurd - as if there was anything in your email worth my doing so! Now that Mick's block has expired and been affirmed by multiple independent admins, I would like to say that I found your behaviour on Mick's talk page appalling. I don't know what you were attempting to achieve there, other than protecting someone you aligned yourself with from a block. If you were truly acting in the interests of this project rather than self-interests then I believe you would have simply condemned the edit-warring rather than trying to undermine me and the block and get him off on a crazy technicality. I think your view of "involved" is not consistent with the community's and unfortunately I don't think your behaviour and attitude has helped the AUSPOL articles at all. What is needed on the John Howard page, is not less Australian admins, but MORE. For too long too many of us have been driven away from that page such that the only regular editors left there now are the point-of-view pushers on both sides and occasional editors and admins who go in and try to clean it up until they, too, get driven away. What is needed is for more editors and admins of any nationality, (including, *gasp*, Australians) who care about this project first and foremost to take back that article. That's not going to happen by driving away admins like me or trying to 'handicap' us by accusing us of being "too involved" because we're Australian and generally interested in helping with the Australian articles. Or because your friend has taken a personal dislike to them and dubbed them as pro-Howard because they've tried to enforce BLP. Your claim that only ArbCom can impose article restrictions is patently incorrect. The community can impose any editing restrictions that ArbCom can and it has been my view for a long time now, and it has been discussed previously, that the page should be put under community enforced restrictions - 1RR, civility, NPA, BLP, NPOV parole. The community has imposed such restrictions many times before, so your statement that either all editors must agree to it or it must be imposed by ArbCom is simply not correct. As I have said many times previously, I think the Obama sanctions would be very helpful for the John Howard article. Of course the partisan editors won't agree to it - that's rather the point. They want to be able to edit war. Asking people who are here to push a political point-of-view to voluntarily agree to edit restrictions is crazy and so the community must step in and impose it.

I think you compromised yourself with people on that page and I found it highly disappointing that you jumped on Lester's bandwagon rather than helping to enforce a blatant incivility and 3RR violation. I mean, we're talking about someone who's been blocked 12 times since February and is heading straight towards a community ban. His opening unblock request contained blatant personal attacks against Gnangarra, suggested I'm an idiot, and demanded I make admissions or face a "formal review" and yet your concern and focus was bizarrely on me and my "involvement" in the incident even though I was clearly not involved in it at all and the block was endorsed by multiple outside admins. As for Lester, I have blocked him previously for edit warring and he questions just about every administrative action he sees me perform - including most recently filing a DRV because I closed a very clear AFD in a way that was not personally convenient to him and his DRV request was unanimously rejected without any input from me required. He also writes to my friends and complains about me. And so I find it very disappointing to see you backing him up over what was just his latest "Sarah complaint" to accuse me of being "too involved" in a page that I tried to enforce BLP on last year but have never made content edits to, rather than helping make progress in cleaning up the page by condemning the 3RR violation and the blatant personal attacks. Had you condemned the edit warring and personal attacks it might have helped get the message through to Mick and thus avoid his subsequent one week personal attacks block. Sarah 04:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I just worked out ....

... why you aren't talking to me any more Sarah. You are glued to the screen watching the mighty Hawks beat their opponents to submission. Fair enough - here's three beers and three cheers File:Icon beer.gif File:Icon beer.gif File:Icon beer.gif. --VS ^talk 02:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Waaaa? Not talking to you?! Since when? I sent you an email before I went on my wikibreak but I've been away lately as I've been really busy IRL. I'm not really back yet, just checking in on the NYScholar issue, but I shall send you another email soon with my postal addy so you can send me a postcard on your next travels. And yes, Friday night was glorious! Woohoo! Up the mighty Hawks! Sarah 01:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • :) I thought that my message would fire up your passion. I knew you were away - just wanted to let you know I was thinking of you and your team (especially now that mine is out of contention). Stay sane IRL. --VS ^talk 01:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Section review on an Article

If you have time could you look at Licensing breach[8] on the 104.1 Territory FM article. I'm wondering what your thoughts are in terms whether it should go or stay? Bidgee (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee. Sorry, I'm not ignoring you, I'm just on a wikibreak at present as I'm really busy IRL. But I will try to take a look at the article when I have some time. Cheers, Sarah 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Sarah - just leaving you this message whilst you are on your break. It appears (unfortunately) that Bidgee has retired from the project. He also left this message for me and I did assist but since then he has posted a notice of retirement. Talk to you when you get back. --VS ^talk 04:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. That's most unfortunate. I hadn't heard about that - I hope he reconsiders after he's had a chance to have a break. Sarah 05:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the nice comments. I'll be sure to invite you to Wikipedia:Requests for god-king/Lankiveil when it's created =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC).

LOL I hate to break it to you, Lanki, but I'm a republican. The last thing we need in this country is another monarch! :D Sarah 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

amazement.

Yes, but like last time, we can take comfort in the fact that most others can read for themselves and come to a reasonable conclusion. I hope. ThuranX (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather speechless at this. It's utterly astounding and I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I can only hope that people with Clue arrive soon but I fear like last time the sheer length will deter anyone with any sense. Sarah 11:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why hasn't anyone asked Keeper to mentor NYS? :) Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Viri! Out of interest, I just put that really, really, loooong post into Word and it's over 2000 words! When I was at uni, I sometimes used to have trouble stretching my essays out to the set length and I just can't believe that someone spits out single ANI posts that are essay length in one go. I hate to think what his total ANI word count is. *rolls eyes* Sarah 14:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

this diffs thing pisses me off. We told him to provide diffs last time, so now he thinks he can use it against us now. Unfortunately, he doesn't understand, as mentioned in the thread, that last time we established his behavior, this time it's just about him going back to his old ways after being 'unmentored' too soon, and his subsequent refusal to accept that. I think this is going to end in an ArbCom, like he's already stated. ThuranX (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: NYScholar going "offline"

I think I've figured out the reason for this constant "I'm leaving now" meme we see from NYS. I recall her doing this before, and then getting upset that people still responded. I think it's an attempt to silence people from talking about her, as it is "rude" to talk behind another's back. (OMG, I used a particular personal pronoun there! How ruuuuuuude of me!) Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is, was there any doubt? I noted that in one prior thread, or at least thought it. I may not have typed it, in the interest of 'civility', NYScholar's favorite invocation against actual material discussion. But yeah, that's why. In fact, look back and you'll find comments about that sort of thing before. ThuranX (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you respond, you are "forcing her" to stay online against her will. And then she will become ill, and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT, you heartless uncaring bastard! You obviously want to chase off all of the Heath Ledger scholars so no one will be able to write about such an advanced subject! (okay, now I'm nauseous...:P) Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

es:User:Crum375

Regarding [9], I have renamed (and blocked) es:User:Crum375 so User:Crum375 can be conpletely SULed. Also, you may be interested in usurping es:User:Sarah (old account, 0 edits, 0 deleted). Let me know if you want me to do so and rename es:User:Sarah Ewart to es:User:Sarah (but in such case confirm here that you own the acocunt). Platonides (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Platonides, I really appreciate you doing that. I would love to usurp the es User:Sarah, thank you! I confirm that the es user:Sarah Ewart is in fact me. Thanks very much for dealing with that issue so quickly. Much appreciated. Sarah 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

es:User:Sarah Ewart has ben renamed to es:User:Sarah Platonides (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

Sarah;

I wanted to thank you for providing me with areas to work on. I don't think that what you saw paints the entire picture of who I am. I use the bottom of my userpage as a sandbox. Only one of the proposals dates from the last month and that does not have any reference to me, or promise me any power. Also, I have been working productively on content over the last month, which I have neglected to put on my userpage. Again thank you for your criticism. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Geoff. Please know that I know that you are well intended and operating in good faith. I do understand that your latest projects do not include self-appointed "power positions" and that is definitely an improvement. However, I still think that those recent units are poorly conceived and thought through and are further attempts at unnecessarily bureaucratising aspects of Wikipedia that should not be bureaucratic and would become a fountain of drama. I'm not saying that I'd oppose you being an OTRS agent forever, but I do feel that the past history is significant enough that I would want to be sure that you're passed that stage before I would endorse your application because while a lot of OTRS work is routine and straightforward, it is also the frontline of dealing with royally pissed article subjects and other critical issues related to the mainspace and tremendous damage can be done there. But it's entirely up to the OTRS admins, and they may not agree with me at all, so it's best to wait and see what they say once they've reviewed your application.. Also, I didn't mean to imply that you were hiding your previous account or anything and I agree that you have been transparent here on en about who you are and that's great. My comment about transparency was in terms of your OTRS application - that you hadn't identified the account you had made thousands of edits with in your application. I was just referring to your application, not your transparency here on Wikipedia. I feel that you have improved a lot over the last year, though, and I hope that you will continue. For example, I noticed that your contribution breakdown is currently at 1256 mainspace edits to 2447 total edits, whereas Geo's contribs breakdown at 110 mainspace from 1952 total. That on it's own is an immense improvement and I hope that you continue. Thanks again for responding to my comment and good luck with your future efforts. Sarah 12:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Schools Barnstar

		The Schools Barnstar
		For long-term contributions cleaning and improving Wikipedia school articles, I award Sarah the Schools Barnstar! --Jh12 (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jh! I really don't feel that I deserve this barnstar but I thank you very much. It was very kind and thoughtful of you to think of me and I most sincerely appreciate it. I shall add it to my barnstar page right now! Thank you. :) Cheers, Sarah 12:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Re Rollback

The issue with my sibling has already been solved, he has moved to work on the spanish wikipedia (we both have spanish as our mother tongue) and I am 90% posotive he will create an account there.(We also had quite an argument for the misuse of wikipedia) Please notice that in the house where we live, there is only one computer, so the IP adress may be the same, I do not know because I don't have such technical knowledge. Additionaly, I was unware of the wikipedia policies, and even though I have read such policies to be better informed, there is still much I need to know. But rest assured, if you give me rollback privileges I shall put them to good use on my areas of expertise, just please give me one chance, only one chance to prove myself. Thanks. Cristian Cappiello (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Re Rollback

The issue with my sibling has already been solved, he has moved to work on the spanish wikipedia (we both have spanish as our mother tongue) and I am 90% posotive he will create an account there.(We also had quite an argument for the misuse of wikipedia) Please notice that in the house where we live, there is only one computer, so the IP adress may be the same, I do not know because I don't have such technical knowledge. Additionaly, I was unware of the wikipedia policies, and even though I have read such policies to be better informed, there is still much I need to know. But rest assured, if you give me rollback privileges I shall put them to good use on my areas of expertise, just please give me one chance, only one chance to prove myself. Thanks. Cristian Cappiello (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A heads-up

User talk:Sam lightfoot. Hesperian 06:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hesp. Ordinarily after a year had passed I would try to turn a blind eye to him creating a new account and give him a chance to prove they've grown up since then, but going straight back to troll User:Thewinchester doesn't bode well. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Sarah 02:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 AFL Grand Final

One day that's all it was, one day Gnangarra 07:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Great game, great result. Congrats to your team Sarah.--VS ^talk 07:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. It was a great game, they played so well and it makes me feel paying my membership fees all these years without results was a good investment! Hey, that guy who put $400,000 on them must have made a nice bundle. :) Sarah 09:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How cool was that. Ben Aveling 07:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that was just awesome! :) I'm so thrilled, it's been such a very long time waiting! Sarah 09:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It was the first game I've seen for ages; it was a good one to see. Cheers, Ben Aveling 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:) Daniel (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Awarded to Sarah for her work at the Melbourne Olympic parade. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• And I second that in bold and wish I had seen it before the YellowMonkey did so I could have given you the barnbstar. What great work and photos Sarah. PS I have heard a rumour that the YellowMonkey has painted brown stripes onto his yellow fur so that he now looks like a Hawthorn supporter?--VS ^talk 07:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The brown fur has been there since birth! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome, thank you very much, Monkey! :) I heard that rumour, too, Steve, but it was just a vicious lie being spread by the monkey gossip magazines because many monkeys are jealous that they have to go to the monkey stylist to get their fur coloured Hawthorn colours, but Monkey is a genuine original and needs no cosmetic enhancements! Monkey has very good genes. Hey, Steve, if you want to make yourself useful (!) see if you can identify any of these people! I would be very grateful if you recognised any of them! :) Sarah 09:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to help - but most of them look like they have come from the Men in black sunglass store. ;)--VS ^talk 03:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Michael Diamond (sport shooter) = Image:2008 Australian Olympic team 061 - Sarah Ewart.jpg Perhaps?--VS ^talk 00:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Doubt it's Michael Diamond as the photo looks to be someone a little younger and his face is different[10]. Bidgee (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be Matt Targett (who is a Vic), one of the sprint freestyle relay boys, although with the sunglasses it is a bit difficult. Also Diamond didnt win a medal this time and it would be a bit dubious to wheel out an old medal. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And related to this, I now need some opinions on a straw poll on the Olympians. Quick and easy. Just select which of the multiple photos of the same person is of the highest quality/least flawed/most appropriate. The link is in the sig. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 08:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get onto the poll later monkey. In the meantime after going through all the medalists i think it is James Marburg, link here and see some google pics of him here. If its not him, than im at a loss. But all this guessing is fun isn't it? 211.30.12.197 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Mr 211. I think you might have won the jackpot! I wasn't really convinced by the Olympic site's image of Marburg, so I had a little poke around at Google Images, and I found this picture: [11] and I'm pretty sure that is Mr 61! It would be great to know what others think, though, guys? FWIW, I'm pretty much as certain as I can be that it isn't Michael Diamond. I just learned tonight that Diamond is the same age as me, nearly exactly - he's a month and a couple of days older than me. And as much as I'd love to say that Mr 61 is the same age as me, he's obviously younger. I also looked up my original downloads as they came off the camera and this guy was in just the right spot to be on the rowing team. Sign-wise, he was between the "Rowing" and the "Sailing" signs and the nearest identified person was James Tomkins at image number 063. So, Mr 211, I think you're right about Mr 61! :) Thank you very much for helping and if you think you recognise anyone else please let me know! It's been incredibly frustrating and difficult trying to work out who the different athletes because many of them look really different to their official images. And the dark sunglasses are really unhelpful! Sarah 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

red herring

Hi - the media file was posted by Durova (but it seems she didn't sign) - and I followed up with her on her talk page as to what she meant as it was altogether a bit cryptic. The reason for citing Griffith Uni was just as an external reliable source as to copyright on emails. There is no link to the arbcom decision at WP:Harrass and the question had arisen whether that should be reviewed. While I fully respect the arbcom decision - to my mind the law on copyright actually has more weight. Regards Matilda ^talk 07:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for letting me know. We should probably add an unsigned tag because that media file slapped there with no sig and no comment is very strange and confusing. I understand your point about copyright, but I just don't want to see that discussion continue going off on a tangent. It seems more important at this stage, IMHO, to try to keep the discussion focused on the validity of the block rather than the perennial issue of posting emails and copyright, which will no doubt devolve again into discussion about the location of the servers and such. I think for the sake of the main people involved, i.e. Steve, Sandstein and Gene, it's much more important to try to focus on the blocks and to try to encourage the community to discuss it and reach a consensus regarding Gene's long term problematic behaviour. Sarah 14:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC) I just read your discussion with Durova, and I'm rather confused by the whole thing and where anyone is getting the idea that people think that consensus can override copyright law (or any law, for that matter). If that's the impression of my comments, then it is a mistaken impression because I don't think that at all. I just think that we don't need to start discussing and debating law because things are far more simplistic and straightforward. ArbCom passed findings that private emails should not be posted without the author's consent and if they are posted then they can be removed by any administrator. Therefore, emails shouldn't be posted without the author's consent and if they are posted in this way then they can be removed by any administrator. The whole thing seems like an unnecessary tangent and I really do believe that it is more important to focus the discussion on the block ad trying to reach a consensus about that. It's really not good to leave up in the air a block that has been contested by another administrator, especially when there's an unresolved and unaddressed objection like George's there on ANI and elsewhere. Sarah 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I apologize for introducing the tangent. The thing is, the WP:HA policy is confusing (and ambiguous) because it says there is no consensus for or against posting e-mail merely because other such policies have been rejected. Durova may or may not have misread this because it could be interpreted (implicitly) to mean what she says. Anyhoo, any chance you can take a look at WP:HA and fix the wording? As it is currently reading, it makes it seem like it is ok to post e-mail. As for Gene, I'm concerned that he doesn't understand WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, but I don't know exactly know how to bring it up with him. Maybe the long break will do him good? Viriditas (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise, Viri. I've made some changes to the HAR policy page. Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence Let's see if they get reverted or not. :) Sarah 00:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC) PS Sorry for the delay replying, just pretty busy IRL. :) Sarah 00:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. :) Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Sarah - I agree with the points you made. I not only support VS's block - I was pleased he made it. I would like to see a more robust attitude to upholding civility principles on wikipedia. Gene was very rude to 3 editors myslef included (+Bidgee and Michelle Crisp) - later to Steve. The issue about emails came up - and it needs to be cleaned up as per Viriditas so that everybody is not under some misapprehension. Separate issue though. Thanks --Matilda ^talk 20:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the HAR page that I think bring it in line with normal practice regarding emails and IRC channel transcripts. Hopefully they'll stand up and make it easier for people in future to know how to handle such concerns. Sarah 00:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Rollback

Morning Sarah. I'm Matthew Glennon and I'm a Maintenance and Vandal Prevention editor here at Wikipedia. It would be very helpful to have the Rollback permission added to my account, as I spend the majority of my wiki time reverting vandalism. Please take a look at my UserTalk Page and my User Pages to get an idea of how I am as an editor and review my request. Thanks. Matthew Glennon^(Talk) 13:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Matthew, I've turned it on for you. Please make sure you read over WP:ROLLBACK and understand when exactly you can use it (only on vandalism etc and not on edits made in good faith or in content disputes) because any admin can remove it if they think you are misusing it. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask myself or another administrator. Cheers, Sarah 23:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Marco and Cyclone Tracy

I've also requested MBisanz if he can review it so no one will try and class it as bias. If you're to busy I can understand but if anyone who may read this talk page can also review it if they wish.

Now no one has a source to the fact the Marco was a Hurricane/Tropical Cyclone strength system other then sourcing a warning from the NOAA and a source about Cyclone Tracy which states nothing about Marco. I've had editors trting to use the Tropical Cyclone article as a source that a Tropical Storm is a Hurricane/Tropical Cyclone when they can't explain anything why they think that it is when I have here. The only source I could find was an NOAA warning that said it could be the smallest system but it's no longer available and could be doesn't make it fact anyway and the only other sources are forums which are not classed as reliable. I feel the anything in the article stating that it's the smallest should be left out until it can be proven with verifiable and reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a look but it seems to be resolved now? Sarah 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Two and three years

Two and three years! Acalamari 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, as you know, I sent an E-mail to you about your second anniversary as an admin and third anniversary as an editor, and we spoke briefly about that. Well, at that time, I was also on a break from Wikipedia, and never left a note here. It's time to make up for that, so here's a cookie. :) I remember that you told me a long time ago that you liked these, so here's another one from me. Best wishes. Acalamari 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Acalamari, muchly appreciated. Yep, I love anything filled with chocolaty goodness. :) Glad to see you're back from your break. Cheers, Sarah 23:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cynna Kydd

I'm posting here to avoid creating a tangent on ANI, a page that is already too large. The article Cynna Kydd seems to have had an image[12] at times in the past. It even received criticism at FAC due to the image.[13] You might have a look, the article currently has a citation needed tag here. Jehochman ^Talk 10:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted, but it still meets the criteria of a FA without images. As does USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A, which has no images now and had none at the time it was featured [14]. Sarah 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aye, that's good to know. Where would we get a picture of our rights being taken away? :-( Darn Patriot Act... Jehochman ^Talk 23:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Coatsie

• what a great shot of the little ....! Albatross2147 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I was right at the back of Federation Square with a hand held 500mm lens so it was a matter of hit or miss. :) Sarah 03:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Emmalina

Why are you assuming bad faith with my request? I don't want the page undeleted and I haven't asked for it to be undeleted (your comment assumes that I want this) - I agree with the notability aspect of the deletion (in fact I originally merged the page with a whole lot of other pages - it was other users who put it back). However, I and some other users have requested that the page (which was fully sourced) be used to illustrate early Youtube notability on a separate page even if the user itself is not notable. There is no other place to ask for userfication (if there is please redirect me to it as I will have the UR speedily closed and will ask for it there). Please reply here. JRG (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm assuming bad faith? Just because I disagree with your request doesn't mean that I think you're acting with bad faith. Has it occurred to you that by accusing me of assuming bad faith of you, without presenting any evidence whatsoever that I am assuming bad faith, that you're actually assuming bad faith of me? Sarah 03:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Banner

should be blue and white :( at that article its probably time to protect the banter has been on going for a number of days. Gnangarra 09:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Re [15]. Much appreciated. :) --Michael Billington (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Michael. Must admit, I had to think for a moment whether I really wanted to revert for a Colliewobble fan. :D Hope your studies are going well and good luck with the exams. Cheers, Sarah 08:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, hm. I'd noticed that shockingly obtrusive hawthorn sign above here but decided it would be wiser not to mention it (which clearly didn't help at all). Oh well. --Michael Billington (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have time and/or interest

Hi Sarah, as the result of a gentle rollback I performed on the article Galah, Victoria a friendly discussion has ensued here. Whilst it may not ultimately be the best location for such a communication to fully develop, for now, if you have the time and/or interest, can you provide your thoughts also? With thanks. --VS ^talk 09:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Mr Steve, pleased to hear from you. :) I'd be most happy to take a look at the discussion but I probably won't have a chance to do so until tomorrow morning. By the way, I hope you didn't mind me butting in on the whole Daniel Coursey discussion. I just saw your talk page on my watchlist when he edited your page and I had a look at it as well so he would know that two admins reviewed it and agreed it was an A 7. I didn't mean to interfere with your activites, though, so I hope it didn't feel like that. I hope all is well with you. All the best, my friend. Sarah 15:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well now Ms Sarah, you know you are always welcome on my talk page and your comments are never thought of as butting in. Besides your comment seems to have settled the matter as I have had no return from that editor regarding my offer of help. Speak again soon.--VS ^talk 23:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)