Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:03, 4 March 2010

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

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

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Condolences...

Look, there were other good reasons to block me that day or at least threaten me so don't worry about it. If I thought your adminship should be handed up I would be clear about it not just goad you. ~ R.T.G 16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SRQ just caught me at a bad moment there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User you recently blocked

Dear SarekOfVulcan, you recenlt blocked User:Roux who was subsequently reblocked with an expiry time of yesterday for incivility, which is the eighth civility block he has received amidst 12 total blocks. On an admin's talk page, I made a polite request (not a demand, but a respectful "please" and "thank you" request). Despite having no connection to the discussion at all, Roux showed up with an edit summary "stop making up crap about how wikipedia 'works'--it only works that way in your rabid inclusionist head." You would think the day after a block expires, someone would not immediately personally attack someone else. Because there have already been multiple blocks and warnings for civility this month alone, I am not sure my warning will be sufficient or even acknowledged as it is coming from me whom he apparently dislikes. Indeed, this was his reaction followed subsequently by this swearword laden reply. As such, I am giving you a heads up as it the long history of warnings and blocks on this user just keep being ignored. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I just noticed the top of your talk page. Sorry to bother you about anything else today, I will ask help from a different admin instead. My sincere condolences to you and your family. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. It's not necessary, though -- I'm ok to function, I just wanted documentation in case that changed abruptly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough and again, I am deeply sorry to read that unfortunate news. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Saturday, she was fine -- up and around, went to a concert with my dad. Sunday, she started hurting, went to the ER. They diagnosed acute pancreatitis and started trying to shrink the inflammation so they could remove her gall bladder. Monday afternoon, she arrested -- early Tuesday morning, she coded twice more, and the second time they couldn't bring her back. She was only 67. My mother-in-law died last January, at 64, but she was in the hospital for a month beforehand. This just came out of nowhere... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss

Such a damn shame, I wish you the strength to get through this. Nefariousski (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the time appreciation for volunteer's work is missing

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Sarek, I am giving this to you to show appreciation for the hard work you, as a volunteer, do at this project. It is very much appreciated. Keep up the good work. --CrohnieGal 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Condolences

I didn't notice the top of your page until I saw it in another's post. I am sincerely sorry for you loss. Please take whatever time you need and ignore the rest on your page. Again, my condolences for your loss, --CrohnieGal 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out to SkagitRiverQueen recently, it's a useful diversion. :-) At the moment, I'm good -- I just wanted to have an explanation on file in case something hit me in a sore spot and I went WP:ROUGE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That would never happen, you're an excellent administrator. :) --CrohnieGal 13:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My sincere condolences as well... my best wishes to you and your family in this difficult time. -Rob RobertMfromLI | User Talk 20:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what a shock. I'm so sorry to hear this, Sarek. Please take my heartfelt condolences.

I understand the usefulness of continuing editing. When my mom passed, I had a similarly mentally-engaging project I was working on. I am so glad I had that to distract myself with. It made it much easier to cope. You take care of yourself now, Auntie E. (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My condolences, Sarek. My mom died suddenly of cancer three years and four months ago when she was 62. I've never been the same since then, and I sincerely wish you the best in this difficult time. Doc9871 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm sorry about your mum. It's hard at any time, and even harder when it's sudden. My sympathies to you and your family. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though I don't know who you are and that we have never ever spoken I'm so sorry for your loss. I came across this page just browsing some articles and it lead me here. Its horrible and I wish her, and especially, you well. 92.27.4.199 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Sorry, but I don't get why you think you have the right to remove something from someone else's talk page that wasn't vandalism and had absolutely nothing to do with you, Sarek. FYI: what I read in Crohnie's statement about not having anything nice to say on her talk page didn't mean that she wanted me to stop posting to her talk page altogether. Regardless, I do believe that you have, once more, overstepped your boundries as an administrator/Wiki-cop (although, I'm certain Crohnie will say she supports what you did because she's like that when it comes to anyone doing something in opposition to me). Keep in mind that by removing what I wrote, the message you ended up sending to Crohnie is that she *should* continue to see me as an evil Wikipedian who deserves no respect and should not be the recipent of AGF. If that was your goal: good for you - you accomplished another blow to any hope of healthy, non-codependant reconciliation between Crohnie and I. Continuing to enable Wikipedians who don't exercise that which they tout teaches them nothing other than their dysfunctional behavior is perfectly acceptible. In the end, all you do is harm them, those who deal with them, and the project as a whole. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you are talking about editors and not edits. Do I really need to say poke, poke again. Remember time served? Remember the comments on your talk page were proven at SPI to be someone else? I've been trying really hard to assume good faith and work with you politely and I think I have been. Disagreeing with you is not the same as not assuming good faith. Please refactor your comment esp. that last sentence. That is rude, assumes bad faith and just isn't called for. Thank you, --CrohnieGal 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh...what the heck are you talking about, Crohnie? I never said anything here about the person you are claiming I was talking about. As far as what's been proven at SPI...so far, the jury is still out and from what I can see, there's been no final decision made. You can claim you've tried "really hard to assume good faith and work with politely", but the proof is in the pudding, dear. If I were talking about you simply disagreeing with me, I would have said so - I don't have a problem confusing simple disagreement with a complete lack of respect and good faith. What's more, I will not "refactor" anything, because it's unneccessary. But now that you mention it, remember the baseless accusations you made about me last week regarding Chowbok's sandbox? Remember how you claimed I was actually the one who encouraged him to start the page? I requested then that you retract what you said because it was a false, unfounded accusation and you ignored me. You ignorning the fact that you accused me wrongly was "rude, assumes bad faith and just isn't called for". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for The 22 Letters

An article that you have been involved in editing, The 22 Letters, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Plad2 (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sarek, No rush on this. I've got plenty of other things to be getting on with and I know that family circumstances may make it difficult for you to respond. My condolences. I just thought you would like to know about the proposed merger, given your involvement in the earlier discussion and the AfD.--Plad2 (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I just want to thank you for this. I really am not in the mood for it. This kind of thing goes on all of the time and it does need to be stopped. Thank you again,--CrohnieGal 13:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you please help? SRQ is reverting everything I edit as can be see here. I just now saw that she is telling me not to edit war. I am really angry. I spent about an hour reading the article and making the changes. Also take note that her comment you deleted from my talk page she copied over to hers. Her comments above to you are wrong also. She is abusing and civil policies. She insists of talking about the editor and not the edit. Her revertsion says "replaced previous verbiage - there was nothing wrong with how it was worded" and also that I shouldn't have removed a statement she put in about him not asking for parole when the next sentence said he did and was refused. There was no reason for her to be commenting on my talk page when the new editor Tuudder came to talk to me. She inserts herself in everything I do except the medical articles I work on. I've tried being nice, ignoring and trying to avoid to no avail. It's come to the point where I can't edit anything without her coming right behind me and saying she is fixing sytax or some other excuse. All I want is to be able to edit without be following and reverted for the littlest thing. Why should I take the time to read and edit a whole long article if it's going to be erased in a heartbeat? Everything this editor does brings controversy and long threads about the smallest of matters. I am accused by her on her talk page of following her to the Bouley page which is worng. I shouldn't have to explain myself about things like this. Please, something has to be done already. She is always saying, like she said above to you, that it's bad for the project. Well, I don't think I'm bad for the project plus I have a clean record and a good reputation with everyone I've had contact with. How much abuse is supposed to be taken? All I know is I'm about to give up on all of this. I don't like it that everytime I make an edit to an aricle she is right there saying I can't write (she says fixing syntax and things like that but it still means I can't write.) I am sorry to bring this to you at this time. I hope things are getting a little better but it takes time. Thanks for listening to my rant. (Please excuse any errors, too mad to proof it.) --CrohnieGal 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me...but you have now followed me to two articles I have edited long before you did, Crohnie, and then complained that I edited what you did. I never said you are "bad for the project". If you don't want your edits to be edited, changed, or removed, don't contribute to Misplaced Pages (that disclaimer exists on the editing page right above where the edit summaries are located). I never said you "can't write", nor did I imply it. Please stop accusing me of things that are baseless. You have been doing it for too long now, Crohnie. I have been asking you to stop this behavior for a while now. If it doesn't stop right away, I will be forced to take this complaint elsewhere. Please don't make me do that - I would really rather just see you stop than have to report you for incivility and personal attacks (which, at this point, I have a good case for, BTW). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you reread what you put on my talk page and the edit summaries at the MacDonald article. I don't mind my edits be changed, I do resent them being reverted whole asle like you did. I didn't follow you anywhere! I'm done! Oh yea, stop with the threats and intimidations like I said on my talk page. --CrohnieGal 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Very suspicious...

While I stand by the general philosophy of my post on AN/I regarding "civility" blocks, I do feel it my duty as a Wikipedian to point out (and I'm sure you probably already noticed it on your own) the strangeness that PhoenixPhan was created right away and has posted in favor of Skag and is copying over"posts from Skag's page". Sock? But of course that brings up the unfairness that a blocked person can not post at AN/I to defend themselves (I've always been in favor of no blocks prior to an AN/I since then the person has their "day in court" to defend themselves).Camelbinky (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know this editor?

This editor Ryou-kun16 just came to my page out of the blue and threatened me with I have antagonized another editor so now s/he is going to watch me. What is this other than an attack? --CrohnieGal 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We're on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Accountingmachiene

Can you sanction this person please. He/she blanked sections of IFRS 3 times. PennySeven (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, I can't sanction them, because they blanked three separate sections once, which I see you've reverted. If they persist in this, then there might be a problem. I've suggested they remember to explain their edits going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again

I was not aware of all the licensing caveats for Misplaced Pages. I appreciate your explanation. Seregain (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ellsworth, Maine

Small world? I live less than an hour from this town (but I'm on down the coast). If you're ever up here (visiting Acadia, maybe ;>), let me know; I'll cook you some great food. And yes, we do have good things to smoke up here, but that doesn't necessarily make for the best article (hehee)! It's on my watchlist now :> Doc9871 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anselmgarbe

No objection ... I just didn't like the fact he was one of many who rolled in to muck up that first AfD, and wanted him to understand why we take such a hard line on votestacking. Blueboy96 21:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Just seemed that he was making good contributions, however he was brought in. If he should turn out not to be a net positive, I don't have any problem with reblocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference

Give the reference to any of my supposed "insults" to J. Milburn! I have not had any direct exchange with him since I told him, already yesterday, that I would leave the decision on the photograph of Michael Foot to the judgement of User:Stifle. What are you talking about? You must have mistaken me with someone else. --BF 18:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• For example:
  • "now I have to suffer the abuse of a supposed student. Some student!"
  • "User:J Milburn has set out to fill my talk page with utterly irrelevant comments ... I have been wondering as to why I should be burdened with such inanities."
  • "A student from Lancaster is supposed to behave more respectfully towards those who might be older than his father!"
• You don't have to be directly addressing someone to be insulting them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning point 1, Milburn is a student, by his own statement on his Misplaced Pages page, studying philosophy in Lancaster. What could possibly be insulting in saying that he is a student, while I myself have been ... (not relevant)? I expect some respect from someone who could be my own child if not student.

Concerning your point 2, please read my talk page, and you will see that rather than insulting Milburn, I have just stated facts. Milburn has been writing to me that he is a "dedicated" and "experienced" editor. Why should this have been relevant to me? I had already told him, in no uncertain terms, that I had left the issue to Stifle to decide upon. Yet, Milbrun kept writing to me that while Stifle was an experienced editor, he was also experienced. All these, in the face of the fact that I had never said him anything to the contrary! I had just said that we, i.e. I and Milburn, disagreed on the issue of the photograph of Michael Foot and therefore it was best if the issue was dealt with by someone else. Why had I to be constantly told things that he kept telling me? Read his messages and count the number of times that he has written to me that I did not understand certain things!

What could possibly be wrong with being a student in Lancaster? In point of fact, University of Lancaster has one of the best, if not the best, laboratories of law-temperature physics world-wide. If there are ten great low-temperature physicists in the world, thee of them are in Lancaster (they have over long periods of time had the world records of lowest temperatures ever achieved in laboratory; they were the main figures behind the dilution refrigerator, etc.). No, you are utterly mistaken if you believe that I meant something negative by referring to University of Lancaster --- some of my best and most respected colleagues are working there (I even was their guest sometimes ago), one of them also a mathematician of great international standing.

I hope I have made it abundantly clear that there is nothing disrespectful in my writings about J. Milburn as a person, as well as about his contributions (I simply do not know him and his contributions). I just happened to disagree with him on his tagging this photograph for deletion. That is why I suggested to him, already yesterday, that rather than arguing, we left the matter to be decided on by Stifle. That is all, insofar as I am concerned. It is J. Milburn who has kept filling my talk page with his messages after messages, telling me that I were wrong and that I did not understand certain things. --BF 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you obviously don't understand one thing: when it comes to Misplaced Pages, you are equals as editors. It is irrelevant whether he (?) is a student, or you are old enough to be his father. What counts is your contributions. Claiming that something must have been a family photograph because you couldn't find it on a book jacket is not calculated to inspire confidence in the rest of us. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Going by your vocabulary, you and Milburn must be closely related. Frankly, I have no use for your generalities. The issue at stake is the photograph of Michael Foot (and then that of Ebrahim Pourdavoud), for which the discussions should be conducted on the designated pages. It is important to realise that I had nothing to do with Milburn and his contributions. I closed my discussions with him already yesterday. What has followed, has been totally out of my control! Please ask Milburn about who possibly could have instigated all the events since yesterday. How, and in which language, could one possibly announce the closing of a discussion? I did that yesterday and have repeated it since, but to no avail. --BF 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)