User talk:Sarah

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 4 days are automatically archived to User talk:Sarah/Archive14. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Your answers to questions make me feel very uneasy about your experience and understanding of policy and guidelines how that will translate to actions you would take as an admin."

For one thing, I am aware of the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, and I can assure you that I will be correctly using this wikiterminology in the future.

It also seems that I was not clear enough in my RfA that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others.

That said, I am unsure about what your specific concerns are. Could you please elaborate? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

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 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Above the Law (group)

Hello, Sarah. I'm sorry I have to contact with you again about the same problem. The user Cosprings keeps adding information with no reliable sources. I reverted his edit and asked him in the edit summary to refer to the aritcles talk page to discuss the situation. I do not want to enter in an edit war or even brake the WP:3RR. This is not the first time the use was warned about this. Check the article's history.
Please, would you tell the user what the situation is? I do not feel like talking to him, he removed a warning I placed in his talk page days ago. Thank you.--Tasc0 21:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A second later I post this new thread, the user created this one, claiming I'm an tyrannical and egotistical person. I find that harmful and a personal attack. I will ignore this user until you response to any of this threads.--Tasc0 21:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Tasco, for bringing it to my attention instead of edit warring. I'm just looking into this right now. Sarah 12:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have asked another administrator to give an opinion about this dispute. I'm not sure when he'll have a chance to respond, but in the meanwhile, I'm going to talk to Cosprings about his comments. Sarah 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm looking forward to see what the other administrator has to say.--Tasc0 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:)

And because someone pointed it out to me! Thanks a lot for the defence (even tho I was unaware of it). I've posted to Viridae too as he has a point - such advanced behaviour from such a new person would now have me on quite a high alert - it can be explained if you know where to look! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Herby. I knew that you were a busy fellow as I see you around the projects, but I had to look up your Meta page to check exactly where all your flags are and when I saw how many you have I figured you must be a bot yourself if you have enough time to do all that work AND run sockpuppets! lol. All the best, Sarah 10:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And there's me trying to keep a low profile - I guessed you must have peeked! Take care --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Rayne

Thanks Sarah. His answers to my questions seemed a little... odd, and my AGF'ing waivered a bit. Hoping it's not him; sounds extremely awful what you've had to deal with. --barneca (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Barneca, I agree the answers did seem odd but maybe it was just newbiness and confusion. I am going to keep an eye on him, though, and will block if necessary. I don't really want to say too much because the other guy monitors my talk page and edits and I don't want to teach to do a better job. :) Sarah 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

one-seat Senate majority

Your clarifiation here would be very appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, another politics dispute. 8) Sarah 18:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

above the law

No, some statments do not need sources. For instance, it is perfectly ok to say that they are sometime credited with the creation of g-funk. They are, sometime. This is true. All real hip hop fans know this. It does not say they created g-funk, it merely suggests they may have, which is true. As for my calling him "names", get off it. Its not threats, nor aggressive language. I just think his (tasco) actions are wrong and self-centered. I think people like him are what will eventually ruin this website, and I will not sit quietly and hide my anger over his outrageous actions. Article on un-important things like hip hop groups do not need to be "approved" by administratorrs, let the people have it their way and keep tasco from deleting information. By the way, you and he both continually delete info not even related to this so-called issueCosprings 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what "all hip hop fans know". If it is true then it will be easy to find reliable sources. You are mistaken, not everything Wikipedia needs to be sourced but it does need to be source-able. And the burden of citing the evidence falls on the person wanting to add the material. The other guy has asked for sources and if you want the material included, you need to find a reliable source. Please go and discuss this with Tasco. Thankyou, Sarah 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't find that way as correct to refer to other editors and administrator. He's claiming he will not "sit quietly and hide is anger". What's that suppose to mean? I think the user still doesn't understand WP:ATTACK. He called me and Sarah "ruiners of Wikipedia". The user is still ofending me. I lighty request a block.--Tasc0 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI I blocked Cosprings and it has been notified at WP:AN/I#User:Cosprings Gnangarra 00:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate how you dealed with the situation, Gnangarra. And also Sarah.--Tasc0 03:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gnang for stepping in and taking care of that. Much appreciated. Sarah 02:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD in re: David Pearce (Australian soldier)

Good morning. I wanted to make sure you knew that I was attempting to fully agree with you regarding the courtesy blanking of the David Pearce AFD. My caveat was a strong attempt on my part to WP:AGF, as I feel that some of the editors on the page were being disrespectful to Mr. Pearce, if only incidentally. It was not any sort of criticism on your own conduct, which was (as always) impeccable. Sorry for the confusion, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems. I understood what you mean. Sarah 02:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 44	29 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled	WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Agriculture
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 06:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets on Peace Pilgrim

Aloha, Sarah. What's the best way of dealing with a disruptive user who persists in creating sock puppet accounts on Peace Pilgrim in order to add trollish/vandalism to the article? Here's a list of the suspected accounts:

1. WereBear Of London (talk · contribs)
2. Love Bird 3333 (talk · contribs)
3. Peace pilgrim goddess (talk · contribs)
4. Psychic power (talk · contribs)
5. Juanita M (talk · contribs)
6. Metawoman (talk · contribs)
7. Python goddess (talk · contribs)

Thanks for any advice/help you can offer. —Viriditas | Talk 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Viri, I just sprotected the article for one week and I'll have a look at blocking those accounts. I know I still owe you an email--I haven't forgotten, I promise. :) Cheers, Sarah 02:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sprotection, great. Thanks ever so much, and don't worry about the e-mail, I know you've been very busy. :) —Viriditas | Talk 02:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)