User talk:Sarah Ewart/Archive8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks ref anon
- Thanks for your persistance in dealing with the anon. I am sorry you are receiving abuse for your efforts. I appreciate how civil you are remaining and that you are trying to make wikipedia a better place for editors to participate in. Regards--Golden Wattle talk 21:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with the above. I've been participating as a non-party on some of the arbitration pages in the case Thatcher131 brought against this editor. This situation is egregious and I am confident it will not be allowed to continue much longer. Newyorkbrad 23:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand [1] but my two cents are at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors/Workshop#A new wikipedian? - :-( --Golden Wattle talk 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Rod Foster
Hi, Sarah --
Last night, I ran across an article he placed that contained a list of Big East teams' rivalries. I Speedy'd it as listcruft. He went up in smoke then, insisting he was trying to fix a section in the original Big East article. I went back to that article and reverted the removal of the section in question so that info would not be lost, and perhaps be addressed in a different fashion. Haven't been on since then (had hand surgery this morning -- little more difficult to do this one handed; the anesthesia hasn't worn off completely yet). But you know I mean well, and am only trying to do right. Don't (frankly) care about Mr. Foster's bruised ego. No worries. Thanks! --Mhking 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's not necessary (at least not at present), but thank you for the offer. As an aside, it looks as if Mr. Foster may have been logging in with just his IP number (67.150.49.94) as recently as last night. There was a single edit to Big East Conference with a similarly snarky comment, as well as a single vandalizing effort to my userpage. He/she hasn't logged in since that point AFAIK. --Mhking 13:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Please help us stop the vandalism
Although we (Grandmaster and Ulvi I.) provided all kinds of reliable sources with links proving that the territory of modern Azerbaijan Republic was called "Azerbaijan" from at least 8th century onwards, user Khosrow II continues to vandalize the website and add only his biased POV and claiming that it was not, without bringing any solid source (see the history and dicusssions)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_name_Azerbaijan&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_name_Azerbaijan#New_Edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_name_Azerbaijan#Please_stop_your_distortion
Please intervene and stop this childish game. Thank you in advance.
--Ulvi I. 12:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sara, User GM and now Ulvi are at it again with the distortion. They claim I am vandalizing and POV pushing when I actually kept half of their edits, and only took out the part that I was able to prove they were distorting. If I was POV pushign or vandalizing, wouldnt I take out the whole thing? GM's credibility is already very low, and I have shown you his habits on editing Wikipedia. Please tell me Ulvi and GM, if I was vandalizing or POV pushing, why did I still leave half your edits intact, even though I dont agree with them? The truth is that I took out the parts I could prove they were distorting, the other half, I cannot yet prove a problem with it, but I'm doing some research into Al Tabari's book, which they sited as a source.
- They proved no such thing, infact, neither of them can answer the questions I posed to them, and both of them reject all the sources I gave them, and resort to distorting a simply quote to suite their needs.
- Also Sarah, can we speed things up regarding the situation between GM and I on the other two articles?Khosrow II 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for protecting the article for the moment. Sarah, we should start discussing the other two articles seriously, and you need to start making decisions now regarding what is already posted. We can go one for months with discussions, but that wont do any good, I suggest you give us a deadline (like a couple days) and then close the debate, and then you can make a decision regarding our comments. Sound good?Khosrow II 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I was the one that suggested El_C moderate between us, but he was too busy. El_C probably wont be able to help out, because he was so busy he couldnt for over a week, so I guess GM will have to just settle with only you.Khosrow II 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
Hi Sarah. I would like to have an explanation of Khosrow’s actions. He removed from History of the name Azerbaijan direct quotes from two reliable sources that he did not like: [2]
| The imprecise and sometimes contradictory information given by Yaqut in the beginning of the 7th/13th century, occasionally extends Azerbaijan to the west to Erzinjan (Arzanjan). On the other hand in certain passages, he annexes to it, in addition to the steppes of Mogan, all of the province of Arran, bringing the frontier of the country up to Kor, indicating, however, that from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed. Encyclopædia Iranica. Azerbaijan. Geography</ref> |
| The territory of modern Azerbaijan Republic was also referred as Azerbaijan by another mediaeval author, the Samanids chronicler Abu Ali Muhammad Ibn-i Muhammad Ibn-i Ubaidullah-i Bal'ami, the translator of At-Tabari’s Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings) also writes that Azerbaijan’s borders start from Hamadan (Iran) and end in Darband (Modern Russia, North of Azerbaijan Republic) of the Khazars. He adds that whatever is in the middle is called Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan’s original/primary border starts in Hamadan and passing through Abhar and Zanjan, end in Darband of the Khazars. All of the citites in the middle of these [two] are in Azerbaijan. Abu Alimuhammad ibne Muhammad Bal’ami; Tarikhnaame Tabari, Volume 1, Tehran 1366 (1987), Xabare gushaadane Azerbaijan ve Darbande Khazaran (The news of conquer of Azerbaijan and Darband), page 529.</ref> |
And then he removed the following edit that was agreed between me and Ali:
"or all of the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic. Some historical sources mentioned the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic as part of Armenia, Georgia or Azerbaijan. This would especially be the case if a single ruler had control over the whole area."
As you can see from the above, the actions of this person are nothing but vandalism. He removes the quotes that contradict his POV, and then he removes edits agreed on by other users, as if he’s the one who owns the article and has a right to ignore opinions of other people. The same behavior is evident on the article Azerbaijan. Despite third party users objecting to insertion of his POV into that article, [3] he ignores them and continues with anti-Azerbaijani propaganda. It is time to stop him. Grandmaster 05:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sarah, may I explain it in simple language. There are two opinions, scientific theories, historical sources. One (that supported by Kowsorw II) says that Azerbaijan is only in Iran. The other one (supported by GM and myself) shows that territories of modern Azerbaijan Republic was also called Azerbaijan from middle ages. Khsorow's version is in the top of the article, our's close it its end. There should be a switch from one theory to another, right? We add the switch saying here is another version of the history, Khosrow II removes it. Moreover, he adds his own word "also" inside of our source which for a person who's reading about this issue for the first time in his life, the toponomy is odd and alien, would seem the repitition of what was said above - i.e. Azerbaijan is only in Iran, wehereas we are trying to say that Azerbaijan was not only in Iran.
He keeps only one of our source (with his "edition" of course) and deletes the other one, adds his words into our text. Well is this not a vandalism? Why an Iranian has right to edit something that he is so biased, and we Azerbaijanis providing all credible sources have to defend ourselves. How can I write an article about New Zeeland or Australia and dictate to a professional historians from these countries that provide all credible sources, that s/he is wrong and delete his/her edits? Would not it look strange?
Also regarding your questions, Khosrow II, they are all unrelated questions that has nothing to do with matter. Authors from 8ths century call modern Azerbaijan Republic as Azerbaijan and even your own coutnry's best Encyclopedia Iranica proves it, sees a contradiction in Hamavi's work. Well, I was not aware of this source, thanks to GM I learned it. I using only the original source, said that your source has contradiction and said the same thing that is proven and said by E.Iranica many years ago. Why did you delete it?
Well from today onwards, I will only bring sources (only sources and texts) that claim what we are trying to prove. I did the same thing in the Safavids Article and let readers judge. I think that is the only thing that works against falsificators of the history - sources, a bare truth. --Ulvi I. 07:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Ulvi and GM
First, lets start with GM:
| The imprecise and sometimes contradictory information given by Yaqut in the beginning of the 7th/13th century, occasionally extends Azerbaijan to the west to Erzinjan (Arzanjan). On the other hand in certain passages, he annexes to it, in addition to the steppes of Mogan, all of the province of Arran, bringing the frontier of the country up to Kor, indicating, however, that from this period the conception of Azerbaijan tended to be extended to the north and that its meaning was being rapidly transformed. Encyclopædia Iranica. Azerbaijan. Geography</ref> |
I took out this quote, because as I said on the talk page, GM was trying to distort it, as well as the Hamavi quote.
Another lie and distortion by GM, Sarah, I want you to take note of this false accusation against me by GM.
GM states that I deleted this:
| The territory of modern Azerbaijan Republic was also referred as Azerbaijan by another mediaeval author, the Samanids chronicler Abu Ali Muhammad Ibn-i Muhammad Ibn-i Ubaidullah-i Bal'ami, the translator of At-Tabari’s Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings) also writes that Azerbaijan’s borders start from Hamadan (Iran) and end in Darband (Modern Russia, North of Azerbaijan Republic) of the Khazars. He adds that whatever is in the middle is called Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan’s original/primary border starts in Hamadan and passing through Abhar and Zanjan, end in Darband of the Khazars. All of the citites in the middle of these [two] are in Azerbaijan. Abu Alimuhammad ibne Muhammad Bal’ami; Tarikhnaame Tabari, Volume 1, Tehran 1366 (1987), Xabare gushaadane Azerbaijan ve Darbande Khazaran (The news of conquer of Azerbaijan and Darband), page 529.</ref> |
However, it is still in the article in this form: The Samanids chronicler Abu Ali Muhammad Ibn-i Muhammad Ibn-i Ubaidullah-i Bal'ami, the translator of At-Tabari’s Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings) also writes that Azerbaijan’s borders start from Hamadan (Iran) and end in Darband (Modern Russia, North of Azerbaijan Republic) of the Khazars. He adds that whatever is in the middle is called Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan’s original/primary border starts in Hamadan and passing through Abhar and Zanjan, end in Darband of the Khazars. All of the citites in the middle of these [two] are in Azerbaijan.
I removed this quote: "or all of the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic. Some historical sources mentioned the territory of modern Azerbaijan republic as part of Armenia, Georgia or Azerbaijan. This would especially be the case if a single ruler had control over the whole area."
becuase it was repetitive. Just a couple paragraphs up it mentions the several names that the territory went by, and then at the bottom it also says this: However, the boundaries of the historical Azerbaijan like those of many other ancient regions were fluid and they periodically included parts of what today constitutes the Republic of Azerbaijan(such as Nakhichevan or Mughan)
I simply took out a repetitive statement.
As you can see from the above, the actions of this person are nothing but vandalism. He removes the quotes that contradict his POV, and then he removes edits agreed on by other users, as if he’s the one who owns the article and has a right to ignore opinions of other people. The same behavior is evident on the article Azerbaijan. Despite third party users objecting to insertion of his POV into that article, [4] he ignores them and continues with anti-Azerbaijani propaganda. It is time to stop him.
Oh really GM, because as I have just shown, you made two false accusations against me right now, probably in the hopes of having Sarah read them while I was asleep. If I removed quotes that contradicted my POV, why did I leave the quote from Al Tabari's book huh? Why did I leave the last sentence in that section huh? Face it GM, you are trying to dig very deep to salvage whatever you can from what you want to believe or the facts. You fail to answer the questions I posed to you on the talk page, why? Also, its funny that you call sourced information "anti Azerbaijani propaganda". If this does not show youru bias, POV, and low credibility on Wikipedia, I dont know what does. Sarah, a quick decision is much needed to resolve these disputes.
Now regarding Ulvi:
Dear Sarah, may I explain it in simple language. There are two opinions, scientific theories, historical sources. One (that supported by Kowsorw II) says that Azerbaijan is only in Iran. The other one (supported by GM and myself) shows that territories of modern Azerbaijan Republic was also called Azerbaijan from middle ages. Khsorow's version is in the top of the article, our's close it its end. There should be a switch from one theory to another, right? We add the switch saying here is another version of the history, Khosrow II removes it. Moreover, he adds his own word "also" inside of our source which for a person who's reading about this issue for the first time in his life, the toponomy is odd and alien, would seem the repitition of what was said above - i.e. Azerbaijan is only in Iran, wehereas we are trying to say that Azerbaijan was not only in Iran.
Seriusly Ulvi, lets go over this again. All the scholars of the medieval and ancient period mention one Azerbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijan. Those that do extend Azerbaijan's border, like Hamavi, clearly state the seperate regions within the large administrative territories, which include regions like Arran.
Let me pose the questions to you and GM again:
If you two are right, and I am wrong, then why cant you find one map made before the 20th century that shows the region to the north of Iranian Azerbaijan labled Azerbaijan? Can you find one quote that confirms your claim (That mentions the region to the north as Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan only)? Can you tell me why Rasulzadeh himself (Rasulzadeh was the key figure in the founding and the naming of the state created in the Caucasus in 1918, he later apologized to Iranians for naming his nation Azerbaijan, and said that he should have chosen Albania, just incase Sarah didnt know) apologized for the name him and his party chose for their new nation? Can you tell my why sources even as late as 1911 even mention Azerbaijan as only the province of Iran? Also, Armenia was also sometimes grouped in the territory of Azerbaijan, so by your logic, should Armenia also be able to change its name to Azerbaijan tomorrow on that basis?
Lets see if they are willing to answer those questions now Sarah.
He keeps only one of our source (with his "edition" of course) and deletes the other one, adds his words into our text. Well is this not a vandalism? Why an Iranian has right to edit something that he is so biased, and we Azerbaijanis providing all credible sources have to defend ourselves. How can I write an article about New Zeeland or Australia and dictate to a professional historians from these countries that provide all credible sources, that s/he is wrong and delete his/her edits? Would not it look strange?
First of all, anyone can edit anything, you dont own anything, and I dont own anything on Wikipedia. I was simply fixing your bad wording and POV, all I did was change one sentence to match the rest of the article. Also, historians from the R. of Azerbaijan have no credibility anywhere. What they call history the rest of the world calls historical revisionism. 80 years of Soviet occupation and propaganda, and pan Turkic influence have made "academics" and "historians" from the R. of Azerbaijan some of the least credible in the world. I mean, come on, its historians from the R. of Azerbaijan that claim Zoroastrianism was a Turkic religion, and that Turks have been living in the Caucasus and Anatolia for 3-5 thousand years.
Also regarding your questions, Khosrow II, they are all unrelated questions that has nothing to do with matter. Authors from 8ths century call modern Azerbaijan Republic as Azerbaijan and even your own coutnry's best Encyclopedia Iranica proves it, sees a contradiction in Hamavi's work. Well, I was not aware of this source, thanks to GM I learned it. I using only the original source, said that your source has contradiction and said the same thing that is proven and said by E.Iranica many years ago. Why did you delete it?
My questions are unrelated? Hm... It seems to me every one of the questions I posed have to do with the name Azerbaijan, so why avoid them if you're right?
Also, Encyclopaedia Iranica is not Iran's encyclopaedia, it was a project started by Columbia University's Iranian history department and has contributions from 400 scholars world wide from many different nations. Please research facts before you make such claims.
Well from today onwards, I will only bring sources (only sources and texts) that claim what we are trying to prove. I did the same thing in the Safavids Article and let readers judge. I think that is the only thing that works against falsificators of the history - sources, a bare truth.
Good, bring up information from verifiable reliable sources and I will have no problem. Thats what I've been doing all along, nice to see that you have now admitted that you are just now going to do that, as opposed to before.Khosrow II 14:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Khosrow is desperately trying to avoid the answer to the question why he removed direct quotes from reliable sources. So many words, and no answer at all. Only personal accusations. I responded in more detail on Talk:History of the name Azerbaijan. Please have a look at that page, Sarah, I would appreciate your input. And Encyclopaedia Iranica was created and run by Ehsan Yarshater, who’s Persian, and editorial board is chaired by Mahmoud Khayami, also Iranian. It is an authoritative scientific source, and it is as much Iranian as it is Western. Grandmaster 08:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I answered you several times, and you decided that you were going to ignore all of those, because maybe you cannot find a way to reply to my answer? I answered you yet again on the talk page just a few minutes ago. Sara knows very well what Iranica is as per my discription of it above (did you even bother to read what I said?).
-
- Sarah, its obvious that GM is not even reading my comments. I take the time to sit down, read his comments, and reply, and he cant even take the time to atleast read my comments. How are we going to get anywhere when he is being so disruptive?Khosrow II 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Once again, Khosrow, how can I distort the source by quoting it? Why the quote was removed from the article? Please provide a valid explanation. Grandmaster 06:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
disruption
GM is being very disruptive on the History of the name Azerbaijan talk page. He purposely ignores what I write, does not respond to anything I say directly, and keeps diverting the discussion and making it go in circles. I dont know what else to do, both him and Ulvi are being very disruptive. Their actions include ignoring what I write, not answering my replies, not answering my questions, and bringing up the same issues over and over again, claiming I have not answered them when the writing is there for everyone to see (I have responded to their repetitive comments time and time again, yet what do I get from them? Nothing but ignoring, they dont even bother to read my posts, atleast thats what it seems like). I dont know what else to do, honestly. Any suggestions? I'm going to bed now, good night.Khosrow II 06:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I simply want to receive a reasonable answer to my question why he deleted the quote from Iranica. Also, Khosrow removed the edits that were agreed between me and Ali, and Ali suggested to restore them, but Khosrow does not seem to be listening to other people's opinions. And Sarah, I would appreciate your comment on Azerbaijani people discussion. Khosrow failed to provide any references to support his claims, so what do we do now? Grandmaster 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have repeatedly answered you, but you ignore what I write. This is evident in the discussion page Sarah created and its evident on the history of the name Azerbaijan article as well. Also, right after I proved Ulvi wrong using his very same source, he just left. And now, you refuse to respond to any of my posts, and you keep making the discussion go in circles. I have answered you plenty of times, and I'm not going to waste my time doing it again, you can re read the discussion page.Khosrow II 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
204.54.pita
Thanks Sarah. A rangeblock was my next step but I see you stepped in when I went for coffee :) Top stuff. -- Longhair\talk 11:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's been a while since I've done a rangeblock myself, but there's only one way to find out if it worked hey :) This editor can't keep quiet for long. If they resurface, we try again :) -- Longhair\talk 11:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Assuming the Mediawiki code to allow blocked ip's to register an account actually works, all should be fine. We're doing all we can at the moment to protect Wikipedia from harm. The Telco concerned must ultimately act in the best interests of their customers if they don't want the disruption to their userbase. Sadly, some Telco's choose not to care. -- Longhair\talk 12:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your efforts also Sarah --Golden Wattle talk 19:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my RfA
 |
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.
I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. |
Something suspicious?
I think we need to check if Sarah and Guinnog are actually socks. They turn up on each others talk pages a lot and seem to agree a lot too. See, for instance ... [7] (KIDDING!) ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Deon555's Rfa
 |
Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully yesterday with a result of (18/16/8). I'd like to let you know that I won't be running for adminship again, until I am nominated, rather than nominating myself again. Thanks for your support, Deon. — Deon555talkReview 22:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
- PS: The next meetup is being planned :) — Deon555talkReview 22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- oww.. Thanks for that :) Too bad it's already been substed.. If you flick back a few diffs on this page.. you'll see I forgot the |} as well.. so the next messages on everyone's talk page may continue in the box.. :P. Thanks for letting me know though.. I copied it off someone elses successful one and musn't have changed it :P. Hope to see you at the meetup. — Deon555talkReview 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Anon POV soap boxer on Western New Guinea
Hello there. there is an anon IP making major POV edits to this page. I feel it already presents all "sides" objectively. But this ed seems to be trying to make a point. The only reason i contact you is that in my experience, it is the anon eds that don't care about NPOV or 3RR etc and I am thus at a disadvantage. it might go away, or it might not. Could you monitor it please, or at let me know what you think.--Merbabu 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you...
for giving your support ot my recent RfA. If I can ever be of any help to you or any of your pet projects with my fancy new tools, just drop me a line. Earlier in my round of thanks, I was making clever and topical quips, but after thanking so many people my brain has short circuited, so you will have to construct your own (sorry). Yours would have likely included Australia (good), Savage Garden (bad), and oversized beer cans (brilliant), so do with that what you will. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ottawaman Flak
Happy to help. For what it's worth, I don't think anybody takes Ottawaman or his sockpuppets seriously. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 18:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
small favor
I was wondering of you could help me out with getting votes for expanding an article I started a while back. My old US Australia relations article is currently being considered for expansion by the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. To vote, go here and scroll to the bottom.
Thanks! Sharkface217 05:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
BGS
I noticed your edit on the page. thanks for that. its getting really annoying, the ammount of idiots who keep trying to change the page without justification. Oh, btw, i stole some things from your user page ie. The flag and the not suck banner. Cheers Kiran90 06:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 6th.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
User page/user talk maintenance
Thanks, as always, for keeping an eye out there. --Guinnog 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- And thanks too for answering the user's question for him. --Guinnog 13:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
RfC has been raised against you
A conduct dispute has been raised against you. ottawaman 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- And summarily deleted as certified by an abusive sockpuppet. Cheers. Thatcher131 12:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your support!
 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC) |
If I'm a bit pale in the face now, And if in the future |
Chin up!
Don't worry about the trolling socks at RfC - the community is already showing them the door. Keep up the good work, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for clarifying that, Sarah :-) - Mike | Talk 03:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi Sarah, please accept this plain looking thanks for your unhesitating support to my RFA! I was touched and humbled by such unanimous support. Do let me know if I can be of assistance to you in any way -- Lost(talk) 19:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
My block
Yeah that was a bug with the block reason sorry Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Anthony Kidman
Thanks for being more attentive than I was! --Steve 01:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit late but...
Your extended block on User_talk:Premier for evading a block appears to have been evaded with 24.183.230.177 [8] tho this is now about two weeks ago. I put it on admin notices/incidents. I'm currently trying to sock-puppet him. → bsnowball 12:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Mrs Hammons on my user page
Hey Sarah, thanks for fixing that up for me :) So quick off the mark :P Going to my old (primary) school's fete today.. so that should be good :) Well I'll catch you later. Enjoy your weekend. — Deon555talk 01:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
— Deon555talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Vandalism revert
You're very welcome, Gwernol 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- ...and thanks for my reverts too Sarah. All in a day's work at the coalface hey? ;) Must be "Tag Longhair month" or something :) -- Longhair\talk 03:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've unprotected my userpage. It's better off left unprotected so we can spot them easier then and block accordingly ;) -- Longhair\talk 04:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Better get used to it. It's only just starting. Love Mr CLV. 208.97.129.6 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Hi Sarah Ewart, I am very thankful to you for supporting and comments on my succesful RfA. Shyam (T/C) 06:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
202.184.252.5 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)
Hello! You blocked 202.184.252.5 (talk • contribs) who was listed at AIV for this edit. However, he was not warned beforehand. Before that one edit, his last contribs were two years back; I believe it might be some school's shared PC. Kavadi carrier 07:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me the background behind that edit. Kavadi carrier 07:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Definetly an open proxy.. in fact I just edited my wiki through it see [9] for proof. Need anything else give me a shout — Deon555talk 08:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Protection of Liberal Leadership convention?
Hi, I am wondering whether you would continue unprotection as the convention is fast approaching? Gomapleleafsgo 16:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Michael Ignatieff
Hi Sarah Ewart, the edit war was not being started after the unprotection. So I do not think reprotection was required. Could the talk page be unprotected from semi-protection. I do not seek any harm in unprotection of the talk page. Shyam (T/C) 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Erwat for unprotecting the talk page. I was watching the page and as you unprotect the page, I reoved the tag. I think, there is no harm in doing so. After unprotection I added the page in my watchlist to revert vandalism, so I did not think it was really necessary to discuss with the admin that the user mentioned. The page was protected for long time, here we want to improve the encyclopedia, so there is no issue of protection for long. Shyam (T/C) 17:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Sarah, same thing would be applied to you, there is no need to apologize to you too:) I do not feel bad whatever happened, so you also should not. I could understand now that the some sockpuppets accounts are troubling you from very long time. Thanks for the wishes. Shyam (T/C) 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
RfA thanks!
 |
My RfA done I appreciate Anyway, I just |
EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
RE: My talk page
You're more than welcome. -- Steel 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Socks in the City
No indeed. In fact I added another one myself. --Guinnog 18:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The deleted photo
I think that's what the administrator did in good faith. But the problem is I don't think it was nominated in good faith. Kingjeff 21:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with you on the intention of the nominator is not relevent. The nomination of the photo is vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism as any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia and this is what I feel the nomination was all about. In fact, I think in bad faith cases, the deletion policy is irrelevent. Kingjeff 21:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
A couple other editors have mentioned how we should keep the photo until there is a so called "replaceble" photo comes up. Which is a very reasonable and good faith solution that was brought up. Kingjeff 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
 |
Thank you so much, Sarah Ewart, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 21:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revert
Always a pleasure. I replied to your email. Let me know if there is anything I can do. --Guinnog 15:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
My failed RfA
Thank you so much (sarcasm) for your deeply unpleasant comments on my RfA. After months of working hard, following WP:NPOV to the letter, improving various articles and winning the respect of admins, not to mention working with the AMA, I feel that all my hard work has been thrown back in my face. I think it is now likely that I will stop editing Wikipedia altogether - the whole site is clearly run by a little clique of admins who attach more importance to edit counts than personality. I really don't care if you block me, call this a personal attack, or anything else - I think I've had enough of following the rules. Once again, thank you so much for destroying my confidence, ruining the one real diversion that existed in my life, and generally making me feel bad. Walton monarchist89 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that Walton monarchist89 posted this message on the talkpage of every user who opposed his nomination for adminship. KazakhPol 20:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise for the above comment. I was in a bad mood at the time. In reality, I do understand why you voted against my RfA. It's true that I don't have a huge amount of experience and I may decide to reapply in the future. Please accept my apology. Walton monarchist89 20:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
 |
Hi Sarah, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
Signpost updated for November 13th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Shiny new buttons
 |
Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.
|
 |
User:MyWikiBiz
Do you think Jimmy Wales is doing the right thing my potentially libeling a company as "unethical", when that's merely his opinion, and there's been no documented citation in other publications about the ethics of MyWikiBiz.com? Seemed to me that we'd be HELPING Wikipedia's vulnerability to legal action by making sure an individual's opinion is just that -- opinion. P.S. You're commenting that someone else's commentary shouldn't be altered, but we're looking at a User Page that was itself blanked then vandalized by another individual! Think about it. -- JossBuckle Swami 15:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
| Thanks! | |
|---|---|
| Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation. | |
| Georgewilliamherbert 05:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
Barnstar and edit update
Thank you so much for this Sarah, I really appreciate it! Best wishes, --Guinnog 15:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
RW page
Hi Sarah, Somebody already fixed the vandalism on the Runner's World page. I've been super busy in real life...no time to play. Take care, KarateLadyKarateLady 17:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Flamer block
Fair enough, unblock if you are content, jimfbleak 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the personal attack--Ashadeofgrey (talk • contribs) 12:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
 |
I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, Sarah Ewart, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, Martinp23 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
Rumours
Sarah, given your comment on Gn's page, it would not be out of order for you to leave your mark here if you wish to. Regards. — Moondyne 12:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good grief. I just scanned that and was a bit surprised - my first reaction was to ignore, but at what cost? Perhaps Hesp. may like to refactor most or all the co-nominations as "early supports" or something like that (I'm sure he'll pick this thread up). I suggest you add your
2cwell-considered opinions (if you wish) to and let H. work it out along those lines. — Moondyne 13:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)- Since Hesp. will notice this even after reading and considering that thread, I'd prefer to let the co nominations stand as they are, Sarah your welcome to add to the list if you so desire. Personally if editors chose to oppose my nomination because of that whats really lost I'll be doing what I'm doing now I think though instead of waiting for Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Banksia_integrifolia to be completed, it should be started now. The reason is I dont want any of my RfA to reflected negatively against yourselves, neither I do want to be accused of compaigning for support. Gnangarra 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I'm rather surprised that people feel so strongly about it. The arguments put against co-noms don't seem particularly strong; in fact, it's largely people stating that they find it personally irritating, without proving why it's necessarily a Bad Thing. For the record, I don't mind if I'm removed as a co-nom – my endorsement stands no matter where it's placed ;).--cj | talk 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Being semi-serious for a second: Sarah, there's only 7 RfA' s going at the moment. Is that normal? I haven't been over there much lately but I'm sure that last time I looked there were a couple of dozen on the go. — Moondyne 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. I also thank you for thinking my work at the editor reviews are useful. I have thought about doing such kind of research during WP:RFA. However, I preferred to do them exclusively at WP:ER for two motives: reviews may be too long for the page, and many new users go to WP:ER to get tips about behaviour and editing patterns (you can check the huge backlog we have there), and I feel it is better to review them and give them ideas of how to improve than to established users. Also, whenever a candidate with low possibilities transcludes his nomination, he is usually told to get an editor review first. However, whenever (if ever!) I manage to keep up to date with the reviews, I will try to give a hand at WP:RFA. Thank you very much again for your kind comments! ReyBrujo 23:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gnangarra
is up but Gnangarra has not yet posted his acceptance. It's not too late to add a co-nom if you wish, nor too early to register your support. Hesperian 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 20th.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
vandalize?
Sorry, what was vandalism about my change? I added in Alumini. was it because it wasnt referenced? how do i add the 'citation needed' thingy's?
Brisbane Grammar School
You reverted my changes within one minute of seeing me posting them. It couldnt have possibly given you a change to see that the text was completly different to what was prviously posted. There is no longer evidence of copying from another web page! Kiran90 10:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, removed the direct quotes. Anything else? Sorry, apparently im not very good at this. Kiran90 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Publicity brochure? are you judging my formal writing ability on my conversational messages? Search the text in a search engine, the majority of it is original, partially the word cohort (it is one of my personally frequently overused terms, for the record)! rather than reverting it, can you just edit some of the bias? I do believe there are numerous valid points in the section that need to be said (whether in different terms or not). Kiran90 10:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I also do not take kindly to your message. Frankly, im a little offended. If you feel the need to have identical mannerism when you converse and when you write formally thats fine, but it does not entitle you to assume that others do. The way i write is considerably different to the way i converse and if you feel that i am not capable of writing an article of that caliber simply because i converse in easy to understand terms, then you are being incredibly narrow-minded and rude. You may have attached a stigma of my apparent personal bias, i believe it is clouding your opinion of the text and you are reading into particullar sections with a negative predisposition. i request an alternative opinion. Kiran90 11:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You're avoiding my comments. If you knew the first version was copied, then you must have known the source. You could just check it yourself, or at least re-write what you think is vandalism. The fact that you picked it quickly last time indicates taht you can do it again. evidently if you haven't, it means you're just fishing for a lost cause. I'll leave it, but im still seeking a second opinion. Go ahead and send it to the school (if they even care), i feel yours has been corrupted by false assumtions about me. Kiran90 01:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No... that was the very first edit. This version is considerably different.Kiran90 01:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You're version has more copywrited material than mine! Look at the section on the Northgate Playing Fields! this is ridiculous! If you can pick up mine, why cant you pick up whats already there! Kiran90 01:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
NO, i cant stand for this. the entire Campus, Academics and Extracurricular activitis section are ENTIRELY lifted from the grammar page. You're sitting here telling me i've taken some of the information, while the entire bloody thing is sitting in your apparently CLEAN version. You block me for copyright infrinment? You should be bloody sacked. Kiran90 01:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Its not YOUR version, but you're replacing a version with SUSPISION of copywrite infringment with a version that has EVIDENCE of it. Now if we have to choose between a version that is obviously plagerised and a version that you might think is posibly plagerised because you think the user it too stupid to write it themself, which one would you pick? My version stays until you can verify it is plagerism. However, in the mean time i will work on it to make it less bias. I feel that is fair. Kiran90 01:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
is there a box i can add that says "this page is under suspision of plagerism" or "this page is being rewritten due to lack of NPOV information" or something?
- Try {{Cv-unsure}}. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
So has the school contact back about whether my edits were plagerism or not? Kiran90 12:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Hello fellow "alliance" member (for some reason that still cracks me up), I hit 10,000 edits the other day and to commemorate this momentous (?) occasion, I wanted to leave a note to the various people I've run into on Wikipedia that have made an impact on my time here. Just wanted to say thank you for helping me out and all the work you do here. =) -- Gogo Dodo 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
RfA thank you
 |
I would like to express my appreciation of the time you spent on my nomination. I'll endeavour to ensure that my actions uphold the ways of wiki. I would also like to share with you a drop or two of Uisce Beatha, unfortunately the bar is poorly stocked and your efforts deserved the finest drop. Thankyou Gnangarra 14:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) |}
G'DayAre we the only two Australians working unblock review? How come I haven't seen hanging around #wikipedia-en-admins yet? Cheers, Netsnipe ► 15:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
PMA
Electricity sprotectI don't think there's any need for the sprotect. Today's vandalism was solely from 168.184.0.0/16 IP range and I've already blocked them for 3 hours (school range apparently). That should give them time to concentrate on their lessons instead of vandalising. But I won't remove the sprotect. Regards, Kimchi.sg 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Patrizia Norelli-BacheletThank you for dealing with the repost and for replying to Mallarme's statements on the RfA - and for your kind expression of support, of course. Sandstein 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Johnny Berlin deletionI wanted to ask why the Johnny Berlin article was deleted. I tried explaining in the discussion page why the article was notable and I had added two external links from independent news sources. I would appreciate a response because I wasn't notified of the deletion or given a reason why. Thanks in advance. Johnny Berlin (annex)sorry, i forgot to sign (Berliner88 21:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) = Berliner88 21:28:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)) Thank you for your support at RFAI wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA very much, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 27th.
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 01:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Notability guideline being developed for mallsYou have recently commented on AfDs for Shopping Malls. Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! Edison 07:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC) My RfA
RfA thanksThank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
||||||||||||||||||
