User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 6

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.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

References

SarekOfVulcan,

Please revert all of the External Links edits that you had made to my articles using Connecticut Explorer's Guide as References. These links are references citing copyrighted material and you do not have my permission to remove these sources as references. This is in violation of copyright law and against the policies of wikipedia. Czimborbryan 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

crossposted from user talk page
Actually, I do have your permission to make whatever changes in the Wikipedia articles you edited I see fit. If you scroll down while you have an edit window open, you see the following text:
  • By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.
  • If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
Also, please, review WP:NLT at your earliest convenience. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though the GNU gives permission to edit the content mercilessly, it does not give permission to remove cited sources under References. This is a copyright matter and protected by law. Otherwise, it would be assumed that the information posted is original to the author. Czimborbryan 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT Legal complaints A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". I have requested repeatedly that you revert the external links edit back to the appropriate References label. Yes, this is protected under copyright and no this is not a threat. It is also a Wikipedia policy to cite all sources appropriately. You have denied my right to have my copyrighted material cited as a source. Czimborbryan 13:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Accurate and inaccurate bbile translations

Hi Sarek. You say it's POV to speak of accurate/inaccurate bible translations. Not at all. The King James, for example, is based on the translations available in the 17th century, and therefore inevitably inaccurate (it has poetry, but not the access to modern scholarship that would produce what today would be called an accurate translation). The bulk of American bible translations deliberately give translations that will sell to fundamentalists - this becomes an issue when they get to OT passages that the fundamentalists regard as prophetic of the Messiah. So, no, accuracy is objective, not POV. PiCo 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed your note that my links don't work. You're right! Something strange seems to have happened to the Uni of Virginia site.PiCo 11:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Munisport

Hi, Sarek. Thanks for your help with the articles. I am having a hard time finding online sources to back up some of my entries on Biscayne Landing and Munisport, a lot of it was going off of memory. Also, can't find anyone who has hard-copies of some of my stronger points. I am going to tone down the articles for now and move on to other subjects. Feel free to modify/revert/whatever my toned down versions. --RandomStuff 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. As long as what's left is properly cited, I'm happy -- I just got really ticked off by Marketingsupport deleting stuff saying it was uncited when clicking through to the cite showed the exact line that you quoted.--SarekOfVulcan 16:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AtwaterDulcimer.jpg

I have tagged Image:AtwaterDulcimer.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 06:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hyperlinking in Articles

Hello Sarek,

You recently commented that it is Wiki-policy to highlight only the first occurrence of a term in an article. Sometimes users have no need for an entire article, but only a particular section. Forcing the user to navigate his way to the top of an article in search of a term's hyperlinked instance can be equally as distracting as I agree over-hyperlinking -- or, if you will, hyper-hyperlinking :-) -- to be. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that perhaps the first occurrence of a term in each of an article's sections be hyperlinked. What do you think?

Thanks for your time,

An Anonymous WikiWanderer

Anon -- that's actually part of the policy I may have been misapplying.
However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate (but see the exception about dates, below). Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.
--SarekOfVulcan 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

rena silverman

how do i maintain this article. please give me specific details. i'd be happy to add any references. i have so many. thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rena Silverman (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance request

Sarek, on editor assistance, you said you'd be willing to be an extra pair of eyes on article disputes. If you have time to take a look at such a dispute, please leave a note on my talk page (which already has a note indicating the problem article, a bio of a deceased U.S. religious figure which keeps being censored by one person over and over, long before I contributed earlier today). I've never been in this situation and am bewildered about how to stop a dedicated partisan from deleting such neutral bio info as numbers of children and marriages. Any help you have time for would be appreciated. -- Lisasmall 06:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for spending time on this. I hope it won't become a burden. -- Lisasmall 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/SarekOfVulcan

I reviewed you. Shalom Hello 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Soxman

Well, if it's not him, it's clearly a SPA. Assuming it is him, one thing I am a bit puzzled by, though, is why he would want to push his commentary on the shock troops controversy at this stage (which is seemingly more of a non-controversy as more details are revealed), which makes me think it might just be a devoted fan. Meh, I dunno. · jersyko talk 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

CHIP

LOL... MSJ and I had quite a time convincing a brother from one particular state Jurisdiction that this should be discussed in a general article as opposed to one article on HIS GL's program.

By the way... could you respond to the quick poll on UK vs US English. It may help us choose one over the other. Blueboar 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy With Lisasmall

Hi Sarek,

You seem very neutral in your edits and perspective with the Armstrong article. What is your take on my controversy and deliberations with Lisasmall on the discussion page, if you've read the postings? Though I acknowledge that I make some strong aruments to persuase third parties, and vigorously try to thwart certain kinds of edits (ones I objectively see as POV ax-to-grind editing--making the article look bigoted toward a religion), she is currently contacting Wikipedia administrators and describing my efforts with the article in the most negative light imaginable, even being dishonest about it. Any advice?

208.253.158.36 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jeb, I don't know if I have any good advice for you. It doesn't seem, from checking her contribution history, that she's actively doing anything involving your edits at the moment. About all I can advise is keep cool: when you and I started talking, instead of just reverting each other, we got a lot more productive.
Also, you might want to keep your paragraphs short: it's much easier to keep track of what's going on when you don't have to wade through lots of text looking for the ideas the author is trying to get across. :-)
And please, please go up to "My Preferences", "Editing", and check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". I have that one turned on myself! Several editors have told you that you need to use edit summaries with your changes, and you haven't been listening. Also, I'd strongly suggest checking the "Show preview on first edit" book, but I won't beg for it like the blank edit summary one.--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't realized others had asked me to do that. I'll do that ASAP. I actually don't edit much in terms of volume of text (I've been adding citations though).
I want to keep my postings short, but explaining the context and bringing in facts that provide that context ends up involving a lot of text; I feel like the default view toward the articles subject is one of suspicion with 80-90% of those who take up an interest, and the burden of proof sort of rests with the lone dissenter. Does that make sense? Hopefully, the administrators will see that and take the time to read carefully--and not think I was trying to dominate in any way except in terms of proving in detail the unworthiness of a certain approach to the article.
Thanks again. Any further thoughts on down the line, let me know. I'll check back on your page in this slot.
208.253.158.36 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady
Jeb, reading back, I don't see that anyone has obviously mentioned it besides me and Lisa: two editors != several. My apologies for misstating the case.--SarekOfVulcan 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Jebbrady 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Armstrong article nominated for deletion

Sarek,

Have you seen the latest development with the Armstrong page? I was directed to add citations and the editor driving the controversy said they would hang back until then, ans there was talk og puttingin a section on "controversy" which I had proposed. I spent hours putting the citations in, now she has put the article up for deletion, without any discussion. Someone with knowledge of the subject and some neutrality needs to intervene.

208.253.158.36 13:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Fixed. Actually, I wouldn't assume that this was Lisasmall: she's an established editor, so I think that she'd do it under her own username, instead of creating a throwaway one like Pos777, who did the nomination here.--SarekOfVulcan 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, uh yeah. I knew that (yeah right).

208.253.158.36 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Sarek, as you've pointed out, it wasn't me. I didn't know the article was up for deletion, and I disagree with deleting it. Armstrong was a newsworthy figure in 20th Century religion in the U.S., and Wikipedia needs a solid, neutral piece on him. I have, in fact, hung back from the article as I said I would; I haven't even looked at it and I won't be looking at it until this weekend at the very earliest. The initial hang-back was a courtesy to let Jebbrady do an extensive rewrite, as he had requested. If the rewrite produces a comprehensive NPOV article, I'll have no further interest at all.
Also, Sarek, since you have more luck modifying Jebbrady's behavior than I do, in addition to the edit summary request, can you repeat my request that he stop using multiple accounts? Even the "yeah right" comment immediately above is from an IP account, not his Jebbrady account (the name is only typed in, not generated). This creates a confusing edit / contribution history and will make life much harder on the mediators / arbitrators if they are brought in. He's had at least one formal[1] and one informal[2] WP:SOCK interventions, with at least two sockpuppets identified[3][4] and still doesn't cooperate with this basic Wiki rule; the note immediately above here on your talk page is from a third distinct IP.
Using multiple IP's also keeps people from easily accessing his history of reproofs at User_talk:Jebbrady. Formal actions taken against him (mostly WP:SOCK) are scattered all over, and dilute his record of misconduct. BTW, the User_talk:Jebbrady page now features a remarkable new barnstar, from a remarkable new user, see [5]. -- Lisasmall 00:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
PS: I can't find the AFD, even going back three days. Was a formal AFD actually filed? -- Lisasmall 00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It used the {{prod}} template, so as soon as I removed it, it was no longer up for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan 03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with templates and would never have figured this out. Thank you, and thanks for your endurance. -- Lisasmall 04:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The block

You're welcome. :) That user was both a vandalism-only account and an account created to attack you. Acalamari 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I gathered that. :-) Did you notice he started out at StatenIslandsLame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)?--SarekOfVulcan 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no; I didn't see those edits to that page. Someone else reverted his recent edit there. Assuming the vandal used the same IPs for both the account I blocked, and that one, he'll be unable to edit for some time, as I enabled the autoblock. Acalamari 20:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just blocked the other account you mentioned; vandalism-only. Acalamari 20:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. Wonder if he'll be persistent enough to borrow someone else's computer...--SarekOfVulcan 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Great couple of weeks, rough 48 hours

Sarek,

My friend, you have been quite possibly the best third party I've seen yet in this article--one which rouses lots of passion. I'm going to proceed under the assumption that your actions and comments towards me--which have been distressing--of the last couple days have been due to extenuating circumstances. I had never disrespected you in any way, but your tone changed dramatically toward me even after I apologized for the clumsy decision to revert (based on false information, as I explained--I'm not necessarily the brightest bulb in the bunch and never claimed to be). You seem to have, at least for the time being, developed a sort of kinship with a user who has been very difficult for me and apparently others to deal with, and who snipes at me incessantly, and I'm struggling to get them to move forward constructively (I have not read today's postings so that may be changing). But with you, I've seen a very reasonable, likable, and intelligent spirit in the recent past, and I guess I just will go ahead and expect that to continue as if this never happened. I hope that you can disagree with me as in the past (and I have yielded to your ideas at times), yet can at least acknowledge and respect that I am sincere, though at times very bold in criticism of a certain editorial approach that I decry. I am sincere in my distaste for it, and I hope you can respect the stand I take, whether or not you agree with that stand. I hope you can see that I have to deal with personalities, but that, for me, is not about personalities. I have a passion for the subject of religion and Armstrong, and how the former and the latter are portrayed in the media, and have high expectations of Wikipeida--much much higher than the mainstream media--as you do I'm sure--and I hope you can respect that too.

Well, have a good weekend. Peace. Jebbrady 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

What's this?

"I was brought in by User:Lisasmall as an extra pair of eyes on the article, per my listing on WP:ASSIST. When I got here, I found that referenced material was being deleted as superfluous by User:Jebbrady and his various (2?) non-logged-in IPs. He feels that WP has an anti-religious bias, and is battling to keep out changes he regards as problematic, such as Armstrong's marriage (after his wife's death) to a divorcee with a living ex-husband, despite having taught for decades that remarriage in this case was unacceptable.[19] I would like to see a wider selection of references, and a more balanced presentation of the subject."--SarekOfVulcan 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are referring too in most of the accusations you make here, and the others are obviously out of context. Please remove this passage form the posting, and we can then proceed according to the olive branch I extended above, written before I saw what you wrote.

69.115.162.235 03:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Formatting

I disagree, but feel free to change it back. Perspicacite 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now, but thanks for the permission. If I find myself spending much time on the article in the future, I may revisit this.--SarekOfVulcan 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor Case

Hi SOV,

I am aware of the arbitration case. I guess Jebbrady has to make a statement before it will go anywhere...

Cadwallader 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Most probably: I don't know what happens if he elects not to. I didn't notify you on your User Talk page because you hadn't run up against him like the rest of us had. If you have any comments, please feel free to chime in there anyhow.--SarekOfVulcan 19:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sarek. I added a comment to the case without adding myself as a party, as has RelHistBuff. I kept it short. You say "1996" in your initial presentation; maybe you meant 2006? Would a strikeout correction work best there? I've placed the "stuck" template on the WQA, which effectively closes that. Jebbrady did not comment there, and he didn't comment on either of the sock cases nor, so far, on the RFARB. I assume that eventually, the ARBcom will decide whether to take the case regardless of whether he's commented on the request or not. Thank you again for getting us off the dime and for all the heavy lifting. -- Lisasmall | Talk 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oy. Thanks for the heads-up on the date: fixed.--SarekOfVulcan 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC/U

It's been suggested by an Arbitrator that it be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct first. Let me know if/when that happens. 24.6.65.83 05:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarek, the RFC/U has two signatures on it now besides yours, RelHistBuff's and mine, both prior to the deadline. I also added this list of "attempts and failures" in the evidence section as a subsect with my name. It wasn't clear to me where it should go, but that seemed most likely. I put in links, I put in diffs, and I tried hard to guess where the line is between trying the reveiwers' patience by giving them too much and not giving them enough. -- LisaSmall T/C 20:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added my evidence to the RFC/U. I used a lot of diffs and if you click on each of them, I think the story unfolds pretty well. All his long responses speak for themselves. And I never got angry with him. I do hope something good will come out of this and this would restore some of my faith in the Wiki project. --RelHistBuff 17:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we ask people to endorse the summary? --RelHistBuff 17:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it, but be aware of WP:CANVASS.--SarekOfVulcan 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarek, I'm reading over the evidence and I noticed two things.

  • One, I'd be happy to take care of this but only with your permission. You used : indents for some of Jeb's lengthy passages, but there's a few other places in your presentation of his responses where they would help make things clearer and easier to read.
  • Two, oddly, the format doesn't seem to provide a place for the sig of the person who actually filed the RFC/U, only the endorsers. Maybe they were expecting your sig at the bottom of your evidentiary presentation? Or there's some other place they can see it? At the moment, it seems confusing to me because the evidence provided by RHB & I has sigs, but your initial narrative is out there and I don't see how a reader can tell who wrote it. Maybe a parenthetical at the end, something like (For clarity, please note "I" above refers to me, SarekOfVulcan; I prepared this narrative the day I filed the RFC/U.) with your tilde sig -- or is that somehow redundant? I didn't notice a place where the RFC/U page identifies the original complainant, but maybe I'm having a dimwit day and looked right past it.

Hoping for a swift and conclusive resolution to the RFC/U, -- LisaSmall T/C 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lisa, I went through and broke out a few of the lengthier quotes into indents, and italicized the rest of the comments. How's that?--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that's better. And I see your authorship line, too, that's great. I probably would break that very large paragraph at the beginning at "RelHistBuff responded that..." just so it's not such a big unrelieved block, but that's up to you. Thanks! -- LisaSmall T/C 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I am keeping an eye on the RFC/U on Jeb; I haven't added to it because I'd rather not create the impression that there is a cabal out to get him. Pairadox 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, Pairadox: the appearance can be almost as bad as the real thing. If you disagree anywhere with something I've misstated, though, please let me know.--SarekOfVulcan 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that any further discussion about this happen at the RFC/U's talk page; the discussion is starting to fragment too much. Pairadox 20:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)