Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah!—I'd like to translate Barbara Buchholz' article from the German wikipedia (here), but I notice you deleted a previous article by that name in 2007. Would you have any problem with me creating a fresh translation?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hello S Marshall ... I'm going to answer on behalf of Sarah who is only here on a limited basis of late and I am tending to watch her page and assist where possible; and also because I actually sought the speedy deletion of the original article which Sarah deleted back On April 11, 2007 (before I became an administrator). I have had a look at the reason I tagged it at the time and it was because an editor by the same name as the article title had created it and then asked for it to be blanked. On that basis your recreation of the article as a fresh translation from the German 'pedia will be fine providing of course it meets the normal criteria for inclusion here. I hope that assists?--VS ^talk 10:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Virtual Steve—I've re-read the history of the German wikipedia article in the light of your comments and examined the sources more critically, and I'm now less sure this isn't a puff-page. I think I'll translate something else instead. Sorry to spam up your page, Sarah.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back and informing of your decision. Cheers.--VS ^talk 00:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For your information, a discussion has been opened at WP:AN#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal regarding an issue you may be involved in. Your comments are invited. Thank you! For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Hersfold. Cheers, Sarah 03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This blood clot's messing with us again, this time with another username. Axxand and I immediately pointed out the user's similarities with Gonzalez, since he had the same old userbox style and signature template:

The similarities of his signature ABS-CBN Interactive (talk) with I ♥ Love Philippines (talk), who is a blocked user and is identified as Gerard's socks. Their userpages are also similar , look, I love Philippines and ABSCBN_Interactive. Haha! Huli ka! (Gotcha!)

Informing the sockpuppet noticeboard might not be of much use, since some of the mods aren't really that aware of the situation. Can you take care of this guy, please? Blake Gripling (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To see you round (i was in Melb over easter :) - with the younger two for bells - did two afl games and i crept into a comedy fest event as well) - trust you are well after all this time - cheers SatuSuro 10:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sats. Not really back yet, just dropping in to deal with the AN situation. Trust you and the fam are all well and that you had a good time in Melbourne. Make sure you give me a heads up next time you're in town so we can meet up and you can buy me one of those beers you owe me!! ;p Take care and catch up with you soon. Sarah 11:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well when you are back give a call - and I will explain why i didnt try to catch up over easter and a blow by blow description of the visit - dont worry the beer fund has been invested SatuSuro 12:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How does one go about getting a consensus. You reverted my material, although it is quite valid. Please explain the process to me. Thank you. TruthBeTold (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the article's talk page and start a new section, you can discuss with those people who are removing the material your rationale for including the material. Looking at the article's history, it appears there has been dispute over this material since the article was deleted and it's no good for anyone to continue edit warring over it. If you can reach an agreement with those editors about what to include in the article they will add it in for you and then you won't have to worry about fighting it out or coming back to check the page all the time. If you can't reach an agreement with them, then you can request a third opinion or a request for comment which will bring other uninvolved editors in to try to help resolve the dispute. See also the dispute resolution page. Sarah 04:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello,Sarah,can i have a copy of the deleted article/page User talk:Wroth of Dolly?Thank You in advance.Jamiebijania (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why do you need a copy of this talk page?--VS ^talk 09:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on things for me Mr Steve. :) Much appreciated as always. Trust all is well with you. Sarah 14:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. Nice to see you pop up on the radar Ms Sarah ;) - You sound very busy - hope it is all good.--VS ^talk 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah -- I figured I'd go with an admin on my timezone -- I was wondering if you could help me out :)

I had some sandboxed articles which have recently been deleted, and I was wondering if I could get some of them recovered, as they had a bit of work going into them which I am hoping to avoid duplicating :)

The articles had such imaginative names as User:AWN2/sandbox2, User:AWN2/sandbox3, User:AWN2/sandbox4, User:AWN2/sandbox5, User:AWN2/sandbox55 (just to be different), User:AWN2/sandbox6, User:AWN2/sandbox7, User:AWN2/sandbox8 and perhaps even User:AWN2/sandbox9. The pages were embryonic articles ;)

I was wondering if I could get them back, even if for only a few days, back up the content and then continue working on them.

Thanks in advance, cheers,

AWN2 (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey AWN2. I had a look but I couldn't find any deleted pages by those names. Are you sure they're correct?? I even had a look through your list of deleted revisions but all I could see for deleted userspace edits was 61 deleted revisions for User:AWN2/workspace9 and 128 deleted revisions at User:AWN2/workspace5. I'm quite happy to restore the pages for you if you can figure out where they are! Let me know if you want User:AWN2/workspace9 and User:AWN2/workspace5 restored. Cheers, Sarah 09:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah -- thanks for getting back to me :) Either the pages have mysteriously been renamed from "sandboxX" to "workspaceX", or it's been too long since I was on Wikipedia and I forgot... :o Sorry about that -- it all seems to be there... Thanks again anyway though -- I will now find other ways to humiliate myself :) AWN2 (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and nothing personal, but I have no more time for this nonsense. Any further use of my time will, I am certain, prove to be a waste. I give up... there are too many petty malicious people on this site.TruthBeTold (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

While I am curious why every time I'm not logged in it says I can't edit because Sarah blocked me for vandalism, I'm very sorry for a message that bordered that of a personal attack. I guess I just lost it at the time. Me & Virtual Steve sorted it all out. Hope you will accept my apology.

Have a nice day!

AndrewEnns (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Quit blocking my IP adress. Your from Australia & your user page says your into media & stuff like that. Obviously, you don't have the same interests as me but if your not interested in what I do then don't block my IP adress & claim I was vandalising wikipedia when I'm simply working on the stuff I know best. Its annoying because when I try to make a quick edit I always have to log in (even when I'm in a huge rush I don't have time to log in). It always says Your IP has been blocked by Sarah cuz of vandalism. Stop it!

I have not seen you contributing to the pages that I have so for you to claim I'm vandalising wikipedia is not justified. Plz, keep your nose out of my work unless you would like to help contribute to the stuff I do in a useful way rather than just blocking me. AndrewEnns (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your account has never been blocked Andrew - what are you exactly referring to - and please come back here with a less attacking comment than the one above?--VS ^talk 03:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering why every time time I go on wikipedia when I'm not signed in does it say I'm blocked by Sarah for vandalism? This is about the fifth time its happened. AndrewEnns (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew if you are able to edit now, that is on the same computer that you are on when you are not logged in, then you are not blocked. Are you suggesting that you have been blocked 5 times separately or are you looking at an old message or are you using two different computers?--VS ^talk 03:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm I'm using a different computer right now but this has happened both on the one I normally use & the one im using right now btw sorrry for being so rude. AndrewEnns (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay - apology accepted on behalf of Sarah who is away on extended alternative business at the moment. As I said if you can edit now you are not blocked so keep working (but of course watch our guidelines and policies as you do). Best wishes.--VS ^talk 03:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Steve. :) And thank you for the mail. It was a very nice surprise. A card will be coming your way very shortly. :) Sarah 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure as always Sarah. Glad you liked the card. Talk to you again soon.--VS ^talk 03:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To see you are still in working order! Long time no speak - trust WM Austrryiliea is goin ok - SatuSuro 05:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sats, yep, still in working order! Hope all is well with you and the fam. :) Yeah, WMA is going well with some interesting projects in the works! Thanks for popping by. :) Sarah 05:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Must remember to joinup ... SatuSuro 05:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be great - the Chapter really needs more influence from Western Australians. :) Sarah 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, Sarah. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, Jack. Hope you find it useful. :) Sarah 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My thanks also Sarah, for the rollback. It will be a great help. Cheers. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I happened to read your comment on Jack's talkpage. You wrote: I noticed you reverting vandalism on my watchlist... Am I misunderstanding what you wrote, or was there actually vandalism on your watchlist? I thought that someone's watchlist was visible only to themself, when logged in. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NorwegianBlue, Sarah just means that of the various articles that she is watching (on her watchlist) she has noted that Jack has reverted vandalism to one or more of those articles - because Jack either has similar articles on his watchlist or because he happened to stumble across vandalism on those articles. I hope that explain the comment?--VS ^talk 13:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains it perfectly! --NorwegianBlue ^talk 14:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec)Yes, it is as Mr Steve says. I noticed Jack manually reverting a vandal on an article I have on my watchlist and I was surprised to see he didn't have rollback. Knowing that he is a very trustworthy editor, I went ahead and turned it on for him. The only way that I'm aware the watchlist could be vandalised is if an admin vandalised the MediaWiki space. Sarah 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, I was wondering if my watchlist could be accessed by others via Special pages or something like that. Good to know it isn't so. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I've sent you an E-mail. Thanks. Acalamari 18:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Back at you dude. :) Sarah 05:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

--VS ^talk 03:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. :) Sarah 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad I got that right and happy you were pleasantly surprised. Canberra in August? - not sure as yet but if I am going to be around I will register with you. Best wishes to you again.--VS ^talk 07:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am very impressed that you remembered and it was a very nice surprise to get your email this morning. Hope you are around in August - even if you're not able to come to GLAM-wiki, it would be nice to catch up for a cuppa. I'll probably be in Canberra for four days - day before until the day after. Thank you again for your kind wishes. :) Cheers, Sarah 12:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know, Steve. I haven't been very active in recent months and so I wasn't aware that problems were persisting - that is very disappointing as I had hoped the mentorship would help. I will pop over to ANI and read up on things. Thank you for the notification. Cheers, Sarah 08:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your message on my talk page. I shall make a point of reading the directions most carefully. Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Marx01. I was just curious what the requirements for rollback rights were? I found you at the 'Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests' page and was curious how you acquire them. I've already read the rollback feature page, but I'm still not sure. I always revert vandalized pages (usually on the recent changes page), but the task is very tedious and it would be an amazing help. Sorry if you were the wrong person to come to; I picked a random admin. If you feel I'm not ready please tell me :D. Have an awesome day, Marx01 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Marx01. There are no set requirements for assigning rollback permissions and it is basically just up to individual administrators to examine a user's contribution history and use their best judgment. I looked through your contributions. You've only got 332 total edits and 119 total edits to articles, and all but 7 of your edits were made in the month of June. [3] This is very low experience for me to be comfortable with giving rollback to a user. I looked at the reverts that you've done and they mostly seem okay. Plus I see you have been adopted by an experienced mentor, and you say that you've read the rollback page, so I am willing to give you a chance to prove yourself with rollback. Just remember, though, that rollback is very easy to take away and if you misuse it any administrator may take it away without further discussion. So please be sure to be careful with it and if you're not sure if it's appropriate to use on any given edit, then don't use it. Also make sure you read and understand both WP:ROLLBACK and WP:VANDALISM and if you have any questions or if there's something you don't understand, please do ask me, your mentor, or another admin or experienced editor. The most important thing is that rollback should only be used for blatant, obvious vandalism and not in content disputes and such or on edits that may possibly made in good faith. So please do be read the vandalism and rollback policies and be sure you are clear about when it's okay to use it.

Also, when I looked over your edits, I noticed this edit to War pig. An IP changed "[[war elephants]]" to "[[war elephant]]s" and you reverted them back telling them that, "it just makes it easier to edit the way it previously was". Please be aware that the IP was disambiguating "[[war elephants]]" by moving the "s" outside the link as "war elephants" is a redirect page pointed at "war elephant", where the actual article is. The IPs edit was quite acceptable and you will often see people making edits to articles to "disambig" internal wikilinks. While such edits generally aren't really important as they just point a wikilink at the location of the actual article rather than a redirect or disambig page and usually don't actually change the meaning of the content, it's pretty pointless and unhelpful reverting them. I just disambig'd several internal links on that article, including that war elephant link, see [4].

I will give you a chance to prove yourself with the rollback tool but please do be careful to use it in accordance with policy, so if you are not sure about something or you have any queries or concerns please don't hesitate to come straight back and ask me. Sarah 09:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realize that was a disambiguation. It seemed like a very odd edit to me. Next time I see something like that which confuses me at all I will definitely look into it thoroughly. Thank you, Marx01 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I've left you a message of thanks at my talk page but I also note that you had come there first to ask for my assistance. Please tell me how I can help and I will do so if possible.--VS ^talk 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Suspect User:HexaChord has returned as User:217.228.64.74, per [5]. Trevvvy (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You can ignore this; I have blocked User:Trevvvy as a sockpuppet of User:Leanne.--Aervanath (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool, no worries. Thanks for letting me know, Aervanath. Cheers, Sarah 04:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pulling you up on this. There is nothing I like about fansite type articles. That's why I don't edit them like they are. The edits you have made to many of these character articles are lazy. I hear you obviously spent a lot of your time looking at them, but infact it's just ridding of everything apart from the info box, and a small sentence. You could help to improve these and find whats been said and do some original research. Atleast on one. I'm a member of the wikiproject for Coronation Street. We constantly edit them everytime something comes up, or we come across a book, or a TV show imitates a character, or something comes on the news. Anything that happens outside the show that not minor goes in on them. There for I don't see why you say you'd rather delete this particular character page, she did cause a bit of a stir in Australia, the UK media picked up on it to and kind of critised things over there. So a bit of a reaction on both sides, then you had different conservative groups moaning, then countered by LGBT groups. The actress had a lot to say too.Raintheone (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your "I'm pulling you up on this" is offensive - I'm not some naughty little school kid who hasn't done their home work; I'm an adult and if you can't speak to me as one then please don't bother talking to me at all. Your allegations are rubbish. It's not my responsibility as an administrator to spent my life trying to find sources for information that I don't believe should be in this website. Ultimately the storyline and background information is unverified and unverifiable and therefore does not belong on Wikipeda. Please go and read the verifiabilty policy. There may have been a lot of "stir" caused in Australia but that doesn't exclude the requirement for information to be sourced to reliable sources, and it's the responsibility of people adding information to provide the sources, not the poor administrator who tries to clean up after them. Yes, I do think the Charlie Buckton article should be deleted because I think it would be better to clear the decks and start again, but I don't actually care either way if we end up with a new article there or not, as long as it complies with this website's policies, because that is my job and my responsibility. If you want to write a replacement then feel free, just make sure that it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and you won't even hear from me about it. Sarah 14:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you're a member of a Coronation Street wikiproject, it follows that you have a special interest in that subject area and explains why you'd want to spend lots of time researching and rewriting the articles. This is not a comparable situation. I don't have a special interest in Home and Away or its characters. I happened upon these articles by accident and not as a member of some Home and Away project or even a tv project and it is unfair and unrealistic to demand that an administrator (or editor) cleaning up non-compliant material across a significant number of articles (that had been tagged for sources and rewriting in some cases for years, I might add) then turn around and also spend a large amount of time researching and rewriting beyond providing a basic starting point. Just rereading that article again, I absolutely stand by my edits to Charlie Buckton - that entire "Storyline" discussion does not belong on Wikipedia. I would also note that the previous version [6] didn't even mention the media reaction to the storyline that you refer to - there's actually more about that in the stub I rewrote than was in the previous version! And I did look up sources - where do you think the Courier Mail article currently cited in the article actually came from? Sarah 14:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound patronising. That was a mindless comment I made, I didn't mean it to sound I have authority over you, just I didn't want it to go down the pan without a discussion into other outcomes. Do you perhaps spare some of your time creating/advising/helping me to create a wikiproject for the show and all of the articles. The fans that edit need a place to chat and discuss making them better, and if they are big fans they will may join and contribute. I know you may not think it is a good idea as it seems I'm trying to save the pages, but I have no care for minor characters, that have had no impact. But where there are characters their is scope to write alot about. I have no idea how to create such a thing as I don't have the know how in that area, I've tried looking at how to do it. Confusing.Raintheone (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind you trying to save articles. I don't even mind if there ends up being articles about notable characters. They just need to be maintainable and generally comply with Wikipedia's content policies. I'm happy to look at any draft articles and help out wherever I can, but I've never even created a Wikiproject so I'm not a good person to ask about that. You probably need to start by finding a good group of established editors interested in writing Home and Away articles but I can't even think of anyone to recommend off the top of my head...perhaps as the current AFD progresses more people interested in Home and Away will come forward and you could then contact them and see if they'd be interested in forming a wikiproject to work on Home and Away articles. It might be effective to include Neighbours as well as there seems to be a lot of crossover between the two subject areas and Neighbours character articles are in a bit of a mess as well. Sarah 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sarah,

Thanks for this. You've explained what NYScholar should do now. Thank you very much, Sarah. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Danras (talk · contribs) responded to Causa sui's attempts to explain to him why his behavior made us conclude he couldn't be allowed to edit with this, which I consider to be GFDL revocation. In light of this and his plagiarism, you think we should start a ban discussion, or consider him old-style banned? Blueboy96 12:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would just consider him old-style banned. Since there was already an ANI discussion and no one raised any concerns about the block, I don't think we need to have another one, especially as he's saying he's leaving etc. I'm glad we've got some kind of explanation regarding what is his and what he copied from other sites but it's going to be a headache trying to clean up his mess when there's several years of plagiarism interweaved with original material. Thanks for letting me know about his response. Sarah 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, I read what you wrote on my talk page and I thank you for clearing it. I welcome a new start.

However, the issue with the aforementioned admin will likely continue even with my willingness to 'let this go'. It takes two to tango. The person we know about needs communication skills. I can't beat them into him and I'm not going to try. I'm escalating this to admin abuse.

I found the proper venue for that and I'm going to pursue it until he apologizes and starts acting human, like you.

My biggest concern is that that admin is going to reverse all my edits using his harsh criteria and without explaining himself and that (in and of itself) is enough to discourage me from making any more effort. Someone needs to tell that admin to be more communicative because it's going to continue as long as he does what he does. For my part, I would much rather settle this peaceably with him, but he will not allow a peaceable ending. I'm convinced he thrives on conflict because he does a great job at producing friction within people -- not just me. Others have commented negatively on his 'style'. Accuse and warn and don't be too friendly with the editors.

I'm trying...

Thanks again Sarah. Ssybesma (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah,

I would like to make this page more useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_parking

Few people reading this article would know what a parked domain looks like and my entire intent prior to my incident with <blank> was to help the reader understand what one looked like.

Is there any place in the article to include an viewable example of what the article is about?

Sounds like a dumb question (forgive me), but maybe I was going about it wrong.

I just need to know how to properly put what I want to put into the article so it will pass muster and increase its usefulness. All I care about is increasing usefulness/usability and of course accuracy.

The other link I had added which was deleted was an example of how to filter out Parked Domains.

Somehow, there is a place for that information as well but maybe I don't know how to add it correctly in a way that would be acceptable. That site is the ONLY site I found in the internet that claims to be a filter for parked domain results...I looked high and low and found that. It seemed to belong in that article in some way because it was related.

I know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I question the wisdom of confining things too much as if Wikipedia were a set of hard copy books. In my opinion Wikipedia has the potential to be far more than just the "opensource version" (if you will) of Encyclopedia Brittanica online if some people had just a _tiny_ bit more of an open mind. I too share the idea that spamming shouldn't be allowed, but I really think its definition is too broad and too subject to interpretation and that is discouraging.

Thanks Ssybesma (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the outsourcing of the reply! I got a great answer back from the other admin. We can work together. Thanks Sarah Ssybesma (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I found a website with transcripts for the High Court of Australia
Do you know if there is a similar website where it is possible to obtain copies of transcripts for trials of the Supreme Court of New South Wales? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/? I've not used the site before but it may(or not) have the Supreme Court of New South Wales transcripts. Bidgee (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(after ec)Have you tried the other Autlii databases - www.austlii.edu.au/databases.html#nsw for NSW? Austlii is generally considered the premier Australian legal resources site. Is there something specific you're looking for? I have alumni access to the databases at a university in Queensland and would be happy to poke around in their databases for you. Sarah 03:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The www.austlii.edu.au site is the kind of website I was looking for. I am interested in this case because it is mentioned in sources cited at the Homeopathy article. I do not understand why there are only 4 court sessions in this database, and none of them concern the actual trial testimony. www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au seems to give access to the same subset of court sessions for this case. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm contacting you because you handled this issue before and therefore know what it's about, but I can take it elsewhere if you'd rather. A week ago at my request you semi-protected brain implant for a week because of an IP adding an unacceptable link. Nothing happened during that week as far as I know, but as soon as the semi expired, the IP is back. I'm not sure whether the best approach is another semi or a blacklist of the link. As I said before, I don't think blocking is feasible. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've reprotected both of them for a month. If he keeps going after that we might just have to blacklist the link. I've never had anything to do with the blacklist, though, and would have to get some help with it. :) Cheers, Sarah 16:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sarah. I'm sure it won't be too long before I get the opportunity to check out Rollback! Cheers,  florrie  11:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I hope you find it useful.:) Sarah 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sarah,

You were involved with NYScholar before, and you provided solid reason why NYScholar should be banned. After NYScholar was banned, Abd has argued that since you are an involved editor, I shouldn't have counted your arguments while closing the discussion! Please read his arguments at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. You should also analyze User:Abd/Sandbox. Would you like to give your input? You can provide your input at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. AdjustShift (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll pop over there when I have a spare minute and take a look. I'm really busy right now and about to go out for a couple of hours, so it won't be until later. I haven't read the comments yet, so just a general comment in response to your post here, I wasn't involved in the dispute. I was involved in previous discussions on ANI but I only became involved as a (then) uninvolved administrator investigating complaints to ANI. Prior to that I have never edited the same articles as NYScholar and had no involvement with him other than contacting him regarding an OTRS complaint about some incorrect information he posted stating incorrectly that a living person was dead. The family saw this on Google and were very distressed and contacted the Wikimedia Foundation to complain and request removal of the information and wanted to be put in contact with NYScholar, and I handled the complaint and contacted NYScholar about it. Prior to that I had had no involvement with him at all, so all my involvement has come about as an administrator and an OTRS agent. I wasn't involved in any content disputes or anything like that. At the time of the previous ban proposal and decision to allow another go at mentoring with Shell, the discussion was basically deferred pending the mentorship, so I don't think it is inappropriate for users involved in the previous discussion to have input when the mentor returns and reports the mentorship has failed. I really can't see how there can be seen to be anything untoward with the discussion or with your closure. It is a very sad circumstance and I did not want to see NYScholar banned; I would have much rather seen him take on board the feedback and improve his editing practices but sadly that did not happen and I did not see there was any realistic alternative. Likewise I don't see how you could have closed the discussion any other way. NYScholar is welcome to appeal to the arbitration committee if he wishes to and if Abd thinks the ban invalid, perhaps he could raise it with the arbitrators and see what they think. Anyway, as I said I haven't seen the discussion yet but I will take a look at it when I have some time. Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Sarah 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm impressed with your explanation. Thank you. Can you provide your input at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy? You can look at the discussion when you have time, and give your input. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I have been trying to become au fait with the finer points of creating pages on Wikipedia that are interesting, accurate and well presented. I originally set up a page for a company but found that it conflicted with policy. That was certainly not my intention. I've redevloped the page as advised by another administrator (who unfortunately is away on leave) but I'd like to keep this work moving. I realise that you are not listed as having an interest in software but you have the endearing quality of being an Aussie. So I thought you might be able to help me, if only to direct me to the right place to get assistance. I can't find much on the site that explains the process well. I have created the page at User talk:Colslee/once:radix. Can you advise me how to get the page reviewed. I don't want to make the mistake of publishing the page until I am sure I have it right. Many thanks for your time. Colslee (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to take a look at it for you. Unfortunately I'm a little busy right now and about to head out for a couple of hours but would be happy to have a look a bit later. The previous version of this article was deleted as a copyright violation as it was copied from another website. Wikipedia doesn't accept material that has been copied from other sources, so it had to be deleted. The most important thing with articles here is to be able to verify everything with reliable sources. Wikipedia only reports what has been published first in what we call "reliable sources" (newspaper, magazine, journal articles etc) and doesn't publish new or original information that hasn't first been published elsewhere. So the most important thing to do is to make sure you have plenty of reliable sources and that you are able to source everything in the article. Are you connected with this product or the company? It's okay if you are, we don't forbid people from editing subjects close to them but it is discouraged and instead we encourage people to take a more advisory role and make recommendations that other editors can then implement. This is because it is often very difficult to write in a neutral way about subjects one feels close to. You can read more at the COI guideline. I will have a read of the article later. Cheers, Sarah 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know why it was believed to be a copy of another website. I wrote it myself. I am not involved with the company, though I've known the owner for many years. The details of their work have been in the public domain for many years. I can add many more links to published articles but I believe that the most important links are included in the Reference section. Colslee (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. To be entirely frank with you, I don't think the sourcing is anywhere near adequate to support a claim of notability and I think it's very likely that it will be nominated for deletion if you post it as it is. I noticed that cite 1 and 2 go to the same Computer World article by Rodney Gedda, but you seem to have made a mistake and listed the second time you cite it as an article by Nathan Torkington. The features section only cites one source, a wiki page which therefore doesn't qualify as a reliable source. And the history section has no references except for the direct quotation from Rob Napier. Where did all the information come from? You really need to provide references for it. As I said above, Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources have already published and you need to be able to be reference the information or it shouldn't go on Wikipedia. The "Rich Internet Application Development for Dummies" page at oreillynet is written by Rob Napier, which is okay for citing a direct quotation but it doesn't count for notability purposes which requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". For trying to establish notability, you have only one source that would qualify - the computerworld.com.au article. You really need to provide references for the information in the article and also find a lot more verifiable articles that could be described as "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" in order to establish that this is a notable piece of software. Otherwise I think its pretty likely to be deleted again. Regarding the copyright problem, I'm not really sure what the copyright concerns were as there was nothing further noted in the log, so you would have to ask PMdrive to explain why he believed it was a copyright violation. Also not really sure what you meant when you said the details are in the public domain, but if you mean that you are using material that Napier has released into the public domain, it still needs to be referenced and if you are incorporating their text we would need confirmation that it was public domain. Also note that your signature should only be used when signing comments that you post on discussion pages and not in the articles themselves. Hope these notes help you. Cheers, Sarah 06:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the nice note. Hope you are doing well my friend. I find I get busy intermittently and don't have enough time to spend here. Best regards -- Samir 06:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied. --  Punk Boi 8  talk  06:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

and again. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have been working on the Harold Pinter article (you previously commented on the proposed ban of NYScholar from that article). If you are interested in the article or willing to help out, your input would be most welcome. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sarah. You have new messages at Talk:List of Home and Away characters.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sarah, thanks for this edit. Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, I'm considering presenting evidence relating to Abd's behaviour at the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case as his berating of you about your close of the NYScholar discussion appears to be a pattern. Cheers, Sarah 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please participate in the discussion on the talk page instead of simply reverting the edits that the the editors discussing the policy have suggested? Your reversion seems to be a misunderstanding: according to the policy there are two kinds of community bans only one is made from discussion, the other is caused by admins refusing to unblock and indef blocked user. Even if you remove it the fact about the unblock requests is still in the policy the phrase you remove only sevres to clarify the distinction between the two kinds of ban.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, I can't, I'm afraid. I can't find exactly where it is being discussed that we require there to be repeated unblock requests to determine a community ban. I will start my own section about it as I'm afraid I don't have the time or interest to read that entire page of lengthy rantings. Sarah 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree there have to be repeated unblock requests as there are other ways of determining it, ie by subsequent discussions. However, I'm going to bed and don't have time to deal with it right now so I just reverted myself but I plan to raise this with other admins as I disagree with what's been done to that page recently. I also can't deal with the current talk page, it's just ridiculous for anyone to come in from outside the discussions and highly doubt I'm the only one who feels like that about it. I would suggest that some of those posts belong on a user essay or a noticeboard or something and not on the policy talk page. Sarah 13:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, you're welcome to present evidence at the RfAr, if it's relevant. As to the "community ban" that is alleged to exist with editors who are blocked and not unblocked, there is no way to know if "no admin is willing to unblock," i.e., that the community's collective patience has been exhausted, if there have not been multiple requests with neutral denials, and, based on review of many cases, I find it problematic to even consider a maintained indef block as a "ban," even with multiple denials, if there has been no discussion. For most practical purposes, it's simply an indef block, nothing less, but also little more. The danger in calling it a "ban," because of the other usages of the term, is that a presumption is created that this was based on a consensus of uninvolved editors or other authoritative decision, and then even questioning the block or "ban" can be asserted to be disruptive. In the close in question, NYScholar, there was no determination by AdjustShift that there was a "consensus of uninvolved editors," but only his claim that there was a simple "consensus," citing "73.33%" of comments, and, clearly, he did not consider involvement, and still has not considered involvement. That doesn't make his ban decision improper, it simply makes it an administrative ban rather than a community one. I'd be happy for ArbComm to review this, so thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but anyone is welcome to present evidence to ArbCom so I don't seek, need or want your permission. Please keep your various disputes where they are and don't bring them here to my talk page. I think you are wrong about nearly everything you start talking about, including your attempt to characterise me (and others) as "involved in the underlying dispute" because I had previously reviewed and commented on, as an administrator, complaints to ANI about NYScholar. And the way you endlessly berate administrators you disagree with until they surrender is unacceptable IMO. Frankly, I think you are well meaning but endlessly disruptive and somehow not suited to this environment and I'm one of many who will tell you I think you will end up having to be banned and I will support such a proposal if you're not able to change your behaviour (or if ArbCom lacks the stomach to take some kind of action for us). But I simply find you way too exhausting to deal with and I don't want my talk page to become flooded with your lengthy rants so I kindly ask you to keep your various discussions where they are and kindly don't import them to my page. Please, no need to respond. In fact, I shall archive this section shortly. Thank you. Sarah 15:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems there is a consensus to unban with caveats, and I am under the impression that one of those is having a mentor. You've been suggested as a logical candidate to mentor FV, and I agree. Would you consider? Or if you are too busy or otherwise unable at this time, can you recommend someone? Once mentorship is set up, we can move forward with the other conditions and get FV to editing again. Auntie E (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Shall pop over there in a moment. Sarah 06:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- apologies if you were planning to address this, but there's a question hanging at that thread re whether you would be prepared to serve as a mentor -- the lack of an answer seems to be the sticking point at the moment. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know. Sarah 06:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI - I Noticed that you blocked another Gotica IP sock. In looking at the edit histories of the pages he tends to frequent I would wager that Nickelback12345670 (talk · contribs) is also a sock account. Maybe? What do you think? Cheers! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And another account has surfaced Shnagles (talk · contribs). The Real Libs-speak politely 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I noticed the Nickelback one last night and thought it looked like him but I was so tired I thought I'd leave it until today. I've blocked both of them now. No doubt that won't be the last of him, though, so feel free to let me or Steve know if you spot any new arrivals. Cheerss Sarah 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shnagles contacted me by email and asked to be given another chance. He says he's not Gothica and that he has no other accounts on WP. I checked his IP and, for what it's worth, it's on a completely different range to Gothica. He's agreed to some conditions, that he won't edit war and if his edit gets reverted, he will find a RS and discuss it with the other user instead of revert warring. I will try to keep an eye on things generally but if there's any more problems please give me a ping. I suggested to Shnagles that concerned editors have a discussion about the genres generally and reach some agreement about sourcing them as few of them seem to be sourced and some people seem to be trying to change the genres based on their own opinion from listening to the tracks (WP:OR). Cheers, Sarah 06:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

in getting that quieted down and then archiving it--regardless of who was or was not right about procedure. DGG (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that and I'm sorry things became so heated and personal. It seems like a crazy subject to have sparked such an unfortunate argument. No hard feelings on my behalf and I hope as both of us are WMF Chapter board members that we may have a more positive collaboration in future. :) Thanks again for the note, Sarah 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Howdy. I was looking at this image's licenses and I got a bit cornfused. :) If {{PD-Australia}} is indeed correct, wouldn't that make the {{PD-self}} on page invalid? I mean if the copyright expired, then how can you (the uploader and alleged copyright holder) claim to release it into the public domain? I know this isn't a big deal, as the image is apparently in the public domain either way, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.--Rockfang (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't replied, so I've removed the pd-self license. If you disagree with this, please let me know.--Rockfang (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your vote put me on the edge of my seat for two weeks back in December, and has caused me to ponder often since then. Irrespective of all the other nonsense, your vote was one of the most desired/anticipated, so it's nice to finally know why it didn't appear. Anyway, your recent comments have prompted me to enact my drafted arbitrator recall pledge so that the community has a clear path to remove me if that is their wish. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do that because of me as I would never want any part in recalling you and if by some freakish incident I did it wouldn't be through a drama-filled recall but through a private email. Over the last few months the Arbitration Committee has come to concern me greatly, but you personally seem to be doing a good job (though I must admit that I wasn't at all comfortable with the Date findings, especially against John which I think was a terrible mistake and I'd urge him to exhaust all avenues of appeal). I'm not actually against the idea of a Council in general and I would support something like it if you or someone else presented it as an editor at a grassroots level rather than imposing from above, as I would likely do with most of your ideas; its actually the implementation that worries me - I think your visions are very interesting but I don't think you have the patience for introducing things slowly or the stomach for community politics and discussions and would prefer to do things drastically and radically, put up with a stink for a few days and cross your fingers and hope that it passes and that people get over it and accept it. As for the election, I pained over it greatly for the whole period of the elections and very much wanted to support you because I think your visions are very exciting and in some ways you could be the best thing this project has ever had and you are one of few I feel could actually lead it into the next phase of its development. I think I know you pretty well and I believe completely that you have the best intentions for the project at heart, and would only ever do what you really thought was right for the project, that you aren't vulnerable to outside interference, blackmail and personal pressure, cabalism and such. So I wouldn't try to stand in the way of anything you wanted to do, but I was concerned that you have a radical, progressive vision (okay) but don't have the patience for community politics and measured, careful implementation, preferring to implement things drastically and try to surf out the ensuing drama (not so okay IMHO). It feels a lot like being collectively dragged about by the hair. But you know, you're like my dearest friend from Wikipedia and one of very, very few I have, or would have, come to the house, meet my family, etc (I'd be horrified if most people here even knew where I lived!) and if the project ended tomorrow I'd be extremely grateful that I'd be walking away with some true friends. I also think that you've been crucial to Wikimedia Australia getting up and invariably I agree with your ideas and opinions there and I am a supporter of you generally, it's just this one area of implementation that worries me. For routine arbitration matters, cases, trusting you with confidential information, etc I don't have any concerns about you at all. But to be frank, I don't think the arbitrators should be using their positions on the arbitration committee to introduce structural changes outside the mandate of dispute resolution and I'm really quite stunned that you (collective you) would try to do so. If arbitrators want to introduce something like this, they should be doing it in a personal capacity as editors, or, at the most, proposing an idea as a committee and inviting the community to comment and adapt the idea, but not imposing things by force. I'm prepared to entertain the idea that I'm wrong about a lot if this, but even so I don't believe it's the ArbCom's place to introduce a governmental structure or body on the project without the support of the community. Sarah 03:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. I'll come back to this when I have a bit more time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Take your time good sir. :p I'll be sending you an email soon about a couple of things I'm a bit worried about and want to discuss with you. Just have to find enough time to find some diffs etc, so will give you a ping on ze email soon. :) Sarah 09:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to this, I am guessing that you are referring to w:user:Drini. As a bit of context, I "nominated" two stewards and a majority of the committee supported both of them, however Drini is the only one that has accepted the invitation. The other steward declined because they thought they were not active enough on English Wikipedia, however in actual fact they are actually about twice as active, by edit count, but they were not to know. Also, I think Drini was the only nomination of a person who is hyperactive on another large language Wikipedia. If you were referring to someone else, or if there are other council members who appear to be unsuitable, I will provide as much context as I can.

Regarding the process, it is possible that this council could also have been established without Arbcom being involved, but that hasnt happened yet (and there are many failures to set up something like this, with the primary supporters leaving the project disgraced and/or disillusioned), and I doubt that the arbitrators would have had the energy to get it off the ground if that approach was used.

We could also have made recommendations and left the community to make the final decisions (and we have gone for that approach with oversighters & checkusers, because those roles have an actual power over the community), however many of the members of this council would not have accepted the invitation to be part of a popularity contest, for good or ill. The method we used for this body was expedient, and we are leaving it up to the community to determine how its membership should be selected in future (as we did with the audit subcommittee). There was outrage from some quarters about using public elections for oversighters & checkusers, and I dont recall any significant opposition to the way we launched the audit subcommittee - the community hasn't bothered to try to replace its membership, which they are free to do at any time.

For me the moral of the story is that whatever Arbcom does, there is a very high chance that there will be significant objections, sometimes unfounded or unforeseen, and even unintended attrition. As a result I give my support to proposals that I am willing to live or die by. That way I can say that I tried to do what I believed I was elected to do.

I unequivocally believe that this advisory council is a necessary component of dispute resolution for this community - it will look for solutions to longer term disputes about major issues, such as adoption and deprecation of ideas, technology, etc. If these disputes are not managed well, they end up being the date delinking cases which result in good people being hurt and disillusioned (and John is not the only good person who was adversely affected by that case).

It is because of my "live or die by" approach that I felt I needed to enact my recall pledge. It was written because I was being asked to recuse from the date delinking cause by Tony1 on completely unfounded allegations of conflict of interest. The recusal pledge wasn't for you to use (in fact you can't, due to the way I created it), but it is because people like you have spoken up that I see the need to provide the community with a way of deposing me.

If the community believes I have overstepped the mandate, then I should be removed from the arbitration committee. It is that simple. I'll respect anyone who acts on their conviction and initiates a recall; I'll step down happy with what I have accomplished, and I will retire to the peaceful waters of Wikisource.

And, I reserve the right to admit I was a fool after being tapped on the shoulder privately, so hurry up with that please, before I make a bigger fool of myself! :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I can see your sleeping habits haven't improved since moving out to the sticks! Reply coming soon. :) Sarah 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You dont miss much. ;-) Could you use email or {{tb}} to notify me; im on internet rations until Monday. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I just found this statement from Drini which may be useful for you to read, if it was Drini that you were referring to. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here. --GoRight (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about re-creating the article Mistabishi since they do have a record deal (Hospital Records) and are have lots of views on youtube for their music. If you could get mey a copy of what was deleted it'll be greatly appreciated. Thx in advanced.--Fire 55 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've enabled my email.--Fire 55 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like our good friend Gerald is back on his feet again, eh? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Blake, nice to see you. Looks like NrDg has already blocked him. Cheers, Sarah 13:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I noticed last night that I had been mentioned in the list of people supporting the page ban of Abd, is this what you mean by my "actions"? I couldn't see anything else there involving me, but it's highly possible (probable) that I'm missing something. Thanks! Sarah 02:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, there was a whole list (actually three lists) of people there. The discussion is a bit convoluted so it's not obvious what the ultimate purpose of the list might be. I'm going on the principle that everyone mentioned in an arbcom case deserves to be informed. It may well be nothing to get concerned about, but by being aware of it you can decide for yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries and I appreciate you letting me know. I just wasn't sure if there was more to it than the lists. I've been considering submitting some evidence myself but its rather tedious sorting through the slabs of text for diffs. The events leading up to this case have been rather like watching a very slow speed car accident happen before your eyes and my only hope is that this time the ArbCom will send a strong message. Thanks again for the notification, much appreciated. Cheers, Sarah 02:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is just about zero chance of you becoming a "party of interest" in the case. That you participated in a discussion among a series of discussions listed as a beginning of evidence directed toward identifying a "cabal" means nothing, and SBHB was just stirring up shit, by notifying all the people who were listed (listed with disclaimers that the listings were not accusations). "Mention" should mean something substantial, at least it should have become "discussion" of the editor. If we look at the linked pages from that evidence section, there are many, many editors listed, down another level, and all that is incorporated by reference. The clerks decided to allow SBHB's canvassing, but canvassing it was. If you have evidence or proposals to submit, 'of course you are welcome, but ArbComm cases are not discussions where decision are made by a consensus of the community, as such, but rather by vote of arbitrators, so number of comments mean practically nothing. My apologies if the listing distracted you from anything of more importance. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been involved in arbitration cases before and I'm aware decisions at arbitration are not made by community consensus (why else have arbitrators). I don't think it's canvassing to notify people that their name has been mentioned in an arbitration case's evidence. I was just confused by Boris describing it as my "actions" as I don't think I've taken any actions and I had already seen the list anyway as I had read the case pages the night before. I think under the guideline what he did would be considered "friendly notices". If you don't mind me saying, I don't think it's really ideal for you to be making lists and trying to identify cabals and I can't see that really going down very well as it seems like lawyering (and for the record, I've never edited anywhere near this subject area and I'm pretty sure I've never even exchanged words with WMC or the others. I just reviewed the ANI complaint, looked at what had been going on, and happened to agree with the page ban). I think you would do better to focus on the actual behaviour, actions, and events rather than trying to connect people to some shadowy cabal. Even if people are connected, it doesn't mean their opinions should be ignored anymore than the opinions of the people in your little group, who very much could equally be called a "cabal", should be ignored. If you want to discount the views of people on WMC's side because they're part of a perceived "cabal" (if that's what you're trying to do), then you equally have to discount the people on your side who also act like a cabal and seem to follow you around agreeing with you, otherwise you're creating an imbalance, but I've never seen views discounted in the way you seem to want done. I don't think you'll achieve much by focusing on that sort of thing and instead I would suggest you focus on the behaviour and actions taken. Just a thought you might like to consider. Sarah 01:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, can you assist with some advice to me or directly to Michael Griske who has come to may talk page here and here. It seems Michael is the copyright owner of some material that was posted to wikipedia but tagged and deleted for copyright infringement. He wishes to assert that he is the owner and then publish the material. I have responded but I'd appreciate a second opinion from you if you can?--VS ^talk 02:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Just give me about 10 minutes and I'll be there. Sarah 02:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sarah. You have new messages at VirtualSteve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You've definitely peaked my interest - would be interested in your thoughts as I don't want to be selfish or greedy. Also I have left a message under your message to Bidgee at his talk page which might interest you. --VS ^talk 14:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

--VS ^talk 01:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. :) Sarah 03:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Read and returned - I think you may have swung me but a last question or two from you. I hope I'm not being too intrusive on your time.--VS ^talk 07:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Just wondering if you'd have time to stop by Wikipedia:Editor review/Sk8er5000 and comment, it has now been going for two months without comment. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to have a look but I probably won't have time for a few days as I'm pretty busy at present and I haven't been keeping an eye on your edits so I'll have to have a poke through your contribs. Cheers, Sarah 07:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep you informed I have left a new message here and a further message here. Is there anything you can think of to add?--VS ^talk 01:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr Steve. That's a pity that Matt has prior commitments. It would have been great to have seen him there. I'm really thrilled that you're coming, however, and hopefully Bidgee will be able to organise his studies so he can come, too. I believe that Blng, Lankiveil, and Daniel will also be coming (Why do I always feel so outnumbered by men on this project?! We seriously need to have a recruitment drive for Australian women! LOL). Sarah 10:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if Blnguyen, Lankiveil, and Daniel posted their image on their user page. Want me to ask? :) --VS ^talk 12:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hehe I've seen pictures of Daniel and Lanki and I'm sure some nice sexy shots of them would entice some new women to the project! I saw the CU election has started. Best of luck Steve. :) Sarah 06:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't received an invitation to the Wikimedia Australia GLAM conference. I'll have to see if I can get time off from my study and find away to get to Canberra and stay. Bidgee (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, I'll make sure Liam puts you on the invite list. You could also just go for one day if it's difficult to get away for both. If you're able to oragnise the time away from study, you can request a bursary to cover your airfare. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Cheers, Sarah 04:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the matter on my page Sarah - I have left a message there also. Also I haven't received any (more/new) information regarding Wiki Aus GLAM - not sure if I can make it also but just thought I'd tell you so you can add my name to Liam's invite list. Just so you know also there are no flights between Wagga Wagga and Canberra unless you fly via Melbourne or Sydney which would be a bit backwards and add a couple of hours; however driving from here to Canberra is only about 2.5 hours.--VS ^talk 05:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. I do hope you end up being able to come, that would be great. I'm pretty sure that you're on the 'invite list' from when I registered your name to receive an invitation. There have been a couple of update emails since then but they only go out to people who have registered. They're on the Wikimedia Australia wiki here and here. 2.5 hours isn't too bad. That's about how long it will take me to get there too, between driving to the airport and then flying up. Anyway, hope to see you both there. :) Sarah 05:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good news - you may have some to here also (in terms of ideas for rooms). [7] Best regards.--VS ^talk 11:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, I entered the wrong email address (No longer active). I do have the order ID. Who do I contact? Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bidgee - I think you could contact Liam in Sarah's absence.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. :) Liam has sent the information needed. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As the blocking admin of Gotica, I thought I should let you know that there is yet another block evading sock of this guy - S_hannon43. The dude's also been continuing his same editing while using IP addresses. 124.179.173.61 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I've left them a warning and will keep an eye on them. I'm a bit hesitant to block right now as I blocked someone else who was editing like that and looked exactly like Gotica but turned out to be someone else on a totally different IP. So I'll keep an eye on the account and if they keep doing the genre edit warring after my warning, I will block them. Cheers, Sarah 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. It was great to catch up, and as I said to Steve, if you're ever over this way, then please let me know. As mentioned, I'd be grateful if you could have a sqizzie at this. –Moondyne 08:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Moondyne and likewise when you're in Melbourne again. It was fabulous meeting you and the other boys after working with you all for so long and I was really delighted that you were able to come down to APH with us. I've emailed Roxanne and am keeping my fingers crossed for the images. :) Thanks for the link, I'm really busy right now but will try to take a look in the next day or two. Cheers, Sarah 03:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't be surprised if Roxanne balked wrt the NC issue. But you never know: we can only ask. –Moondyne 05:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's always possible and I'm not counting my chickens, but she has given me images under cc-by-sa before and confirmed the licensing of other govt portraits were okay (Kim Carr was one example), so I'm not too concerned about it. But if she changes her mind, it doesn't matter. I'm just glad to have had the opportunity to meet her face-to-face after over a year of emails back and forth and have a chat and continue working with her in any way she's okay with. :) By the way, I gave your sexy t-shirt to Gnang and he took it back to WA for you. I know you'll be desperate to get your hands on it again so thought I better update you on that! lol Sarah 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

PS When I got back to the hotel, I noticed the APH Escorted Visitor tags have printed on them front and back that you have to return them to the security guards. So don't be surprised if the Feds come to arrest you! :D Sarah 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice meeting you as well! Well I pulled a lot of strings to get there but now I'll be busy catching up on study! :P I'll keep an eye on my email tomorrow. Part of my Museum Practice Cert II course we did a visit to the CSU Riverina Archives and I did a test on digitalising two images (Have to do a double take I think File:Wagga Wagga Company Bridge.jpg & File:Wollundry Lagoon dried up during the 1912 drought.jpg). Have to say I'm in shock at the moment though as I knew the girlfriend of the Australian murdered in Iraq (and my mother has meet him about 14 years ago). Bidgee (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

..for rollback! DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I was very sad to hear what happened and I hope after a break you will return to adminship. In the meanwhile, if there's any adminy-type things you need done, feel free to ask and I'll be happy to help if possible. Sarah 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I commented on an ANI thread [8] at the same time that you marked it resolved. I tried to summarise the outcome and I think I brought up a few new points. It would be great if you could comment once more. There is also a new comment by Stmrlbs there. Hans Adler 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if you could make further comment as well as respond to my request to email me the 5 website links which reveal my real life identity that you mentioned I had posted on my user page. At the moment, I am totally clueless as to what they could be. Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It looks like that page has been archived and I don't really have anything further to add anyway. I haven't really had much time at present and haven't edited WP since I last posted in that discussion, but I have your email and will send you a copy of the history of your userpage when I have a minute (either tonight or tomorrow). Sarah 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Sarah! I don't entirely doubt that those 5 website which you say have outed me exist in the history of my User page, but at this moment in time I am baffled as to what they can be. :-) So when you do have the time, I'd love to have this personal mystery solved. Thanks! -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 18:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I've sent you an email with the details and am hoping it was just research for article or something. :) Regards, Sarah 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

He ws a ranting individual, I didn't feel that needed to be on a User page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What? "He" wasn't a ranting individual but a blp subject who was trying to ask for help and advice regarding her biography. Of course it didn't need to be on the userpage - she obviously placed it there by mistake as she's not a Wikipedian and doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and was trying to ask for help from someone who had gone out of his way to help her a couple of years ago. Sarah 03:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand why you felt that was a ranting post. Did you actually read what she wrote before reverting her? "Dear Alan, You were once very helpful to me with some entries I made, back in 2006. Might you be available to help again? Kind regards Barbara Biggs". That's not a rant, but a BLP subject asking for help and advice from someone who had previously shown her some kindness and inadvertently posting it to his userpage instead of his user talk because she's not a Wikipedian and not familiar with this website. I thought when I left the above post that you had made a mistake in reverting rather than moving and perhaps just needed a prompt but your reply seems to reveal a very bitey failure to AGF of people who don't understand Wikipedia. Sarah 04:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I see you speedy deleted Monroe Mann under both A7 and G11. Before you speedy delete an item, you should always check the history. If you had done that you would have seen that I had previously declined the speedy deletion. In my opinion, the article made several credibly claims of importance - appearing on CNBC, being a published author, etc. Actual notability is borderline, but notability isn't required to avoid speedy deletion - just some credible claim of possible notability.

As to G11, the article didn't read at all like advertising, let alone unambiguous advertising, so I don't understand why you used that criteria.

Even if another admin hadn't declined speedy previously and the article clearly fit into a speedy criteria, it would have still been important to check the history. If you don't check the history, there is nothing to prevent a vandal from editing an article to look utterly non-notable and then tagging the article for deletion.

Have a nice day, ThaddeusB (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I never delete an article without first checking the article's history and the talk page. Just because you declined it doesn't mean that I'm obliged to yield to your opinion. I think the A7 tagging was appropriate. I didn't delete it under G11. That was automatically in the log line due to the tagging and I inadvertently didn't overwrite it. My rationale was A7 and repost. If you want to rewrite the article and think you can do so appropriately, I think you should do so in your userspace. However, unless it clearly meets inclusion guidelines I will take it to AFD when you've finished. I also did some research and I disagree that "appearing on CNBC, being a published author" is sufficient for a claim of notability. We're talking bout someone who self-publishes and from what I can see from Google, spends an awful lot of time on websites like IMDb, blogs, etc, and now Wikipedia, trying to promote themselves and that's all that article was IMO. Thanks, Sarah 12:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I could buy a repost perhaps, but A7 doesn't mean "not notable" it means "no claim of importance at all." Whether the subject is notable or not is irrelevant. I couldn't care less about the subject of the article, but I don't think it should have been deleted under A7. That is all I was trying to say. And by the way, while not an obligation it is common courtesy not to override another admins decision without very good reason to do so.--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of what A7 means. Just because I said that I don't think that being an author of vanity publications is sufficient to claim notability doesn't mean that I think A7 means "not notable". I'm really quite perplexed by your lectures. I am not a new admin and I am not asking you to "buy" anything. I stand by the deletion, but as I said, if you think you can write a compliant article, you're most welcome to try to do so, but if it doesn't comply with policy, then I will take it to AFD. I saw on your talk page that you discouraged an inexperienced editor from taking it to AFD and that's why I'm making it clear to you that I will if any future version is non-compliant. I also disagree with you applying "it is common courtesy not to override another admins decision without very good reason to do so" to circumstances like this. I don't believe an admin is locked out of taking action because one has previously declined to act. Had I used my tools to reverse your use of tools, yes, that would be inappropriate, but you did not use your tools and merely indicated that you felt there was stuff on google that might make a notability case and then left the article without making any effort to add any of these sources or fix the article, despite it being an inadequately sourced BLP, or to move it out of the mainspace to work on later. You can't demand other admins compromise themselves and their integrity by insisting they yield to your beliefs and opinions simply because you touched the article first. And in turn let's not forget that several other admins touched the article before you did. Sarah 14:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you find another user's userpage that has something to correct, in part or in its entirety, it is considered polite to raise your concerns on the user's talk page before taking any action. This will allow the user to Fix the problem on their own. Thank you. ----David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 06:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments regarding this. I learn something new every day on here. Sorry for any inconvenience that I have cause you. --David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 16:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought i was blocked. --David | ^Talk 10:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.44.123.5 (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise. I usually hear from Eddie in some way after his socks have been blocked, so why break with tradition? Thanks for letting us know, Eddie, at least that's one of your IPs that's now blocked and at least when you try to appeal next we'll be able to point to at least two disruptive socks used recently. Sarah 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow Eddie - I always try to give everyone a chance or two and as you know, I did with you today already a couple of times, but really you are being very immature with this sort of behaviour. You now prove you are Eddie by this sort of silliness. How extraordinarily sad. If you spent only half of the time you waste here doing something worthwhile (here or elsewhere) you could probably make something of yourself. But now you are just an extraordinarily sad example of human potential.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that incident you had with D climacus. The user is very hard to work with even when being semi-retired ATM.

Cheers for blocking the sock spammer on the Albury article, I've missed a lot today as I've just came back from a hospital visit (May be on and offline during the week as a family member is sick). Bidgee (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bidgee. Please don’t start rumors about me. This was the first time I talked to you on here, Thanks--David | ^Talk 22:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What a load of rubbish[9][10]. Next time you tell a load of lies about being the first time talking to me, get your facts straight. I've given you a chance but you blew it. Bidgee (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm Sorry for the comments on your talk page. I hope you forgive me for my immaturity. It wont happen agene. I hope you will understand.--David | ^Talk 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bidgee, I'm very sorry to hear about your relative and I hope they have a speedy recovery. No probs about the block. I had blocked them the other day and tried to patiently explain our policies/guidelines to them in the hope they may stop and turn around and be constructive, but it appears they're only interested in spamming their website link. If they keep it up, we may just have to add it to the blacklist.

David, no one is starting rumours about you, though you are doing a good job of starting rumours about yourself. I would still like to know about your past history on this site as it's quite apparent this is not your first account. Most genuinely new users with only a couple of weeks here do not start lecturing and reprimanding admins and experienced editors. Now in this incident, we have you, with less than a month's experience and 1,000 edits, nearly all automated, who has managed to get into several disputes already and has already been stripped of rollback for misuse, and on the other side, Bidgee, a user with more than 20,000 edits, more than 2500 images, 51 new articles and four years experience on this project. Please. Stop causing problems with other editors because I can guarantee you that you will be the one who comes off second best. I told you that I thought you were a sock and who of and your response was to immediately archive my comment without response - that's not the response of an innocent person. If you continue starting confrontations and causing problems with other editors and admins who are making good faith edits, I will start an SPI report about you. Having just now looked at your edits on Steve's talk page, I will just add that its beyond obvious to me that you are Eddie Segoura avoiding your community ban, again. Sarah 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Your information also noted by me Sarah. Thank you.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 01:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I'm beyond certain that it's Eddie. I don't even have a slight doubt now that I've looked at his edits in the last day or two. I don't want to say too much on-site as it will just educate him. I'm going to go ahead and block him if there's even a hint of any further problems with other users or wasting other people's time for his own entertainment. There's not really any point in a checkuser as he's been doing this for four years now and he's learned all the tricks to get around the CU but the behavioural evidence is usually very compelling and it is very much so with this account. I think I might start collecting diffs (privately, off-site) so that I have them ready in the event that we decide to block the account. Sarah 06:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood - please feel free to talk off-site as required. If you need support just call out.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarah... After, I Seen your Comment Above. I went out of my way to try to get my name cleared from you thinking that I'm Eddie Segoura. Please understand that I'm not Eddie Segoura. I made a Sockpuppet investigation on myself (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D climacus) and post This on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. and .. Yes, I told everyone that I was sorry. thanks --David | ^Talk 08:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Eddie but it's so obvious that you're not going to be able to talk yourself out of it. Even your message here, screams "I'm Eddie" - your language, writing style, etc. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...I've wasted way too much of my very valuable and sparse time trying to help you in the past only to have you turn around and pull some crappy stunt and it's not going to be happening any more. I've already started collecting evidence and the behavioural evidence is really compelling on its own without needing Checkuser. Any more games and crap and you will be blocked immediately. Sarah 08:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[EC] Your SPI report did not yield any results David/Eddie - as detailed at the link you provided.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 08:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is my IP Address.--71.105.197.24 (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what your IP address is. You've boasted about having access to hundreds of IPs and you've been here long enough to learn how CU works. As I've said several times, the CU who checked your NYDreams account told me that you'd learned to cover your tracks very well. IP evidence is useless with you, Eddie, and a complete red-herring. As with the NYDreams account and many others, we can only go by behaviour evidence but thankfully your behaviour and your writing skills are very unique and very easy to spot. Sarah 09:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not Eddie Segoura--David | ^Talk 09:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, right. Sorry Ed but you're never going to convince me of that. I remember when you were pretending to be an Australian actor and you wanted me to call you on the phone so you could convince me, a born and bred Australian, that you, a born and bred New Yorker, were an Australian actor. You're certainly very bold with your lies and games, but your editing and behaviour is way too transparent and you'll never convince me that you're not Ed, so you may as well give it up. The cat's well and truly out of the bag. Sarah 09:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just amazing what a little issue can do! Ed, you have yourself to blame, no one else is to blame for something that you did. In the past hour I've been amazed how this has gone from the incident with Sarah and myself to show clear signs of being a past banned sock which has also been supported by other Admin's. Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)