User talk:SarekOfVulcan

Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Deletion request

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hey

I been talking to Zach and he told me I should personally ask to have my talk page history deleted. The reason for this is I am taking a short break from Wikipedia and I want the past gone and no reminders of it. That is why I put my pages up for deletion to have a chance to get away from the past and start a fresh when I get back. I hope you can understand and I am sure a lot of people want that. If it is okay now that I have explained it, may I put my talk page up for deletion just to get rid of the history? Swifty*^talk 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DELTALK, that is not generally allowed here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay so I guess I will just stay off the View History part then sorry to bother you. Swifty*^talk 01:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is generally not allowed. He is asking you personally for an exception to this. He could just create a new account for a WP:FRESHSTART, but he would like to have do so without having to create a new account and lose his edits. Any issues with his account previously can be viewed in his block log. Statυs (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sarek here, it's a bad idea to delete talk pages in almost all circumstances. I agree witht he idea of Swifty taking a break, but keeping his finger off the "view history" button should be sufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 07:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet, nobody has actually replied under this circumstance. Swifty wants a WP:FRESHSTART without the creation of a new account. He didn't get all his other pages deleted so he can't look at the history (Swifty, that above comment was fairly stupid as we both know that wasn't why you wanted it deleted). WP:DELTALK says they are generally not deleted, exceptions can be made, and nobody has given an answer on said request. Saying they are "generally not allowed" is not an answer to a personal request from a user. 19:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Authority control proposal

Thanks very much for your comments on the authority control proposal on the Village Pump. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion, and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any comments gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Cristero cover controversy on Knights of Columbus page

Please see my comments on why I undid your revert of my contribution here. I'm just notifying you - I think it would be best to discuss it there. Warm regards. Hugetim ^(talk) 21:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Help desk

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Help desk#Zeta Delta Xi regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dru of Id (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Ansob and List of sovereign states

Greetings, Sarek. I noticed you gave Ansob 48 hours for continuing his edit war immediately after his previous block expired (which only came to my attention through Recent change patrol). I thought you might want to know that, after his appeal was declined, he seems to be using an anon IP to circumvent his block (see this edit) and including a deceptive edit summary. Live long and prosper.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 17:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of Article Zeta Delta Xi

Hello--I've been searching for the appropriate venue to request this deletion review...my sense was that there must exist some routine process of first resort, and that approaching you directly would only be interpreted as confrontational intent. However, my present understanding--which may be wildly inaccurate--is that an attempt to convince you to reverse yourself is expected.

I believe the article Zeta Delta Xi should be restored. The rationale you invoked for deleting the article was A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). However, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion proscribes its application in this case:

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

The article plainly contains descriptions intended to establish the significance of the organization. Further, it is immaterial whether those descriptions successfully establish significance. According to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, those descriptions must be prima facie untrue or misleading for the article to remain subject to speedy deletion per A7:

It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied.

A7 is not an available remedy for issues such as improper documentation, insufficient corroboration, or incomplete citations. The unrelated existence of any passage intended to demonstrate the significance of the subject is enough to disqualify A7 from being applied:

This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.

Thank you taking time to read this and re-consider your decision. -- Patronanejo (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see that there were credible assertions of importance in that article, but I could be wrong; I have no problem with you asking for Deletion Review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Patronanejo (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Zeta Delta Xi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zeta Delta Xi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Patronanejo (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your eventual decision to self-overturn at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I felt that any attempt to steer the discussion would be inappropriate, but I was confident that this would be the only possible outcome.

I was gratified to see that a diligent reading of CSD could only lead users to identify the same procedural defects I established for you in my direct appeal for reversal. Like you, I was initially unaware of the previous failed speedy-delete, or I might have saved us all the trouble. I note that you thanked Rossami for bringing it to your attention, but Dru of Id mentioned it in the first entry of the deletion review.

This is an oversight, I'm sure, made curious only by the fact that you addressed other issues raised in that entry. -- Patronanejo (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple explanation -- I saw the COI accusation and missed everything that came before it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize; I did not intend for it to be taken as an accusation, merely the possibility of personal knowledge which might have affected your action. Imagine my surprise when trying to find capable editors who might be interested in getting the article adequately sourced, I found Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Brown University. I do attempt to skip to the end of a conversation (bottom line up front); I can give you the rundown on a very long argument on whose turn it is to make tea...when there's no tea. Dru of Id (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi Sarek. I hope you are doing great these days. Hey, since you are an administrator here on Wiki, I need a sort of request or favor from you. Can you transfer the content of this sandbox together with the revision history to article entitled Sins of My Father (song). I would be grateful. Thanks— Tomica (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

request

Sarek, I don't welcome your commenting on my Talk page and I don't welcome your following my contributions closely, as you started to do today. In the past, what seemed like friendly interactions devolved into edit conflicts, "gotcha" claims, repeated confrontation, and wikihounding. I don't want to debate or repeat the past. I would appreciate if you would completely back off. Please. --doncram 22:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Threatened block from involved admin

I'm always bothered when admins with an ax to grind use their authority as an admin to get their way. You obviously have an interest in the subject and have taken a position in an editing dispute. I'm done with the issue, but I think when you are acting as an admin you ought to be impartial and when you are an editor in a dispute you ought to refrain from abusing your position to get your way. If I'm not mistaken, WP policies are consistent with my opinion. Mamalujo (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Did I say I was going to block you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint about Mamalujo

Per WP:AN3#User:Mamalujo reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ). It does not seem likely that the 3RR board will take any action, since Mamalujo is not continuing to revert. If you are concerned about the use of an IP to join with the registered account in an edit war, you might still have a case to present at WP:SPI. If you do so, it would help if you could show that both the IP and the account reverted the same article. In my opinion the IP and the account are the same person. The only question is whether it was inadvertent. Also, it makes a difference if the editor will own up to the situation. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A moment of clarity for you.

You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances. The history of your attitude towards me is far too long for anyone with more than one braincell to believe you are unbiased.

Is that clear? Do not, ever, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it.

Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.

I trust we understand each other.

Goodbye. → ROUX ₪ 23:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)