User talk:Sarah - Wikipedia
2 people in discussion
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Sarah/Archive14. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Pzavon, I'm just letting you know that I've redirected and temp protected the redirect of abdominal thrusts to choking. This is because there were some problems with the page over the weekend and this seemed to be the best way to sort it out. The other editor who opposed this redirect has now withdrawn from Wikipedia and so you appear to be the only editor opposed to the move, so, while there wasn't a complete consensus, there was quite clearly stronger support for redirecting to choking than any other option. I don't have a horse in this race and am happy to follow whatever you guys decide to do, so I encourage you to continue discussions and, perhaps, arrive at a clearer consensus. By the way, are you aware that people have been leaving messages for you on your userpage User:Pzavon? If you would like me to delete the page, just let me know. Cheers, Sarah 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC) COPIED FROM USER TALK:PZAVON
- It looks like you protected the unilateral change. However, I find I have little continuing interest in the specifics of this issue. I was following the page on the Heimlich Maneuver for personal reasons and have little interest in the broader article on Chocking, per se. The prime mover for merging into Chocking does not appear to be open to alternative arguments and in a merge/no merge question there is not much opportunity for compromise. So I am walking away from this for now. I have UNWATCHED Abdominal Thrusts and will probably do the same to Chocking this evening.
- As to knowing that messages are left for me on my talk page - certainly. Wikipedia raises a red flag when I log on and there is a new message - and I have my Talk page set to "Watch" so changes bring it up on my Watcklist. Pzavon 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Actually, I undid the unilateral move and protected the page on the option which had clear overwhelming, though not unanimous, support on the article's talk page. Thanks for letting me know your position. I shall pass along to the other editors that there is no longer any active or actionable opposition to the merge/redirect.
- In response to your comments re messages left on your talk page, my original comment was regarding your userpage here, not your talk page. People have been mistakenly leaving you messages on your userpage instead of your talk page and I was unsure if you were aware that there were messages there for you. Sarah 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Sarah, I was typing the lyrics for I Am Australian when I happened to look in the history. I saw you had reverted lyrics earlier. My question is, how come? If you look at Advance Australia Fair and Waltzing Matilda they have lyrics aswell. I hope you're well. Chicken-7 07:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Hey again. I understand about the lyrics. Thanks for the tip. About the ANF I think I made quite alot of mistakes. No.1 It said mark stone because i copied from the Parks Victoria infobox template. No.2 I got confused with it being a company or chain. It's just that theres one in my area and its an anf so I thought I'd write a article about it. When I got to the website there was very limited info and because it's not a company thats probably the reason. Thanks for informing me. You can either delete it or fix it up, I dont mind. Cheers. Chicken-7 11:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- I wont reply much at all because i got 4 assignments due monday and some i havent started! Ill try to help. By the way is there a article or something about St Peter symbols? Ive scanned the article but no success. Cheers Chicken-7 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I took some time offline a few weeks back, and headed interstate for some work-related duties. Now that I'm back, it seems not much has changed at the asylum :) Keep up the good work, the battle is long, but worth it :) -- Longhair\talk 13:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- And if he says that, then it must be true - (asylum and battle) - as always ...SatuSuro 13:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I notice that, in the past few days, you've twice deleted an article on a Czech puppeteer with the rationale "created by sockpuppet evading block".
Be that as it may, and not to quibble with your block, but I did some research and I've found that this puppeteer does in fact exist - the Washington Post described him as a "master", for instance, and Woodcarver Online calls him a "leading puppet artist". May I ask why you decided that the creation of the article was indicative of socklike behavior? DS 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Ah, I understand. Thank you. Most annoying when they do that; his suspension means that he's not allowed to edit the database for anything, not even to create valid new articles. And if the articles were allowed to remain, his suspension would be meaningless. Pity, since they are valid. I trust that, when his suspension finally expires, you'll allow their re-creation? DS 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I noticed that you blocked this fellow last month because he "continued to violate BLP on my talk page re a named minor after a very serious, clear warning". I'm not familiar with the case or the editor, but I'd appreciate it if you could spare a moment to look at this latest disruption, which pertains to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, by removing external links with the edit summary "delete the external links then. They contain links to the victim's name. Oh no!" after another editor removed names of victims on BLP grounds.
Your experience with this editor would be helpful, I think. --Tony Sidaway 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Another editor, User:John_celona, seems to have been involved in doing pretty much the same thing on the same article, and seems to have been blocked after he made a disingenuous AfD nomination. --Tony Sidaway 05:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Please see discussion on my talk and on the DRV (among other places). I hate to see a situation like this escalate with blocks unless it's unavoidable. Newyorkbrad 09:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, thanks guys. I'll try to have a look through the relevant pages tomorrow. I've been trying to follow this issue as there are some other similar articles that have concerned me for awhile. And so I'm interested to see how this all plays out, but unfortunately I've been very busy offline. Cheers, Sarah 15:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Please see discussion on my talk and on the DRV (among other places). I hate to see a situation like this escalate with blocks unless it's unavoidable. Newyorkbrad 09:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I read your message about the IP block. I'm not going to argue, you are much worthier to make the desision then I, but may I ask why a school(?) has the power to request IP blocks of another school in the same state of the same country? In any case, thankyou for deleting the archived information on me. Gollod 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hiya again, thanks for the userbox fix. I understand all now, much obliged...and no, whilst Being unable to myself doesn't hinder me, I worry for the few other who it does affect. This being a reasonable sized school (padua, you guessed it), would probally have more than one wikipedian? Anyways, much thanks Gollod 23:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
You can keep that infobox. I think voicing an opinion on what you think is right without sounding too rebellious is a good thing. Nothing wrong with believing what's just for a community, I say. Thanks for your time. And I accept the offer of protecting and blanking the page. Thank you. :) --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply