User talk:Seicer/Archive 15
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
and why did you delete the MAPPER photolythography artice
MAPPER is such an overwhelming technology, (never had the chance to read the article), though it should realy be on wiki. you should've atleast writen a deletion log.Ismahill (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"Tomato Turtle: A Trip to the Park" article
Could you please tell me why you deleted my article? As far as I can tell there was no problem with it. Thanks!
Jedimaster3410 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)jedimaster3410
Trypophobia, etc.
Not that I disagree with the outcome, given that I'm the creator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trypophobia, but aren't you supposed to wait five days before deletion, or otherwise explain the hastier deletion? Likewise for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT Project Management Conflict management. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I thought so too, but as I found out today, there is apparently no set standard on deletion policies or guidelines, so administrators are free to delete/keep whenever and whatever. Just a bit peeved that some can bitch and complain that I closed a deletion 4.5 days in, but raise no ire when someone closes a deletion after just two hours. If they can do that, so can I (and it's a bit pointy, but I don't really care that much anymore). Sorry... seicer | talk | contribs 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- You appear to have been correct originally and to be mistaken now. The first two sentences of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for at least five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." In fact, this is the whole point of distinguishing between speedy deletion and deletion following discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, there was a policy that stated that it must be up for at least five days (minimum), and a guideline that has (or was) for around five days. We had this huge discussion regarding the interpretations of the policies and guidelines, but that was at DRV and has long since been archived and forgotten about. All that's happening is a repeat of classic I Love Lucy dramafests. I'm just sorry that your nominations were selected to actually bring up a valid point to the others. seicer | talk | contribs 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't believe procedures currently stated on the primary applicable page are superseded by purported outcomes of discussions held so long ago that they have been archived and forgotten without those outcomes having led to the alteration of the pertinent articles to reflect those outcomes. Can you please show me where there's a guideline or policy that supersedes what is clearly written in the place I indicated? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, there was a policy that stated that it must be up for at least five days (minimum), and a guideline that has (or was) for around five days. We had this huge discussion regarding the interpretations of the policies and guidelines, but that was at DRV and has long since been archived and forgotten about. All that's happening is a repeat of classic I Love Lucy dramafests. I'm just sorry that your nominations were selected to actually bring up a valid point to the others. seicer | talk | contribs 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- You appear to have been correct originally and to be mistaken now. The first two sentences of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for at least five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." In fact, this is the whole point of distinguishing between speedy deletion and deletion following discussion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Spring family AfDs
Hi Seicer
I just noticed that you closed a whole bunch of Spring family AfDs (there's more, BTW: see my list here). I'm delighted to see them deleted, because I firmly believe that the correct response to a hoaxer is to promptly delete their work and allow honest editors to make a fresh start on the subject if they want to.
However, I am not sure that "speedy delete" was the appropriate label, because WP:CSD#A1 specifically excludes hoaxes. Would it perhaps have been better to have done a WP:SNOW closure?
I'm not trying to nitpick, just hoping to alert you to possible criticism from anyone inclined to nitpick. Hope this helps ... and if not, please ignore!
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are correct in that statement, and I should be more careful about clicking the 'Speedy' checkbox. I use a keyboard to tab over quickly, so I may also applied the check erroneously. Thanks for the heads up, I'll go off and delete the remainder. seicer | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- So I can assume that the links I showed (and was in the process of refining) about the Spring Family are a moot point now? Please keep in mind, I am not objecting that the notability of the subjects could be argued (though some would stand), just that the series of articles were a hoax. As I recall, WP:HOAX indicates that a hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Given that this family used approximately three given names for multiple generations, couldn't those things that were cited as "proving" the hoax have been simple erroneous statements? With 15 articles up for deletion, it was far too difficult to try to contain a discussion. There was too much cut and paste comenting (which indicates that people weren't evaluating each article individually). Anyway, you closed discussion early and deleted the articles, so I asume there is no point in pressing this further. Vulture19 (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is, but I have no problem if the articles are recreated with the approperiate sources and text. I found a disturbing pattern of false references and false text from the original author of those articles, regarding the same set of information, and I made the assumption that since others could not find valid references for those respective articles in the duration, that HOAX would apply. I stand corrected if these are valid articles, and would allow for their recreation. I am even willing to provide copies of the pages deleted on a subpage (here), if needed. seicer | talk | contribs 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Vulture, without rehearsing all the detailed problems of all the articles, please look for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comte du Vérac: the title simply doesn't exist. Or look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Lavenham: again, the title doesn't exist.
- There's no ambiguity here: both articles were pure fiction. Either we are dealing with a deliberate attempt to deceive, or with someone who doesn't understand the difference between fact and fiction, but whichever it is there's no way that either of those were simple misunderstandings of something complex. That's why I for one don't think there is any reason to give the creator the benefit of any doubt.
- I suspect that on some of the topics (e.g. the Spring family), that an encyclopedically valid article could be written. But these hoaxfests were no starting point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is, but I have no problem if the articles are recreated with the approperiate sources and text. I found a disturbing pattern of false references and false text from the original author of those articles, regarding the same set of information, and I made the assumption that since others could not find valid references for those respective articles in the duration, that HOAX would apply. I stand corrected if these are valid articles, and would allow for their recreation. I am even willing to provide copies of the pages deleted on a subpage (here), if needed. seicer | talk | contribs 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Latvian politicians
I don't mean to be rude, but you are wasting valuable editors' time. The courteous thing to do is to not nominate articles for deletion in areas you don't know. Or at least post something, say a question, where there's an editor community which could respond. And please don't quote WP:ALPHABETSOUP in response. Thank you.PetersV TALK 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I fully support PetersV's strongly held views. Given the opinions expressed in the AfD discussion on Andris Ārgalis et al, I encourage you to politely withdraw your AfD nomination rather than wait for another administrator to do it. Riga has about the same population as San Francisco, but has a much richer history. We should be aiming at balance in the mix of Wikipedia articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the personal attacks out, dick (directed to Peter). seicer | talk | contribs 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! See also my note User talk:Vecrumba#Andris Ārgalis et al. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, I was actually feeling a bit irritable, an effect the AfD process often has on me. I tend to skip pop culture, software and English-sounding names, the great majority of AfD articles, because they almost always seem irretrievable. But when I find one with a name that interests me I will often look at the article, and may do a quick search. If Google shows up relevant facts and acceptable references, I stick them in the article and note the improvement in the AfD discussion. If it does not show up facts or references, I note that too. It bothers me to see the amount of effort that is put into debating articles instead of checking whether they can be improved. That said, sometimes an AfD debate leads me into doing more research, then starting an article that I end up being quite pleased with, like Loch Alsh, Landmarks in Buenos Aires, Captive orcas or Kerala ethnic groups. So I will still check the AfD list once in a while. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- And I must add I'm much more cheerful today. I'm having a separate discussion on whether we might craft some sort of non-anglophone country tag which, with a modifier, might be useful for editors coming to an article or for a bot to locate and post appropriately. It doesn't take longer, if at all, to do some quick scouting about and add information to articles than to post and discuss AfD's. Those should be the last resort, at a minimum—such topics should be exempt from attempts at quick deletion, the editorial community is generally well behaved in regard to only creating articles about what matters in/to their respective countries. There needs to be a bit more latitude on other-than-mainstream "well, I haven't heard of it" notability in particular. PetersV TALK 18:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yo, can you check the deleted version of this and see if it claims that Dean Fertita is a member? If so, that would be an assertion of notability per WP:BAND and the article may be salvageable. Regards, Skomorokh 07:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- The deleted version was nothing like what is up now. seicer | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
While I myself am inclined towards the non-notability of Lucrezia Lerro - and was waiting for a bit of free time to do some little research before participating in the deletion debate - I must observe that just two people contributed to the debate. In fact, the third voter is the proposer of the deletion. I do not object to your closure, but I would have perhaps waited for some more opinions. Greetings, Goochelaar (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was unlikely to come to greater conclusion, however, I will provide a copy of the article in a few minutes to user:Seicer/AFD/Lucrezia Lerro. seicer | talk | contribs 15:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, thanks. Goochelaar (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In the course of cleaning up 1929
I created 1929 world leaders. Please restore, thanks. -- Kendrick7talk 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- But you have done little to nothing with the article for the days that it was PROD'ed. This is content suited for a category, not for a page. Here is the content of the page, for reference,
Hi Seicer, I saw your deletion of the history of Muthappa Rai. It was a good idea. Maybe you can do the same for the other two because they were edited by user:59.165.249.102 and contain egregious wp:blp violations buried in the history. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 14:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I had planned on doing that, got distracted, then forgot. Let me look over the history. seicer | talk | contribs 14:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Question/Need some help
I'm not sure how to go about this, so I figured I would do to an admin that I trust to help me with this. I noted a new article Rise to Money] created earlier today doing New Page Patrol, and was looking into whether it was notable, etc. Looking into everything it seems there might be a walled garden goin on here with that album, the artist (Yung Mercury), the production company (Bald Eagles Inc.) and another album associated with them. None of the info posted about the artist could be verified, and I'm thinking I stumbled across either a hoax, or, assuming some bad faith here, someone promoting their musical career. What I'd like to know is how should I go about trying to correct this, like I said I'm finding it difficult/impossible to verify info in the articles, and I'm wondering if bringing up a number of articles that have been around for months to AfD would set up red flags. Anyway, I know to be bold, sometimes though, it's better to look THEN leap. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you are a clown
Digwuren has again resorted to personal attacks against you, which you can see at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Digwuren_reported_by_Russavia_.28Result:_.29. You may want to say something there. --Russavia Dialogue 11:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Please ignore User:Russavia. If I had meant to malign you personally, I had added a link. As I didn't, you can rest assured that I have nothing personal against you.
The ambiguity in "some clown" is there for a reason. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I added a copy of the history with contributors on the talk page to comply with the GFDL. I hope you don't mind. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The characterization of my actions as a kind of "behavior"
I understand your concerns, and appreciate your point, even if you are mis-referencing WP:TE, and asserting that by simply dealing with (or trying to) all of the things coming at me (discussing AFD's, speedy deletions, ANI's, and accusations of "behavior"), I'm somehow in danger of being blocked. I'm expressing myself by usage of comments on the appropriate pages, and am well aware of how policy/process abuse can manifest itself in an attempted block (it has before). That section you deleted BTW was improperly moved by Grsz, effectively serving to deprecate it. I moved it back, but forgot to deal with the headers. I corrected that. Regards, -Stevertigo 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
?
With respect to [1], you have not only blocked this user's ability to post, but everyone else who isn't an admin. This doesn't really help the situation. — BQZip01 — talk 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- He's trolling, plain and simple. His inability to detect his own POV agenda, and his comments that he will seek out meatpuppets and post this garbage to WND is equivalent to a trolling-only account. His block went from one week to indefinite, and his continued rantings led to a protection of his talk page from further abuse. seicer | talk | contribs 21:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- The new block setting creates a strange dynamic where users may be posting to the blocked user's talk page and he is unable to respond. People have been posting there, so when I reset the block length, I re-allowed the user to edit the page. Hopefully he will take the opportunity to the remove the business that you protected it for. –xeno (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- He has voluntarily accepted a 5-month self-imposed ban on editing political topics, and has been unblocked. I'm okay with that, and have told him so. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Barack Obama
Could you have a look at Dalej78 (talk · contribs · logs) latest activities? It's getting disruptive. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 02:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah - I see it was taken to 3RR with a 24 hr block resulting. I hope that works, although I am skeptical based on past experience. But I wil hope. Sorry to bother you. Tvoz/talk 19:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The Motley Moose
Sir, I removed Speedy Delete tags from an article two days into AfD, and that already had been tagged for speedy and then was taken off by a different user. Let me know if you think this is somehow appropriate, and if it's truly my behavior that is inappropriate, rather than user "Bali ultimate". Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Re. personal attack, request to remove
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The word 'spastic' should only be used to refer to a person suffering from that disability. I find it offensive to use the term as a pejorative. Please reconsider. Also, I would greatly appreciate it if, if you choose not to respond, that you would inform me in a clearer manner than an edit summary. Many thanks. -- Chzz ► 13:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh please: [2]. Please find something else to complain about. seicer | talk | contribs 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are public logs. You know better than that.--Tznkai (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good. Then you will realize that "fuck" is not directed at Chzz; see it's application. You should know better than that. seicer | talk | contribs 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Forget the fuck and the spastic parts, telling someone to "get a thesaurus" in an edit summary because they took exception to your language is not the type of behavior that we tolerate as admins - let alone perpetrate. Additionally, don't cut off debate like that, certainly not criticism of you on your talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good. Then you will realize that "fuck" is not directed at Chzz; see it's application. You should know better than that. seicer | talk | contribs 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are public logs. You know better than that.--Tznkai (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I consider "spastic" to be an attack, fwiw. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see a very good reason why you want to insist on using a word others find offensive? You may not find it offensive, but others certainly do. Policy discourages (if not bans) this as well. So I want to hear a very good reason. -- Cat chi? 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to know why people can't refer to a thesaurus to find the real intent and usage of word. seicer | talk | contribs 15:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Whilst you probably couldn't have been expected to know it, this might give you an idea of the problem with the word. Can you please redact it? Thanks, Black Kite 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've raised this here -- Chzz ► 20:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- As an administrator I should have thought you would have handled the situation much better rather than insisting to use a blatantly offensive term. The world does not revolve around whatever usage of the English language you use. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Request
Hello Seicer. Could you possibly reword this response to make it a little less abrupt. Given that this is likely the subject of the article and that we have collectively done him a severe injustice, I think he should be treated with exceptional courtesy. In truth, I suspect the actual correct answer would relate the fact that the account is not yet autoconfirmed. WP:COI neither prevents nor prohibits subjects from editing their own articles, as your response, given its brevity, could be mistaken to imply. CIreland (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. It should be noted that I highly support the actions of Rod in this instance, cited here, at Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Poll and at WR. This is a mess that three editors -- one of them an administrator, helped perpetuate. seicer | talk | contribs 14:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
teh AN
Please see Wikipedia:AN#IP blocked indef. –xeno (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Seicer. This is your notification about a thread concerning an IP you indef-blocked: here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I was out on the road and couldn't reply until now. seicer | talk | contribs 21:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk page protection
I notice you've had your talk page protected for quite some time now. Perhaps consider lowering it, or creating a talk page where non-autoconfirmed users can contact you (with a conspicuous pointer to such a page somewhere in your talk page header). –xeno (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI
Good call on the IP :) [3] -- lucasbfr talk 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I recognized the IP address from someone that I blocked or interacted with in the past, but some contrib stalker noted my "improper" block so I reversed it so they wouldn't continue bitching about every little nuance that I did. I suppose it was incorrect for me to indef an IP address, but I was on the road, in a rush, and could handle it better when I got home. Apparently, I drove too slow through traffic before I had a pile of notices at ANI and on my talk page about it. I can't wait until administrators can be recalled through this "Admin Watch" process! seicer | talk | contribs 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Admin Watch"? What's that, may I ask? Thanks :-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Admin Review, sorry. A failed proposal to hold administrators accountable, except for the fact that it would be regulated much like WP:WQA and be all but unenforceable. It would merely be a repository for anyone and everyone with a grudge or a wink to come in and spout off with no cause or effect. The vote was supposed to be last month, now pushed back to sometime in 2009. There is not a lot of support. seicer | talk | contribs 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Admin Watch"? What's that, may I ask? Thanks :-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you please have a look on Kim Schmitz again? User:Tturner2009 insists on reverting to his "revised version" - he just added some false references to his text and ignores every discussion. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up. --Srikeit 10:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
BLP Edits
Hi Seicer. I am very concerned about your recent edits such as this one. I believe you are taking the guideline too far. For example, in that specific entry you removed information that was neither contentious nor added in bad faith. If you believe it to be wrong then find a reference to prove its veracity. Removing information such as this means that useful additions by inexperienced or IP users will be wasted. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Under WP:BLP, reads:
- "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
- Therefore, the information will be removed. If you have concerns, there is the BLP noticeboard. seicer | talk | contribs 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is exactly my point. I don't think the material there is questionable. It is only brief club information which was easily found in the external links in the article. I have reverted you again. I strongly recommend that if you're going to take the time to delete such material, then you should at least give it a quick click. Are you going to make me do this for all your edits? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons" That includes all materials. After seeing far too many shitty, unsourced content in BLP's, one needs to take a stance and begin removing all unsourced materials as part of an overhaul of this project. We've already seen that unsourced materials can bring in the media at full storm because some individuals can't follow policy, so now you expect me to not uphold policy because you are too lazy to find a reference? And undoing my edits would be pointy and is blockable... just so you know. seicer | talk | contribs 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was all in the same source. I believe that you are the one with the point, as a cursory glance at the already used sourcing would have shown that info to be correct. To be honest Seicer, I appreciate your point about some BLP articles being a bit shitty but this type of information isn't going to make headlines: "Wikipedia mistakenly claims that Gaston Aguirre joined Newell in 2001" seems unlikely.
- "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons" That includes all materials. After seeing far too many shitty, unsourced content in BLP's, one needs to take a stance and begin removing all unsourced materials as part of an overhaul of this project. We've already seen that unsourced materials can bring in the media at full storm because some individuals can't follow policy, so now you expect me to not uphold policy because you are too lazy to find a reference? And undoing my edits would be pointy and is blockable... just so you know. seicer | talk | contribs 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is exactly my point. I don't think the material there is questionable. It is only brief club information which was easily found in the external links in the article. I have reverted you again. I strongly recommend that if you're going to take the time to delete such material, then you should at least give it a quick click. Are you going to make me do this for all your edits? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I must say that I'm vastly unimpressed with your attitude and I expect more, especially considering that you're an administrator. Placing "citation needed" templates when the material I had already provided a reference which backed up those facts is needless and obviously reflects your dearth of knowledge regarding the subject. I do not appreciate being threatened with a block for making perfectly valid contributions. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Before I came across this discussion I reverted your removal of valid information from the Andrés Ricardo Aimar article specifically the sentence "He started his career with River Plate and has played for other Argentine clubs including Belgrano de Córdoba.". This information is not contentious enough for immediate removal even if it wasn't verified by an external link on the article.
Even if it were completely unverified, a {{cn}} tag would be more appropriate than immediate deletion. Please take more care to view the external links and to consider whether the material you are about to delete actually qualifies as "contentious material". Regerds King of the North East 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly right. This sort of material is not contentious material (as you quoted) and you are picking out legitimate and helpful parts of articles, albeit that they do not have inline citations. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Or, you could do the right thing and actually cite the materials that is required for a BLP. Tada! seicer | talk | contribs 00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not denying that they need verification, but the purpose of WP:BLP is to prevent knock-on damage to living persons. The information you removed could not conceivably damage the subjects in anyway. The information (e.g. Footballer "A" played for club A in 2001, B in 2004 etc) is not unusual or out of synch, as say something like "Footballer "A" is a dog breeder", which would be worth removing without a cite. All I'm saying is that don't miss the forest for the trees. There are underlying reasons for guidelines such as BLP and Cite. Furthermore, is this a constructive use of our time? Placing little citation tags and ref tags to verify the most basic of facts? There are much more pressing concerns for both of us to tend to.
- If the information was POV, off-topic, excessive, trivial, highly unusual, badly written, disparaging, or promotional then I would be right behind you. This is not the case. Either way, sorry if I came off a bit combative the first time (which would explain your reply) but I really think there are more serious BLP violations to attend to than Guirre's lack of inline citation for his club history. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll consider it a truce. I won't remove non-challenging material, but I will tag it if it has not been tagged. After coming across one too many gross violations, and after having to deal with one too many public incidents over poor BLP's, it just irks me that there is so much out there that remains unsourced. seicer | talk | contribs 00:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletionist versus inclusionist rant
I find your attitude unhelpful, I disagree with your ultra-deletionist stance and your implication that I am doing the wrong thing. Find me one editor that has done more to improve Argentine football biographies with the introduction of external links, references, sources, infoboxes, appropriate categories and the removal of vandalism than myself (pick a few articles at random here and check the edit history). There are over 1,500 Argentine football biographies to maintain, only about half a dozen editors contribute on a regular basis to the WP:ArF area. I have done my best to ensure that they all have an infobox and at least one reliable source/external link. King of the North East 01:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since you brought up the special "deletionist versus inclusionist" rant, I've moved it down and I'm not even going to bother with a reply. seicer | talk | contribs 01:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- You did reply, you accused me of ranting. Threatening people with blocks over a content dispute calling people pointy and accusing people of ranting are a surefire way to create bad feeling, I expect more considered behaviour from admins. King of the North East 23:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Transwiki request
Hello! Can you please transwiki List of Ranma ½ minor characters to wikia:annex:List of Ranma ½ minor characters? Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure! I'll do that right now. Thanks for the heads up. seicer | talk | contribs 03:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wonderful, thanks! By any chance could you also please transwiki Imperial Academy (Star Wars) to wikia:annex:Imperial Academy (Star Wars) and wikia:starwars:Imperial Academy (Star Wars)? Much appreciated! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Rod Dreher
The Rod Dreher article was deleted and then restored so that some offensive edits could be purged from its history. In the process, it seemingly lost its semi-protected status. Do you think it should be semi-protected again? Soap Talk/Contributions 12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- EdJohnston did it, so thanks anyway. Soap Talk/Contributions 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sadateru Arikawa
Could you clarify what it is about this article that might not be appropriately encyclopedic? I'd like to improve it in this respect if possible. Please reply on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Himatsu Bushi (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Xavier
You work for Xavier, sorry. Even worse though, you live in Cincinasty. Grsz11 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- LOL. I was watching the game last night and was completely disappointed. I actually live in Over-the-Rhine, what was one of the worst, crime-ridden neighbourhoods in the states, and it is now becoming quite "yuppie", classy and beautiful! Cincinasty? Nah. :) seicer | talk | contribs 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Rice University
I'm keeping my paws off the Rice University-related articles until the brouhaha blows over. However, User:Sergio1337 reverted similar trivia-removal edits made by User:Black Kite at other Rice articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've noted. I may go in and do more clean up tomorrow once I get some sleep. seicer | talk | contribs 03:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention to the issue and your feedback at the RFC. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Date autoformatting poll
Hi sEICER, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't like userboxes :) I am trying to stay out of the political game as much as I can. Thanks for the heads-up, though, it is appreciated! seicer | talk | contribs 14:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Baker College
Seicer, the heated argument that led to the repetitive reverting of edits at the Rice University residential college articles has now subsided, and improvements are being made to all the articles as a whole. The final step of the discussion is simply whether or not to merge all the articles into one large list, or to keep them as separate entities, which does not affect their content. Would you mind removing the block on the Baker college article, so that the other editors and I can bring it up to standard with the rest of the articles? I appreciate it. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am no longer an administrator as of 1 April, so you would need to take this up at RFPP. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 03:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Consensus test on university topics
You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of Yahoo!
March 30, 2009 was not Tuesday - that is not unsourced original research, but a plain fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Optfx (talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You
While your reasoning of wanting to resign from admin duties to focus on content is the same reason why I have never wanted to be an admin, I will say your hand on the tools will be missed. --David Shankbone 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
A little problem
Hi seicer, don't know whether you remember me or not. Well I have a little problem while editing. Previously when I edited anything, the template boxes which had wiki symbols as well as Latin and Greek symbols were activated so that when I cliked on it it will be added in the edit area. But now the templates are there but somehow deactivated. I can't click on them and add. Could you help me out on this one? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter!
.jpg)
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Kim Schmitz
Since you have already contributed to the Discussion page for Kim Schmitz profile talk:Kim_Schmitz, I would like to request your comment on the recent changes that incorporate open collaboration with interested editors. It would be very helpful to receive input from you on the next step. My current intention is to upload the revised content to the main 'Article' page within two days if no further comment is received in that time.--Tturner2009 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI
FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
He is back again
Hi, Seicer. I hope all is well with you. I know that you retired but I was hoping you would comment here if you had the time. I'm pretty sure if you look at User:Felix 12 22 you will have no doubt it is in fact USEDfan. Every thing from the way he edits, the edits themselves, how he behaves when called a sock, to the username is all the same. Also the fact that The Used related pages is all he edits. User:Raul654 ran a checkuser on USEDfan back in January and uncovered several sleeper socks, and performed some blocks to try and stop him. I asked for Raul to look into this, although I don't know if he will or not. I was hoping he was quacking loud enough to be dealt with the old-fashioned way. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just wanted to let you know this has already been taken care of. FisherQueen blocked indefinitely as a sock of USEDfan. Sorry to have bothered you with it, I know you are busy with the sites you manage, photography, and whatnot. I was just so used to you dealing with it I suppose I came to you out of habit, as I trust your judgment. Anyways, have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
ThankSpam
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
 |
NowCommons: File:DSCN2388.jpg
File:DSCN2388.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:US 60 SPUI interchange.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:US 60 SPUI interchange.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
IP
sockabuse continuing. I can't deal with it anymore. Please help. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Vega article
The article is complete, factual, neutral, and has 79 references...not from fan sites and all the referenced material is in my possesion. Chevrolet Engineering reports, Chevrolet literature, Auto press including Collectable Automobile, etc. I was informed it is close to feature quality. Your deletion of the DeLorean section remains deleted and the Showroom stock section has been revised and re-inserted, but if you completely rearrange the article again, I will only put it back so don't waste your time. Another thing-instead of rearranging to your personal taste, re-write some of the poorly written auto articles on this site. I've been busy doing that. Don't re-write? then rearrange something that really needs help. Vegavairbob (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- We all need to step back and try to look at this objectively. Seicer, if you could post specific concerns on the Vega talk page, I would be happy to go over them with you as well as Vegavairbob. Keep in mind that he has put a considerable amount of time into improving this article and is understandably upset over major changes, on the other hand you may well have legitimate issues that should be addressed. If we could all discuss this calmly, I am sure that we could reach positive results. --Leivick (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Snipping articles and using them as paragraphs-long "quotations" is not only abusing fair use, but is a copyright infringement that would never pass good article submissions. Your refactoring of those sections that I blanked for copyright infringement only aided slightly; it's still a quote farm with little original text to go by. The hierarchy of sections is a complete mess and has no real organization, and the subsections are merely bolded text instead of using approperiate headers (e.g. ===Section===). It also contains original research that's not properly cited (I can tag bomb that if you'd like), contains peacock terms (which I'll tag later today) and reads like a fan boy's Vega web-site... which is not surprising coming from an account that contains "Vega" in the username. seicer | talk | contribs 11:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am an expert on the vehicle in addition to being a fan so...There is nothing missing in this article, so an expert, like me, would find nothing missing..get it? I can write a good neutral article on it whether you think it is or not, and even if my user name is similar. Do you have any username suggestions for me? The information is presented much like an engineering report. Have you seen one? They're actually similar to encyclopedia articles not web site bashing articles..neutral info..that's why I wrote it from sources like that. For accurate, neutral, information which is lacking, and its not a fan site article. It is factual article and it will stay that way. (Two fan sites are listed in External links) I noticed that section was left alone..a miracle. The DeLorean section is deleted which was not original material and is all quoted. All other information is referenced. Your reorganization of the sections was poor. The sections will stay in the order that they're in. The 1978-1979 section belongs after the production section since the cars in that section are not in the production figures and are Chevy Monzas. The engine section belongs seperate from Cosworth Vega since the special edition has a different engine and belongs seperate from the engine section. Oh, and that was smart putting the images of the vehicle close to the end with the production figures and notes. The 1970-1977 section contains the images of the cars and belongs at the beginning. The production section at the end also contains the running changes in notes column as a more detailed list of minor changes not mentioned in the main 1970-1977 section. So you put both sections together at the end? The aluminum block section warrents a seperate section and it was written that way..to be seperate. There are no sections within sections which is not needed, and only clutters the article. That's good for articles with less images or less text to fill spaces. This article has 36 images (pardon..35 now) and more text than most, even after you're deletions, so it doesn't need the extra headings. It is neater without your bold, big lettered section within section headings. Next time post a note in the talk page before you take it upon yourself to reorganize my work which was THREE MONTHS. Try editing or re-organizing an article that needs real help. I ADD to these articles which is hard work and time consuming. There is plenty of work needed on other auto articles here like adding decent images and well written text. I spend a lot of my free time each day doing that, and I'd rather be doing that instead of going back and forth with you. This article has been reviewed and determined to be of neutral status and I won't spend any more time debating the point. Vegavairbob (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Christ, please compile your statement in one swoop. It was like I was receiving the orange bar in infinity for the duration I was browsing earlier. That said, if you are going to whine to an administrator instead of actually taking the comments constructively, then I have nothing more to say outside of good luck in your GA review process because I am 100% certain it will fail with the standards that you have adopted (as someone who reviews GA articles, I can attest to that). seicer | talk | contribs 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it so important that it have your section re-arrangement and chosen heading design edits to have a higher status? These changes you made other than the deletion of the two non-free text sections do nothing I can see towards getting it any higher status. Vegavairbob (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:LAYOUT. I also suggest that instead of message bombing my talk page every few seconds, or complaining to administrators, you should be taking up the points in the Chevrolet Vega talk page, where I have outlined what needs to be done to improve the article. I review GA's and I have submitted many GA's myself, and I am willing to work with you to correct the deficiencies, but you need to be willing to work with me as well. seicer | talk | contribs 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, How are you? I converted the tense to past tense as you suggested. Please look at this discussion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_10#A_tense_situation How's the article look? New headings, lead paragraph. I did everything on your list in talk, but can you help with the spelling. I won't switch the article to present tense again until I hear from you, but it looks like present tense might be the way its going.Vegavairbob (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:LAYOUT. I also suggest that instead of message bombing my talk page every few seconds, or complaining to administrators, you should be taking up the points in the Chevrolet Vega talk page, where I have outlined what needs to be done to improve the article. I review GA's and I have submitted many GA's myself, and I am willing to work with you to correct the deficiencies, but you need to be willing to work with me as well. seicer | talk | contribs 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it so important that it have your section re-arrangement and chosen heading design edits to have a higher status? These changes you made other than the deletion of the two non-free text sections do nothing I can see towards getting it any higher status. Vegavairbob (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Christ, please compile your statement in one swoop. It was like I was receiving the orange bar in infinity for the duration I was browsing earlier. That said, if you are going to whine to an administrator instead of actually taking the comments constructively, then I have nothing more to say outside of good luck in your GA review process because I am 100% certain it will fail with the standards that you have adopted (as someone who reviews GA articles, I can attest to that). seicer | talk | contribs 15:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am an expert on the vehicle in addition to being a fan so...There is nothing missing in this article, so an expert, like me, would find nothing missing..get it? I can write a good neutral article on it whether you think it is or not, and even if my user name is similar. Do you have any username suggestions for me? The information is presented much like an engineering report. Have you seen one? They're actually similar to encyclopedia articles not web site bashing articles..neutral info..that's why I wrote it from sources like that. For accurate, neutral, information which is lacking, and its not a fan site article. It is factual article and it will stay that way. (Two fan sites are listed in External links) I noticed that section was left alone..a miracle. The DeLorean section is deleted which was not original material and is all quoted. All other information is referenced. Your reorganization of the sections was poor. The sections will stay in the order that they're in. The 1978-1979 section belongs after the production section since the cars in that section are not in the production figures and are Chevy Monzas. The engine section belongs seperate from Cosworth Vega since the special edition has a different engine and belongs seperate from the engine section. Oh, and that was smart putting the images of the vehicle close to the end with the production figures and notes. The 1970-1977 section contains the images of the cars and belongs at the beginning. The production section at the end also contains the running changes in notes column as a more detailed list of minor changes not mentioned in the main 1970-1977 section. So you put both sections together at the end? The aluminum block section warrents a seperate section and it was written that way..to be seperate. There are no sections within sections which is not needed, and only clutters the article. That's good for articles with less images or less text to fill spaces. This article has 36 images (pardon..35 now) and more text than most, even after you're deletions, so it doesn't need the extra headings. It is neater without your bold, big lettered section within section headings. Next time post a note in the talk page before you take it upon yourself to reorganize my work which was THREE MONTHS. Try editing or re-organizing an article that needs real help. I ADD to these articles which is hard work and time consuming. There is plenty of work needed on other auto articles here like adding decent images and well written text. I spend a lot of my free time each day doing that, and I'd rather be doing that instead of going back and forth with you. This article has been reviewed and determined to be of neutral status and I won't spend any more time debating the point. Vegavairbob (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Paid editing discussion on Jimmy's talk page
Hello, you may wish to weigh in here. rootology (C)(T) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Happy Seicer/Archive 15's Day!
 |
User:Seicer/Archive 15 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
your comments on that admin
I fully support your suggestion of someone going through Request for Admin and if they refuse going to Arb Com. I didn't know about Arb Com until a few days ago but is very appropriate in this case. you may also notice in this that to cover up a bad close, he asked the closing admin to restore the article as a disambig page then other editors went back and returned the original article to its original state which made me do a 2nd [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination)}|AfD]] which wasted a lot of good editor's time. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
veritee
thks for the edit and let me know if you are happy with this ( personally i believe that this revised version is much inferior) but i am not the only one here so i will not change your edits. do you agree to remove the delete notice and close the subject from now on , thsk and have fun.!!!--Netquantum (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am pleased that the obvious conflicts-of-interest have been removed from the article, along with the adverts, but I cannot remove the deletion notice. That has to be closed by an administrator (which I am no longer a part of). seicer | talk | contribs 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dear me, why on earth did you resign? You were always a very level headed admin. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Tired, time commitments were needed elsewhere at my four blogs and web-sites, plus my real day time job! :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Um, nap at work? Seriously, I respect your desire to go part time here; but we have lost a good admin. I hope someday you'll have the time again. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Dear me, why on earth did you resign? You were always a very level headed admin. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)