User talk:Seraphimblade

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6

Please read before posting!

I don't always post a full rationale for everything I do, since doing this would take an inordinate amount of time. I do always have one, though, and will be happy to tell you why I did anything if you ask.

PLEASE READ HERE FIRST before asking deletion-related questions.

Please feel free to post suggestions/comments/flames/whatever.

If you haven't posted a comment already, please put it under a new section at the bottom of the page using markup:

==Section header==
Your comment ~~~~

or click here.

If you have, please post it under the section you started. Responses will be made on your talk page unless you request otherwise.

This page will be archived regularly, generally by an automated process, but that doesn't mean I consider the discussion closed if you have more to say. If your old comments are archived please start a new section on this page for further comment. Please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~.

If I contacted you on your talk page, I'll keep it on watch. Please feel free to reply either there or on this page, whichever's easier for you.

Please refrain from personal attacks. Personal attacks made against me made on this page will be left on it, but this in no way indicates that I approve of them or will not report them if they are severe or continuous. Personal attacks against other editors will be removed or reverted.

Interesting remedy re LE web page

Protection is an interesting remedy with the Landmark Education web page. I have actually believed that it, for the longest time, should be protected. I also believe that Smee needs to be blocked on an ongoing basis whenever the 3RRs occur. The two examples I cited are rather abrasive, and Smee, in these cases, should request dispute resolution rather than reverting. Sm1969 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for protecting the page. I will no longer be focusing on editing that page in the future, and it will be off of my watchlist for a long time. In the future I will be much more quick to seek out dispute resolution. Thanks again. Smee 05:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

What blocking does do is add to the "block log" for this particular user so as dispute resolutions are used, it is possible to show the true character of an editor over long periods of time. User:Smeelgova has had arbitrations before on a related topic "The Hunger Project" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger) and a comment by Wikipedia general counsel Brad Patrick, "I'm not the best person to respond to this given my role, but I can tell you that the pattern of editing that you have engaged in over the past month, with your selection of articles, POV (in my estimation) and tendency to edit in only a very narrow area warrant very careful evaluation of exactly what it is you are doing. I just took a look at the page you put together on Harry Margolis and your choice of supposedly "relevant" legal items, and I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe. I believe you are going to be called out for your viewpoint. You might want to ask yourself if, as the userpage of User:Essjay asks, with every click of the "save page" button you are making Wikipedia a better place. Are you?--BradPatrick 23:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That quote is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Danny_Archive_6

My response to your comment is that Smeelgova should be blocked whenever she engages in 3RR, particularly when both the letter and spirit are violated, as is the case here. This is how a track record is built. When mediation and arbitration are invoked, the track record is will get taken into consideration. When Smee/Smeelgova is allowed to apologize her way out of it, there is no track record. That's the problem I have with protection only. Sm1969 05:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• That was a long time ago. I have since widened my areas of research quite a great deal. And, as stated above, I am taking a long-needed break from the Landmark Education article. Perhaps Sm1969 should as well. Smee 05:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

I have been on a long break from the LE article, with 11 (eleven) edits so far this *year* prior to today. You have thousands so far this year, mostly on LE and related topics, all with a very strong POV as pointed out by Brad Patrick. Sm1969 06:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. You clearly have it out for me, for some weird and frightening reason. I have ceased editing of that article, that should be enough for you. Leave me alone. Smee 06:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

All of that being said. There is no need for a block in this case, and I strongly believe in issuing blocks to stop disruption, not to punish, and certainly not as a means of recordkeeping. Smee was most certainly not the only party I saw involved in the edit war. Were it so, likely a block would have been the remedy, rather than protection. Sm1969, if there's a specific arbitration remedy that Smee has violated, post a request for arbitration enforcement. If ArbCom feels that it is necessary to place special restrictions or probation on a user, they can and will do so, but those don't exist just because a party was in an ArbCom case. If you'd just like to make a general complaint regarding disruptive editing, WP:ANI is the forum you want. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We have different interpretations of policy. I do interpret issuing blocks as stopping disruption, both in the short term and in the long term. The long term track record shows that the short term remedies are not effective, and future penalty impositions can be made more harsh. As for the assertion of edit warring, I think you need to look at the actual content that Smee reverted. Changes "states" to "claims" or "asserts" is very biased language. The Charter of Landmark Education either does or does not state some specific language. There is no need whatsoever for Smee to inject the cynicism. The complaint I reported here is a specific case of 3RR (in both letter and spirit), and I believe this is the place to report 3RR, not ANI. Protection is fine, but I believe that blocks showing the disruptive history of behaviour are quite warranted, so that future blocks can be made more harsh. The fact that other editors reverted could and should be taken as consensus and Smee being the lone ranger. I'm clear that we disagree on this. I hope you are open to changing your mind, and I believe a track record of blocks, beyond the four that Smee already has (as Smeelgova then) would make a huge difference. Sm1969 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

local history glossary

There were two votes for keep and three for delete. Why does that result in a deletion? Rjm at sleepers 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO addition

Could you comment on the line you added to WP:PORNBIO in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#"do not on their own establish notability"? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dragonlance modules redirects

I have made one section reqarding three recent deletion requests as I wish to raise similar issues about all three Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Faith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Ice and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragons of Light

1. This is not a merge and redirect, it is simply a replace current article with a redirect. You have simply replaced the article with a redirect without having any unique data from the articles retained. (The amount of unique information lost does vary but all the article had at least some)
2. The target for the redirect is List of Dungeons & Dragons modules which is not an appropriate target for the redirect. As the title implies this is a list and therefore by it's very nature has a limited amount of information on each item included. This means:
   1. There is no appropriate place in this article for unique encyclopedic information from the articles redirected to be included.
   2. There is no appropriate place in this article to expand the information on these topics to a point where it is appropriate to spin them off into their own article. (Even the user who proposed deletion admitted that these articles could one day have sufficient info to justify an article, his argument for deletion was "Been stubbed for eons, and no one I know on Wikipedia has the info to expand it. It's better to delete it until we can recreate it"

If redirect is the decided concensus is to merge then it should be up to someone who wanted that option as their primary choice to do this. What has actually been done is virtually equivalent to a delete, as no unique information from these articles has been retain, which was the minority opinion behind delete, merge and redirect. - Waza 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Close of Redirect on dragonlance module pages

I went and merged those modules into a new page: List of Dragonlance modules because I figured a close of redirect was similar to a close of merge, and the info won't fit in List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Is that OK, or did I do something bad. It doesn't really say at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Miscellany_for deletion page. - Peregrine Fisher 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the quick reply. - Peregrine Fisher 03:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet case

Thanks a lot for your comment here. Actually the problem is that I'm not sure which code in RFCU is the appropriate one in this case. Shervink 10:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Thanks again, I'll do as you suggested. Shervink 10:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Commons page?

Hi - noticed an IP has "started" a page with your user name on Commons. Was it you/shall I delete it? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I have been known to edit and then log in! Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Begley

Thanks, but the IP editors edit was vandalism in my opinion. The fact he was non-sectarian is a sourced claim, and it was deliberately changed to sectarian. I'd have thought that fell under the sneaky vandalism criterion, but if it doesn't I'll bear it in mind for future. I presently have an RfC open for Astrotrain's disruptive activities on Irish Republicanism related articles, so dispute resolution is ongoing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind for future. I'm flying to Barcelona for the weekend first thing tomorrow anyway, so a block wouldn't have been much hardship really. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Burnsvillemike

Further to your blocks of socks you might also want to consider:

• Joshharll (talk · contribs) who tried to reintroduce this picture,

[Image:Police_Officer_in_bullet_proof_vest.jpg], of Mike Satter, here.

• Parkermax (talk · contribs) who introduced a Mike Satter reference here and edited Michael Satter.
• 66.41.155.45 (talk · contribs) who coincidentally made Mike Satter related edits to 3 separate articles (and no other edits}. Bridgeplayer 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The socks are still out in force. Please see:

• Parkerbob (talk · contribs)'s edit here. Bridgeplayer 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And some more:

• JoeinmaineUS (talk · contribs)
• Geneinclevelend (talk · contribs)
• Jasonrrr (talk · contribs)
• Nickharperss (talk · contribs)
• Carlseenares (talk · contribs) Bridgeplayer 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also raised the issue at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Burnsvillemike and the socks. Bridgeplayer 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Hey there, chance to use your new powers if you're willing: I accidentally created this page, while trying to create this page. Basically, I clicked on a link to create the page, and didn't notice the comma had been put inside the brackets. Is that something you can do? Best, Mackan79 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Mackan79 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Musicians Lists

How was that a delete? Four deletes to three keep. I know it's not a vote, but that can hardly be said to be consensus. JRG 06:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you have time, could you please have a look at this [1], thanks! Shervink 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Jossi

Hi Seraphimblade, I would like to unblock Jossi, if you have no strong objection. There has been a lot of trolling on these pages in the last few days, and the person who made the report is the worst offender. I didn't look at the diffs, but I suspect that had a lot to do with any reverting. Would you object strongly if I were to undo it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe only one of Jossi's 6 reverts that I listed was reverting my edit. My edit was not a troll. Only one of the reverts I listed could possibly be considered reverting a troll: that was reverting someone who voted before voting was opened, but there may have been other material reverted in the same edit, and anyway I listed 6 reverts, and there was at least one more after the 6 I listed. I do not think there was any significant trolling on the page -- I didn't see any trolling at all. I think SlimVirgin is using the word "trolling" to refer to normal editing work. The edits that Jossi reverted were all good-faith edits: mostly edits intended to improve the page by editing the poll questions, which is the whole purpose of the page at the moment, plus one overly-early voter. I oppose any unblock action.

What I actually came here to say was: Thank you, Seraphimblade! --Coppertwig 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I would be very, very grateful if you would keep a close eye on that individual. I am literally shaking with anger at what he's doing. He's causing chaos and I suspect enjoying every minute of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Coppertwig, it does appear that several people do believe your behavior there has been problematic as well. I strongly encourage you to take this under advisement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is another one known for trolling and taking great delight in doing it on the policy page. Neither of these people have had anything to do with forming this policy or V or NOR, yet suddenly here they are trying to take control of the discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)