User talk:Seddon/Archive 5

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 23:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You messed up

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/43

Please don't make me tidy all that up :P. Hope you're doing well - AGK 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Query over active/inactive arbs

Hi Seddon, I'm posting here because you're listed as an active ArbCom clerk, and I don't know which clerk is assigned to the Date delinking amendment request. Both current proposals are marked with a majority of five arbs required, since there are nine active (8 plus 1). But the Arb list shows that Rlevse is inactive, and he has voted for the first motion. Does this effectively mean that there are 10 active arbs (9 plus 1), and does this change the majority required? Should his inactive status be changed at the AC page? Thank you. Tony (talk)

SAQ mediation

Hi Seddon. I see you're the mediator for the Shakespeare authorship question mediation. What's next? I have no experience whatsoever in this, and my few perusals of old cases hasn't helped much. (I tried to search closed cases for WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, but either the search engine is not working or I'm doing it wrong.) Tom Reedy (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings - I have some of the same questions as Tom above. What's next? If there are any past cases that you are aware of that involved repeated Deletion of Content, Deletionism vs Inclusionism, or proper weight of Minority Viewpoints, I would appreciate being able to peruse them. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I look forward to working with you. Smatprt (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Got your note.

Will try to respond this afternoon. I appreciate the trouble you've gone to to review the relevant pages, large and somewhat tedious threads, particularly from myself. I'll try to keep it short and sweet. regards Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Seddon. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courtesy notice

A discussion between the parties has developed here, on Science Apologist's talk page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Seddon, Xover (talk · contribs) has not posted an opening statement and seems to be on holiday or otherwise out of pocket. Is there any way we could move this down the road a bit? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Spelenge

That is not how you spell superseded. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

RFAR clerking

pssst...supersede. You might want to fix that spelling. :) Horologium (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't remedy 1.2 pass? Guettarda (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Climate change" Implementation notes

Hi Seddon, I've noted some possible corrections needed in the "Climate change" Implementation notes. See Paul August ☎ 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

communicat

Thanks your note. I was actually in the process of completing the application form, and then was sidetracked by other editing issues, but have now changed my mind about arbcom. Have decided instead simply to wash my hands off the whole sordid affair, viz., partisan editing by the well entrenched World War II article clique. I doubt if arbitration would have got me anywhere, anyhow. But thanks for your interest anyway. Regards. Communicat (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirill request

Please see Kirill, the arbitrator's page, and please file an arbitration request. Please do not make me fill out all the forms as I am not a professor protestor. Milowent may be able to supply other information.

Basically, if someone were to be a paid political advocate for a politcal party (there are these people), they would act exactly as Tvoz is for the Malia Obama article. I am not saying that Tvoz is paid but that his behavior exactly mimics those biased people. This hurts wikipedia by censoring articles.. No not censorship but complete destruction of articles.

Basically, take it from here. I hereby file a complaint. If you want to create a lot of hurdles so people won't complain, then do so and have it your way. If you truly want to help Wikipedia, process this. Thank you. Presidentmalia (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Test

This is a test.....

Im an omnivore

This user is an omnivore.

DYK for Lottie Kimbrough

The DYK project (nominate) 06:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity RFARB

Thank you for your prompt attention to my request. I am one of the first to be hypercareful about outing, so I have now linked all the editors who self-identified to real-life identities here, to demonstrate where I obtained the info. You will note the immediately previous edit to that page, which I summarized "Self-undo", contains one name that may be judged as technically not a self-identification, and you may wish to address the revision history of that page, as well as the one other page on WP "Everything" search that comes up with that name, where I got it from. Or not. At any rate, I trust that, since the section I just added these links to is linked from the top of the list of parties, I may now add the names back to the arb request as they have self-identified, along with a note "Personal names are per self-identifications linked from that section" ("COI list"). I appreciate your consideration. (You may also have some clerking input as to Risker's comment on the party list; it appears to me that all the named editors either are well-motivated to contribute to the case (first set) or are ripe for review by the case (other sets) under reasonable standards, so I don't know how they would not be parties.) JJB 01:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, you will also need to hide Risker's revision as well; OTOH if you take the "or not" option you might just unhide my revision. But no problem whatever you decide. JJB 01:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)