User talk:SebastianHelm

Archives 2009 general archive Older User talk:SebastianHelm/Conflict resolution User talk:SebastianHelm/Buddhism User talk:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka other talks from 2008 User talk:SebastianHelm/ArbCom elections 2007 User talk:SebastianHelm/Pacific Northwest User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC User talk:SebastianHelm/RfA [[User talk:SebastianHelm/MedCab] other talks from 2007 even older ...

Deadline for WP:IECOLL

Please see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Status. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Your comment is right. I had taken some time off, and when I got back I felt indeed like the March Hare thinking it was time for the next step already. I am sorry about the confusion this caused. — Sebastian 15:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

Just to explain the double revert that I just did on your /principles page: I accidentally clicked on "rollback" on your last edit on my watchlist, and then had to put it back the way it was. Sorry about that! ::blush:: -- edi(talk) 17:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I'm afraid of such errors myself. When I became an admin, I was afraid that I would accidentally click on any of the "block" links that appeared next to each user's name. Since then I realize that nothing bad actually happens when I click them, and I've learned to live with it, but still don't think it's a good idea to tempt admins into blocking so easily. — Sebastian 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration

I wanted to make you aware that ArbCom has formally thanked you for your time and efforts with the Ireland collaboration project: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ireland collaboration. I also wanted to extend my personal thanks to all three of you for the hard work you put into it. If at some point I could be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me via my talk page or email. Thank you again and best wishes! --Vassyana (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Redking7

Hi - Not sure if this is a good place to ask but as you are a moderator you might be able to help. Some one created the user page redking7. I would like for that to be deleted so that it appears "in red" again. This happened before and was fixed. I have never learned how I can do it technically. Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

wp:link

Hi, I see you made some good edits to the guideline. I've created a stub of a show-and-tell tutorial on linking that received such a slamming from one regular user (on his talk page) that I've been frightened off. I do accept that the exercises could be less wordy, but ... I wonder whether you think it's useful? User:Tony1/Build_your_linking_skills Tony (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, Sebastian. It won't be a quick job, but I'll let you know if/when it's more advanced. Tony (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Time to run

Hi, Sebastian! It's good to see you here again; I thought you had retired. Thanks for your offer to nominate me for adminship. As you said, I was just joking. I didn't intend to run anytime soon for adminship, but four editors have suggested that I go for it after this. If I do run, it will be mid-september at the earliest; I'm a bit busy right now. I will inform you if and when I decide to run, and it would be an honour if I had a nomination from you. ≈ Chamal ^talk 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm only active now because I have a little bit of time on my hand; I don't know if I'll be active here in September. But what's the problem with running now? You don't have to commit to doing a lot - I didn't either in my RfA. My long absences bothered only one voter, who eventually supported me, too. The only reason I can see not to run is if you're afraid it might make you into a Wikoholic. — Sebastian 05:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not like that. I'm working on something in real life right now, and I might have to turn my attention completely to that anytime. It wouldn't do if I disappeared in the middle of my RFA :) Shall I email you when I'm ready? ≈ Chamal ^talk 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see! Yes, the RFA process takes some attention. Please do email me. — Sebastian 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Linking

Hi Sebastian,

When you get time, I'm still very interested in your thoughts about how one can effectively deal with piped links that introduces subtext that is controversial or does not follow NPOV as was discussed here. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I left some comments at the Linking talk page. Ward20 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks a lot for your efforts to improve this guideline. However, some editors are concerned about the pace at which the text is being changed, and the large changes that are being made. Could you discuss it, please? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

After almost a week of fruitful and constructive discussion with several editors there, I am quite surprised at this sudden outbreak of resistance against change. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised: That page is probably not the best candidate for change, anyway: It is almost five years old, and if people could use it to write links then, they can use it today, too. So, in the bigger scheme of things, it's good that the page is watched by people who oppose change. It is also good for me: It reminds me that I still have the "wikibreak" banner on top of this page, and it's better if I spend less time here; I've already become Wikiholic again. I will again be more frugal with the time I spend here, and I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. — Sebastian 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sebastian, it's not that everyone who asked for a slow-down "oppose[s] change" - we just wanted a chance to discuss the proposed changes before they got implemented. but anyway: have a good break! Sssoul (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message; this is indeed an important distinction. I realize my use of the words "resistance" and "oppose" can be seen to mean "block" or "prevent"; that's not what I meant. I just meant it in the same sense as you would say "friction opposes motion": I know that it can be overcome, and in the past I would often have been happy to do so by taking the time to understand people's needs; we often were able to find a solution that works for everybody. But that takes a lot of time. The reason why I started this was not because I feel strongly about internal links, but because I saw that there was a page that was in a mess, and it seemed like there was a team of editors who agreed that it needs to be cleaned up, and I thought it would be a breeze to work on it together. — Sebastian 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, thanks for discussing with me the finer points of linking on the talk page. I learned quite a bit and you are very cordial and easy to work with. Ward20 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! It has been a pleasure working with you, too! — Sebastian 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Chamal N

He told me you would like to co-nom him for adminship; there's a slot open for you at User:Dylan620/Chamal/RfA. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, Sebastian. Real life issues are now out of the way (much sooner than I expected) and I'm now back to normal editing. So I'll take your advice and go for it when the noms are ready. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. I will do my best to take heed of the concerns voiced by many editors and work on improving my non violent communication. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct or communication as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

source required JK Wedding Dance

Apologies for not being clearer in my edit summary. I had added the tag when I first wrote the article [[1]] as it sounded like original research, when I saw your comment I realized that you were correct and that no one would question that fact... I have removed it again, but if you want it added back in I will not undo again... RP459 (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the message, and sorry! I wasn't aware that you were the same person. In that case, I agree with your edit, of course. — Sebastian 03:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yan Sun

Hey there, I noticed you've made pretty much all the meaningful edits to Yan Sun. That redirect is currently up for discussion at RfD, I was wondering if you wanted to give your thoughts? I believe your idea is to preserve it as a redirect so that it points correctly once Sun Yan is created, is that correct? Thanks. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification. I've already spent too much time on this one redirect, but I will reply there when I find the time. — Sebastian 03:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Munchie Strikes Back

The film is bad. Strange how the very bad sometimes get more attention than the very good. Heck, one reviewer went so far as to call it "a pile of shit" [2]. But I've expanded the article and sourced it. It was good exercise. It now meets the requirements set by WP:NF. Thanks for bringing it someplace where it could get the needed attention. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I agree with you. — Sebastian 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your own keep !vote is an appreciated affirmation of my work. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: "a pile of shit" Like the Pip (South Park), it is one of the most famous because it is sooo bad. LOL. Ikip (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. This barnstar is awarded to SebastianHelm. When someone changes their mind on an issue on wikipedia, it is incredible, because it is so rare. You seem like someone who can comprimise and change your mind when new facts present themselves, for the good of the project. Wikipedia desperately needs more editors like you. Ikip (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I believe that peace is linked to the ability to change one's mind. My role model for that are bees: When they are trying to reach a decision, such as where a swarm should establish their new hive, they vote by dancing. The important difference to human votes is that none of the bees is personally attached to their vote. That mindset is much harder to maintain for us, but I will keep in mind that it is appreciated. — Sebastian 22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:speedy deletion declined for Evdile Koçer

Sorry, you're right. I got a bit too carried away flagging new articles. Aupajo (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Okay Uzoma

I was wondering if you had any suggestions for how to help Okay Uzoma (talk · contribs), given your recent move of his articles to his userspace. Rather than make any changes to the article, he just put it back into the mainspace, this time under the title Nigerian Police Officers (obviously, the title is not appropriate for a bio article about a single individual, but that could easily be dealt with by renaming the article). Okay Uzoma seems to believe that the reason you moved the article out of the mainspace was because of the title issue, not the notability issue, despite your comments to him.

He's made some other good minor edits outside of this article, but I don't think he understands what the problems are with the article he created, and I'm not sure where to start with explaining it. Singularity42 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice message! *Sigh*! I'll look into it. — Sebastian 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

New Concorde

How could you think I'd let you down (chuckle)? The article is begining to shape up. Yes, there is much more yet to do... but its being done. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, when you wrote above "Strange how the very bad sometimes get more attention than the very good", I thought you felt some remorse about investing your precious time in an article about a very bad movie. So it's hard for me to understand that you now continue on that track - investing your time in the article about a company whose main claim to fame is that very same bad movie. I'd be mildly interested in why you don't dedicate your time to movies and companies that are worth it. — Sebastian 15:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not remorse (chuckle)... just a befuddled fascination. I took the original film article as a special challenge... as its easy to improve articles about pouplar and well-received films. When reviewers hate it... that's when an article needs some wiki-love. And now the force behind that film and hundreds of others of similar ilk... Roger Corman. He's an industry legend... a very prolific producrer and one who has literally influenced many hundreds of today's top actors and directors. In the 80's he recognized the growing market for home video and made a killing. He creaated Concorde/New Horizons which became New Concorde. They may make and sell lower quality films (hundreds of 'em) but they are very good at doing what they do and have posted some amazing profits. It is in they results where they built their notability. Had they made a couple bombs and then faded into obscurity, notability might be hard to asssert or source. But they are still going strong 27 years later. And cheap as their films are... people are buying them... lots of them. Go figure. And surprisingly... many actually receive nice reviews. So their claim to fame would more be like recognizing a niche and filling it... affordable films (good and bad alikle) intended for the small screen. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to revist the article at this point and compare what now exists with what we both first saw. I have more sourcing and cleanup to go... but I think its now a keeper. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh Michael, you're killing me! You must have driven your mother crazy, bringing home birds with broken wings and one-eyed puppies from the street! I only apply WikiLove to people, not to articles. But your dedication touches my heart, and I will retract my AfD nomination. — Sebastian 05:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Sebastian for your good reply, and been so friendly. happy wiki 21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs)

Re: Watchlist count for articles with names in Cyrillic

The script doesn't follow redirects (I should probably note that in the software or mark them somehow...). I think http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Roger+Joseph+Boscovich is what you're after. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Thank you for checking into this. To be honest, I didn't even realize that I had entered the name of a redirect. And thanks for the helpful tool! — Sebastian 00:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Dinah

Paul Dinah, was an excellent writer!

I do not agree with your action of deleting informations about him! He has written an "autobiography" about his "passing to the future"-"near death experience", that many scientists explained as "A consciousness slide through time". He talked about the Valey of Roses... a civilization based on a NEW to us concept. (The Venus project).

Unfortunately, his book has been translated only in Greek (he was German) by a student of his. S.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.187.96 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The page Paul dinah (sic!), which I deleted, contained nothing but the short text "PAUL DINAH (PAUL AMADEUS DIENACH) ΠΑΟΥΛ ΝΤΙΝΑΧ.". If the author was really notable, you can of course write an article about him, but you clearly need to put a lot more effort in it than that! I recommend using our Article Wizard — Sebastian 06:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.187.96 (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad you saw it. I had been thinking about writing a notice about my reply on your talk page, but didn't do so since you weren't logged in, which meant you only appeared as an IP address. Often people's IP address changes, and they don't see the same talk page. It would be great if you could log in with a user name; that would help our communication. — Sebastian 15:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ellington's Sacred Concerts

Thank you for your interest on my improvements. I am very new to Wikipedia and have a world class knowledge of Duke Ellington and Ellingtonia. If I had my way, I would break it up into 3 seperate album pages listing all the tunes and personnel. Or should each album be listed on the page? That would be my next goal on the page. Making it one page would be easier for me. I don't know if I inputed the books right. If you are truly interested in this music, I suggest you read Janna's book. --Ellingtonrecords (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Replying at talk — Sebastian 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Ellingtonrecords

RfD nomination of Ali Zahedi

I have nominated Ali Zahedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MirrorLockup (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have tagged this redirect for speedy deletion instead...it is a link to userspace and as such qualifies under CSD R2. MirrorLockup (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. My bad - I forgot to uncheck "leave redirect behind" when I moved the page. I just deleted it. — Sebastian 18:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Trout Lake Sports deleted?

I didn't see anything wrong with Trout Lake Sports, I had all the criteria, but it was still deleted because of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasking94 (talk • contribs)

The page Trout Lake Sports contained only the words "Boys High School Soccer", and a list of 3 games and 5 goal leaders. How does that assert notability? — Sebastian 05:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD's

Hello, you recently asked me to be more cautious about my CSD's. I'm honestly sick of being told that I can't CSD right, so, care to tell me how to do it correctly? There's something I need to learn here, and I'd like to learn it before going down in flames at RfA for not understanding CSD. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I am impressed by your post. Now, with some distance, I realize that my post was actually quite offputting (I can explain why, if you’d like to know), and I am positively surprised that you reacted with this request.

There are several ways to approach CSD:

One is by the letter of the policy, which is what I tried in my post. In that case, the article stated it was about a “national organization with branches all over India”. This is an indication of importance, so A7 does not apply. (Please don’t hesitate to ask if that is not immediately evident to you.)

A second approach is by understanding the intention of CSD: The reason why we started CSD in the first place was because our normal deletion procedures got clogged by a deluge of obviously worthless articles. As the policy says, this is only a bypass. In practice, you can use this approach like this: Compare the article in question with the kind of articles for which the policy has been written. The kind of articles you come across all the time, you know what I mean. If it is different from what you see all the time, then CSD was not meant for it. Since you write that you are an expert mathematician, let me explain it mathematically: In our case, I see four characteristics or criteria C_1...4: The article was (C₁) outside of our area of systemic bias, (C₂) about a national organization, (C₃) about a charity, and (C₄) better written than most CSD articles. The probability for each of the criteria C_1...4 is at most about 1/4. Multiply them, and you obtain at most 1/256. Articles that are in such a specialized class are not what CSD has been written for.

I personally use a third approach, based on the understanding that CSD should only be used “for articles with no practical chance of surviving discussion.” If you’re curious, I can write about it, but it may be more appropriate for executing CSDs than for nominating them.

Let me know which approach you like best, and, of course, don’t hesitate to ask me with any questions or to tell me if what I wrote doesn’t make sense. — Sebastian 05:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Don't be surprised, I'd liken deletion to a sword. An elegant tool when used right, but worthless metal when used wrong. I'd rather be elegant.

When it comes to importance, I had generally assumed that such notes of importance needed to be backed up by verifiable sources in order to be taken at face value. After all, wouldn't it be quite easy to create an article that says “Bob Inc. is a multinational tire company”? Something I used to actually do, back when I found vandalism more fun. Without WP:RS, I would have generally figured such a claim is worthless, but if you have a Forbes article saying so... Should such claims be taken at face value and the article's prodded or AfD'd instead?

I hadn't really thought about the systemic biases or charity issues, which would have an “effect” of a 16-fold change in “what should be done”. Since you are an admin, if you have the time, could you look at some of my other recent CSD's and tell me what you think about them as well?

Also, I'd like to know about executing CSD's as well, as I want to become an admin, and be a good one. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I see how you can think of CSD as an "elegant sword", but that is a dangerous, and misleading analogy. CSD is a bypass, and the purpose of a bypass is not elegance. If you are a heart surgeon, you may think of a bypass as elegant, but it would be irresponsible if you used that view as a guide, and started making bypasses where they are not needed. This bypass is not needed for articles that are rare enough to merit individual discussion.

Re importance and verifiability, have you read WP:A7? I am really willing to help you, but please do your homework first, and RTFM.

There is another pitfall with regarding CSD as a weapon: It encourages a confrontational view, instead of WP:AGF. Actually, I'm scared by your analogy: My parents grew up in a country where people idolized weapons, and found dictatorship elegant, because it bypassed slow democratic processes. That is not the sort of ideology I want to see on Wikipedia.

I need to leave soon, so I'll keep the third approach for later. — Sebastian 06:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose scissors would be a better analogy. I have a penchant for purple prose, and sometimes don't pick the best metaphors. As an editor outside of Wikipedia, I've found that the biggest part of the job is deciding what stays and what goes. It's a part of the job that, when done correctly, improves the work. If done poorly, it ruins it. This is what I meant by 'elegance'. Editing well. And I didn't mean just CSD, I meant deletion on the whole. It's a tool that can be used to improve the encyclopædia.

I don't view AfD as a battle. I'm happy and feel fine about articles that survive AfD if I propose them, that's why I want to work with the ARS. I think that an article improving when brought up for AfD is a fine outcome. — Irbisgreif — continues after insertion below

Oops, I misread your post. So forget my reply. I like the scissors analogy! It also lends itself to a further analogy: Speedy deletion is like running with scissors: It's dangerous, but sometimes, you gotta do it. — Sebastian 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As for reading A7, I went back and read it again, and here's where I'm not understanding. A7 says that there can't be any credible claim of importance for CSD to apply (It does, I admit, say that no sourcing on a claim is needed for credibility.). So, how can I tell where the community defines “credible” as beginning and ending? I'm pretty sure that's the problem I'm having. I, personally, considered the claim of being a national company with many branches “non-credible”, though of course, hindsight is 20/20 and I can see now why it was. (It being sourced even...) Irbisgreif (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see your problem. I think you're making it more complicated than it is. CSD is specifically only for the easy cases. And it doesn't overrule WP:AGF. The wording in A7 doesn't mean that you have to put in any effort to investigate how many branches an organization has. It's only there to give you a handle when the article claims obviously uncredible statements. One important caveat, which is a major pitfall of the first approach: Even if an article meets a criterion, it does not mean that you have to tag it. The purpose of CSD is only to give you permission to do so. The reason for tagging an article should always be that you are certain without any doubt that (1) it does not deserve an article and (2) it can not be improved. If you're not certain, then you can (a) research and improve the article, or, if you don't have time or inclination for that: (b) Tag it with another template, such as {{prod}} or {{unreferenced}}, or, if you don't have time or inclination for that: (c) leave it alone. — Sebastian 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll be doing that, and saving CSD for vandalism. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're limiting yourself more than other people would. I guess that's what I'd do, too, if I patrolled new pages. But you don't have to limit yourself there: We have the other criteria for a reason, and it's OK to use them. One possible option I forgot to mention is: Userfy. That gives the user some breathing space, and it has sometimes resulted in nice articles. If an article is obviously about the new editor, I write something like this. — Sebastian 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see a very easy way to do the review you're asking for. The vast majority of your nominations should have been correct already. None of them should need another set of eyes, because that's the whole point of CSD. And it's no fun to go through scores of vanity and spam pages just to find out that they all were indeed vanity and spam. By and large, you should get that feedback already by checking how many of your nominations have been declined. There is of course the risk that some of your nominations might have been deleted by an administrator by mistake or negligence. (It happens, I've seen it before.) If, in light of what we discussed above, you now feel that some of your deleted nominations might have been an error, I'd be happy to check into them. Since you can't see them, I'm pasting a list of your latest deleted nominations below:

• Keith Rhoades (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Visual Lease (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Young Twan (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Annabella Winston (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G10). (TW))
• Nickro (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW))
• File:Dio band01.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))
• Humans in popular culture (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW))
• MyOTA (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Louise Edwards (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Break Neck films (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
• Eric West (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• CIIWA (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Kimberly wise (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Jack saperstein (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Magnoballs (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
• Sarfaraz Khan Marwat (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A3). (TW))
• Daniel Garcia (Model,Songwriter) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• OSHO TEERTH (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
• Magnoballs (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
• Hong Kong Oratorio Society (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G12). (TW))
• Kristian Ţhalai (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Kristian Ţhalai Pawl (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Peter thomas llewellyn (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G10). (TW))
• Killerapp.com (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Resonance coaching (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
• File:Moshehirchandarafat.JPG (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))
• File:Illicit-web-holding-page.jpg (This file is up for deletion per WP:CSD. (TW))
• File:Illicit-web-holding-page.jpg (This should not have been put for CSD yet.)
• Derek Gleeson (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G12). (TW))
• James Vaughan IV (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Hackscape (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A1). (TW))
• Nelly Uvarova (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• KIT digital, Inc. (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Scott weintrob (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Jon Burgstone (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• CanvasJunkie.com (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Jake mcnamara (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• The One Whole Law Enforcement System Theory (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW))
• Emma McLaughlan (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Tristan Da Voulas (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G3). (TW))
• We The People (band) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• Rev. Joy Mathew (was changed heavily... removed my own CSD tag)
• Rev. Joy Mathew (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). (TW))
• 2010 films (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G12). (TW))
• User:W.A.J (Band) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
• Dave Westlake (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G7). (TW))
• User:AT&T CruiseCast (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
• Vine 21 (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G7). (TW))
• Vine 21 (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G2). (TW))

— Sebastian 06:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, of those, the only one I can think that would need checking would be Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia. That was a regional psychiatric journal, and I'm guessing that it could have been fixed instead of deleted. Could you userfy it to my space and let me work on it? Irbisgreif (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it and your nomination was fully appropriate. As Balloonman wrote, G11 is quite subjective, but in this case, the article was purely promotional by anyone's standard. I think Balloonman overlooks that G11 also specifies that "[the article] would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." That is a more objective criterion. Not checking that condition is a common mistake taggers make, but it clearly was met here.

If you insist, I can userfy the page for you, but I don't think it's worth your time; you would still have to rewrite the article from scratch.

I would like to add one thing, though, which matters to me, but which is not the majority opinion: I always try to welcome new users if there is a chance that they might become good contributors. Someone working for a scientific journal could potentially become a good editor here. So I would not have templated that user, but written them a personal message, along the lines of what I suggested at Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee#Personalize_your_message. It's too late for that now; the user probably will not log on with the same user name anymore, but I would be glad if you could keep it in mind next time. — Sebastian 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember exactly how it looked, so I'll trust you on that one. I think I'll try and couple "basic" responses with more friendly greetings in cases where the article looks to have been made in good faith. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin coach

(Headline inserted after Irbisgreif's post of 15:14, 21 September.)

Oh, and one final thing, I have been searching for an admin coach, to help me learn how to be a better editor, the kind that can earn the mop. You're the first person who's been willing to sit down and explain to me what I'm doing wrong, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to coach me. I know you're not listed, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't sign up for that because I can't commit to being around consistently. I should be spending more time off wiki, and if I don't succeed in limiting my time here I may have to go cold turkey and take a wikibreak. But if you can live with that, then I would be happy to coach you as much as my time allows. I noticed that you have very similar pledges to mine  ;-) , and I'm excited about that: I've always wanted these ideas to spread. I also would need a pledge coach to make sure I'm not deluding myself. Would you be willing to do that for me? — Sebastian 19:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you being around sporadically would force me to be patient and self-reliant in many cases, so I'd consider it a plus if anything.

As for the pledges, I copied them from you with small modifications, since I liked much of the sentiment. So it's only natural that they are similar.

I am unsure what you mean by a "pledge coach", but if it's something a non-admin can do, I should be able to do it, happily. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a general caveat about the admin coach relationship: The way I do things is not necessarily the most efficient way to do things at Wikipedia, and it's probably not the shortest route to adminship. A big portion of my motivation is that I see well intended people who are unnecessarily in pain, and I want to help them. That may incidentally be good for Wikipedia, if it results in encouraging a new editor to stay and do good things. But you don't have to do things the way I do. It might even backfire in your RfA: If e.g. you replied to a question about CSD in a way that people understood to mean that speedy deletion should only be used for vandalism, then you'd have a strong opposition against you. Let's be aware of this; please ask me whenever you're not clear if something is just my own way of doing things, or something you really have to do. — Sebastian 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. I'll try and keep that in mind as we go forward. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should move our coaching related conversation to some new page in your or my userspace? BTW, why do you have no e-mail enabled? I might on occasion like the chance to give you some personal feedback. — Sebastian 16:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Did revisions on Sacred Concert page

Please read and advise. --Ellingtonrecords (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I will reply at Talk:Duke Ellington's Sacred Concerts. — Sebastian 19:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

New Hope?

Sebastian - you are certainly one of WP's dream editors! For me, you are unsurpassed particularly in the diligent, terrifically effective, thoughtful and caring pursuit of collaborative editing. I so admire what you were able to do with the Buddha-related pages and elsewhere. Thanks so much again.

For me, I do check my shrinking watchlist on occasion, sometimes once a month, sometimes twice a day, but rarely do I try to amplify or otherwise intervene any more. (FWIW, in my spare time, I've been cobbling together a web site on Pali chanting, http://chantpali.org [please forgive this product endorsement ;-) ].) Perhaps like yourself, at this time I just don't have time to pursue collaborative editing with such a diverse population in a manner consistent with my values (that is, in an honest, caring, egalitarian manner). My New Hope Creek image addition was simply out of my unique fondness for that creek which my toddler and I visit often.

Thanks so much again for all you've done! I hope you are well and happy! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment! About the time spent here, I know what you mean: It takes a lot of time to adjust to people who are so different - especially when many of them seem to be encouraged by their anonymity to forget the restraint they would use if they met someone in person. (Have you ever noticed how people patiently wait in line in front of a bank counter, but behave like wild animals in the anonymity of their car, cutting in line whenever they can, just to spend a few seconds less in their air conditioned, dolby surrounded metal living rooms?) Your website looks beautiful! It reminds me that just the other day I was wondering about the connection between "throat singing" and Buddhist chant. I looked at Anapanasati#Meditation with breath, and it seemed to me that the second paragraph doesn't seem to apply Anapanasati in particular, but I didn't know enough about Buddhist chant to move it there. — Sebastian 16:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you too for your kind words & I enjoyed your observations about bank lines and inconsiderate drivers :-) I wish for you good things, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at ConcernedVancouverite's talk page.
Message added 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A question

For context for my question, check out Communist_genocide and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_genocide_(2nd_nomination). Now, I'm of the opinion that these articles are ridiculous. But I'm thinking that some of the people involved (on both debate sides) are starting to act with bad faith where this article is concerned. Tag Teaming RFC's, Moves, and AfD's, for example. How would you advise me to proceed? Irbisgreif (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems the page has now been moved to Mass killings under Communist regimes, so it seems at least some compromise has been found. But such issues of course have deep roots; we will never be able to solve them perfectly, since there will always be people on either side who feel too strongly about such atrocities to accept any compromise. I haven't looked into this in depth, but it may need some ongoing mediation. If you would like to care for this issue in the months to come, and you feel you have a good chance to gain the trust of both sides, then I'd be happy to accompany you through it. If you find at least one editor from either side who is willing to compromise then you could start a conflict resolution WikiProject, like WP:SLR, WP:IPCOLL, and WP:IECOLL, all of which I've been involved in. — Sebastian 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm firmly on one 'side' of the debate. But working together with others would be good, esp. if mediation won't be needed. What would a good CR WikiProject name for something that would cover this be? Irbisgreif (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of a good name. How does WP:LRC (Left-Right Collaboration) sound? It could aim to bring people of great political difference together to work towards ensuring NPOV, and I /would/, in fact, like to do just that. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at ConcernedVancouverite's talk page.
Message added 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerned about ConcernedVancouverite

It certainly appears that ConcernedVancouverite has a biased and emotional basis for his edits to the revisions to Richard Arsenault's entry.

CV has systematically reduced the article to nothing and refused to even include verified data from IMDb making the article is even smaller than it was for the previous YEAR.

Frankly CV's behavior has been emotional and unscientific. He/she seems to demand sycophantic behavior from his victims, a position we refuse to take with anyone. Furthermore, ConcernedVancouverite's ruthless intimidation tactics may have cause Mr. Arsenault direct harm from any professionals who may have looked him up during VC's assault.

Sebastian, your wiki history has proved much more balanced and professional, so I bring this to your immediate attention. We would like to assume in good faith that this one person's tactics are not representative of Wikipedia's editing process as a whole. We request that ConcernedVancouverite BACK OFF and let more rational minds take over this entry (which admittedly was not perfect, but did not deserve this treatment).

Thank you.