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

Moved to User talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching

Admin coach

Moved to User talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching

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)

WP:LRC

Moved to User talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raproducer (talk • contribs)

Well, ConcernedVancouverite may not have handled this situation ideally, but the problem is bigger than just ConcernedVancouverite: At Wikipedia, there is a very distrustful atmosphere of people editing articles about themselves, their companies or ideas. It's even more so when the editor has no editing experience outside of their own articles. Please read our policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There is a reason why Wikipedia has to be distrustful: Because everybody can edit it, and because it often shows up in top places in search results, it is constantly abused by people who don't care at all about Wikipedia, and only want to promote themselves. I'm not saying that that's the case with you, but that's what many people here are concerned about. You could alleviate these concerns by showing that you care about Wikipedia. The way to do that is by helping with articles where you don't have a conflict of interest. I'm not particularly interested in films, but I recommend you could join WikiProject Films and offer your help there. I think they would be happy to have an editor who knows so much about the industry as you do. Once you got a reputation as an honest and dedicated editor, you will be in a better position to work collaboratively on the articles. — Sebastian 00:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ogbonna Okechukwu Onovo

I have recently been on a roll editing articles on prominent Nigerians. I just started the one above, which is clearly notable: the subject has a powerful and highly visible position. While checking for sources, I came across a Google link to User:Okay Uzoma/Ogbonna O. Onovo, which led me to Okay Uzoma's talk page and your notes there. I can see the problem. Not sure if the user page should be kept. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My compliments for that well written little article! I wasn't aware Onovo was that high ranking. I hadn't read Okay Uzoma's version thoroughly and just assumed with everyone else that he wasn't notable enough. My only concern at the time was to keep Uzoma as an editor, which apparently did not succeed. (I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need for sympathy!) On the off chance that they comes back, it would be great if you could write to Uzoma that you created the article. As for User:Okay Uzoma/Ogbonna O. Onovo, it would probably best for Wikipedia if it were changed that to a redirect at some time (tagged as "{{R from duplicated article}}"). We should put {{Mergeto}} on top of that page, and alert Uzoma on their talk page. After that, I would wait a month to give Uzoma enough time to reply. Do you feel Uzoma's version contains text that might improve your article? If so, then it could be merged there. (In which case the tag could be "{{R from merge}}".) I would think that Okay Uzoma would be happy about that. — Sebastian 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have been doing a string of these thumbnail sketches, which I find rather addictive. I think they are accurate as far as they go, but suspect they are missing important aspects. With luck, editors who actually know something about the subjects (perhaps Uzoma) will improve them. As for the Uzoma version, I came across most of the same material in the first source cited, and drastically summarized it into one paragraph. I don't think it is useful to list all junior positions and dates in detail, and did not mention any of the awards because I have no idea whether or not they are significant. Perhaps I am being too minimalist. I will leave a note for Okay Uzoma though, encouraging contribution. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at User_talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching.
Message added 04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irbisgreif (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with welcoming

Hi Sebastian, could you help me out help out a new user, User:Abs85? The user used some copyrighted text which I removed and wants to know how to do better. I saw you're on the welcoming committee and I'm not sure what to write. Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you see that? I am not a member of the Welcoming committee. However, I try to help new users, especially when they are interested in an area that may be underrepresented here. In the case of the message on your talk page, it seems that Abs85 didn't understanding the problem. For you as an experienced editor, it may seem obvious when you mention the copyvio in one of your summaries, but with a new user, you can't even be sure that she saw - let alone understood - that. It would be great if you could patiently explain that in your reply. Some people would include a link to WP:COPYVIO, but that page isn't so easy to read for a new user, so you might want to keep that for a later part of the conversation. For the moment, all the user needs to know that there is nothing wrong with the text you deleted, and if she writes the same information in her own words, it will be fine. — Sebastian 17:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at User_talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching.
Message added 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Additionally, would you be interested in joining WP:PSRP as well? Your advice is proving invaluable. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Stony Brook DMA concerns page?

Why did you delete my Stony Brook DMA concerns page?

Why?

We have a program which is in need of additional information from all participants. It is very difficult to disseminate information across a wide consituency. No, it will not be a completely thorough, thought-out page. But it has to grow somehow??

What pleasure do you get in deleting my work?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialMediaWorks (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the page Stony Brook DMA concerns because it didn't even remotely resemble an encyclopedic article. Deleting such articles is not a pleasure in itself; my motivation may best be compared with that for weeding a garden. You do it because it has to be done if you want to get a nice garden. I want Wikipedia to be a nice encyclopedia. If you want to create information collaboratively that is not encyclopedic, I recommend using one of these other wikis. — Sebastian 07:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments, suggestions, and re-framing the information are all things that can shape information to its most useable and useful form. Deleting is certainly the quickest. Perhaps you disagreed with my intent, who knows...

May we spare the metaphors of 'diligent humility'? As they are unencyclopaedic.

Best Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialMediaWorks (talk • contribs) 04:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Where did you see the "metaphors of 'diligent humility'"? — Sebastian 18:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at User_talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching.
Message added 19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just making sure... Irbisgreif (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in Turkey

(This section was originally named "WikiProject Human rights")

I saw that you are a member of that project and was encouraged by your remark that you like to help newbies. My "problem": I wanted to provide some kind of guidance on how to structure articles on human rights in particular countries. The project page did not give me any clue, since much on it (such as the title Projects) have only a ? The only idea that I could come up with was to create a subpage to my user page, but that is completely outside the project. Any idea?

Just in case that I did not express myself clearly enough. I have restructured Human rights in Turkey as a draft under User:Sc.helm/Human rights in Turkey and believe that this could be a sample for similar pages. Small note at the end: it may be considered silly that two people with German as their native language correspond in English, but other visitors of your page may not understand that. BTW, my last name is not Helm, my first name is Helmut. Sc.helm (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite an effort! I will look into this and reply by tomorrow. — Sebastian 22:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right that a good article can serve as a guide for others, but for that, you first need that article to be accepted by at least a majority of other editors. I am concerned that that may not be so easy. Any major revamp naturally runs against resistance: Many people already worked on that page (it has almost 1000 edits!), and it's just human nature that not everybody embraces a change of what they have become used to, especially if the change is so different from the original that they can't assess it with a simple diff.

So, I would rather be concerned about getting your version accepted. What advantages does it have over the existing version? I noticed that you distinguish between "Main Issues" and "Further Issues". Is this a generally accepted distinction? If not, then you will already have all the groups that are now delegated to also-ran status against the change.

I would recommend investing some good time in explaining your changes. The best place for that is IMO Talk:Human rights in Turkey. I don't think it's necessary to turn to WP:HR; there probably will be enough people watching the HR in Turkey page to get a constructive discussion going there. — Sebastian 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I actually expressed my idea at Talk:Human_rights_in_Turkey#Complete_rewrite four days ago and there has been no reaction. What I meant with structure is not so much to separate human rights into main and further issues (that can be renamed), but since international conventions have some kind of structure like "right to life, ban of torture, freedoms of ...." I thought that people might find it useful to have a similar hierarchy. Sc.helm (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I overlooked that. I applaud your patience in giving it a month.

Let me first say something about the layout of your post: You indented the words "a new structure"; this stands out, and I presume that is because you wanted to highlight them. But that's very unusual. While on other occasions it might be nice to show originality, I'm afraid it might backfire here, where you want to convince others that your way to structure information is better than theirs. The accepted way to do that would be italics or bold text. But I don't see a need to highlight this in the first place - it's already clear from the headline. I would just remove the formatting.

That there has been no reaction may be because it's really hard to compare. Comparing two such articles side by side takes hours, and few people have that time.

You write that "many sentences got lost". That's scary. Don't get me wrong; it's good that you're so honest to write that, but the fact is disconcerting. Editors who contributed to that article don't want any number of unspecified sentences to simply get lost. Think about how many hours of work are in these sentences! Really, if you want people to accept such a major change then you need to meet them at least halfway. (I like the German translation "entgegenkommen"). If I were trying to convince others of my changes, then I would make it as easy as possible for them to understand my changes. That will probably take several hours. But remember that you'd be saving each of the other editor several hours, so, in the overall picture, the sum of editor hours spent would be much reduced. Moreover, it is easier now than in the midst of a heated discussion with someone who opposes your changes because he feels overwhelmed by them.

One possible way to explain the rewrite would be by chopping it up into 5 to 12 easily understandable changes. I would begin with a new page that's an exact copy of the current page (with the categories and interwiki links nowiki'ed, as you did), and I'd then number each change (or give it a simple name for easy reference) and explain it on the talk page. Once you've done that on your private page, you could use the same approach on the article. You don't have to use the same steps, and you don't have to wait a month for that, as long as you keep in mind to make it easy for others to understand what you're doing, and why you're doing it. — Sebastian 16:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to deal with my problem. I must admit that for many entries on pages written in the English Wikipedia in my area of expertise (and that are human rights in Turkey) I have great difficulties in showing much politeness. As an example you may look at Crime in Turkey. The things mentioned there should be somewhere else and the missing parts could be drawn together from better (not brilliant) pages such as Legal system of the Republic of Turkey or the de:Strafgesetzbuch (Türkei) and (of course) other sources. You have articles such as Human rights in Chile and Freedom of religion in Turkey that are not much more than copies of existing reports. The article on Human Rights in Turkey, too, has phrases that were obviously copied from such reports such as recently or during the reporting period.

In these cases I cannot assume that someone has spent a great effort in improving existing texts. Therefore, I do not feel bad, if I remove passages that are not relevant any more or have been documented elsewhere with greater care and precision.

As far as your suggestion is concerned, I have used a different method. I have added three paragraphs to Talk:Human_rights_in_Turkey#Complete_rewrite, explaining why the current structure is bad and the new structure has a logic that is derived from the order of human rights in international conventions. I have also corrected the leading text taking your remarks as inspiration. Sc.helm (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that shows at least what motivated your changes of the outline. It seems reasonable to align that with existing official documents. Still, it seems that you removed not only individual sentences, but whole sections, such as "Minority languages" and "Violence against journalists and intellectuals". Such removals more often than not lead to vehement disputes. That, together with your frank admission that you may have great difficulties in showing much politeness in this area, worries me. (That said, I am grateful about your openness - I take it as a sign that you are working on yourself, which motivates me to help you. BTW, you can also write such things to me by e-mail; I will treat that confidentially; no need to make public confessions here.) So, what is your plan in the event that someone reacts unpleasantly to your changes?

Minor note: I see that you were using tables in your post to place two lists side by side. Tables are meant for arranging information in cells, so I feel that it would be more appropriate to use columns. I am pasting an example of that at User talk:Sc.helm/Human rights in Turkey. — Sebastian 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet, another thank you. I corrected the tables and switched them to columns. As for the rest, I'm rather afraid of getting no reaction than unpleasant ones. Or saying it in a different way: I have no problems if someone edits my work as gravely as I do with others. Regarding the omitted parts, "minority languages" is covered in "ethnic rights" and the "violence against journalists..." could become part of "extra-judicial executions". However, if you follow the style of listing individual cases and go back to 1979 or earlier (as done in the current version) you will have to write a completely new article since more than 5,000 people were killed before September 1980 (including journalists, politicians, jurists etc.) and in the 1990s 176 teachers were killed (105 of them by the PKK) and about 50 journalists were killed by unknown assailants, the PKK, Turkish or Kurdish Hezbollah. Many of them deserve to be named individually.

Thanks for your offer of electronic communication. At this stage there is no real need. Anyone can know what I have to say on the quality of certain pages (usually I say that on the corresponding talk pages as well). BTW, I take it as a must to be polite to all people who contribute, but I do not want to keep poor, misleading or even wrong passages just because I'm trying to be polite. Sc.helm (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! If that's what you meant, then I'm not worried anymore. As for the older cases: We are an encyclopedia, not a news site, so we don't want to have too much of a bias towards the presence. If a section gets too big, we can always break it out into a dedicated article. I have some suggestions for changes of of your outline; I'll write that at User talk:Sc.helm/Human rights in Turkey. — Sebastian 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do have to say, I don't see the note about languages on TV in the "User:Sc.helm/Human rights in Turkey § ethnic rights" section. — Sebastian 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Admin Commandos

Sebastian,

I researched on Wiki that you have helped new users. I have been recently attacked with an onslaught of "Speedy Deletion" notices on a page I didn't create. They took the whole page down (i.e. 21 Magazine) without any research on their end. I kept asking them to help! One Wiki Admin guy has a Stat Graph on his user page bragging about how many "speedy deletions" he has made with no stats on helping build or edit a page. One other, has a Trojan with a Spear image and Awards for "speedy deletions". This is like a game for these guys.

In any event, I need help building a page with the knowledge and protection of keeping the page up after my hard work researching, etc.

Thank you!

Modelmanager (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager