User talk:Seicer

Wikipedia Projects

This user participates in
WikiProject Louisville.

This is my talk page! Heres a few tips: Click the [+] tab to leave me a new message or reply under an existing thread, Sign your comment by using four tildes (~~~~), Feel free to ask me any questions or leave me any comment you wish! Comments left by anonymous editors may be removed without warning. Please create an account or log in if you wish to engage in a discussion. This talk page is open for anyone to support, comment about, or criticize any of my current or prior actions. Archives: 2006 | 01 | 02 | 2007 | 03 | 04 | 2008 | 05 | 06 | 07

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Seicer < Comment please!

Hello again -- Please help me understand...

Hello again,

We communicated before about the "Bernie Ward" article and the aftermath of his having been charged with a very sensational crime. I remember how fair and helpful you were in dealing with my concern that in light of these very serious charges, the article could (once again) be transformed into a vehicle for venting hatred of Bernie Ward by his detractors. I was very appreciative that you did not allow that to happen. That is why I am so confused now: Perhaps you can help me to understand how a link to the official "Support Bernie Ward" web site (http://home.comcast.net/~supportbernieward/site/), a site which was set up by Susan Prather, head of Fresh Start (one of the four Bay Area charities which benefit from Mr. Ward's annual Thanksgiving Charity Drive...), and which pertains directly to the charges against him and the efforts by his friends to defend him against defamation and to build a legal defense fund to help him, is to be considered a "spam link"? -- There is plenty of material that has been cleverly linked into this article by his enemies, which amounts to little more than slanderous innuendo. (Take for example Reference #12: Kava, Brad. "Ward opens up about child porn charges", InsideBayArea.com, 14 December 2007. http://www.insidebayarea.com/bayarealiving/ci_7720756. This is a carefully-written, very biased and very personal attack piece, which *implies* a great deal that is very damning, but in actuality is highly misleading in its presentation of "facts". It is "spam" if I ever saw spam. Yet this hatchet job is allowed as as a legitimate reference, while the official site sponsored by Susan Prather of the Fresh Start charity [which, with Mr. Ward's annual support, gets many homeless and working poor back on their feet...], and is personally approved and participated in by the Accused himself and his attorney, is "spam"...?) Please sir/ma'am (Excuse me, I don't know your gender...), I think there must be some kind of misunderstanding here. If so, please restore the link? Or at least help me to understand why it is not considered legitimate while a link to the Kava innuendo-attack piece is permitted? -- Thanks as always for your time and your patience. DThrax (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up to my concern -- I appreciate that. You are right that after reviewing the article from InsideBayArea that it does have a heavy leaning towards stating rumors as true facts -- nothing has been certified yet. When I parsed through the sources, I carefully read through the articles and only cited what was actually verifiable. If the paragraph or statement even began to generalize or waiver, I ignored it and only attributed the core section of article -- e.g. Bard was indited on child pornography, not Bard might have had 100 GB of pornography on his computer.

Generally, per WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view, support sites and etc. are generally not allowed, but feel free to incorporate it in the article as a counter viewpoint. Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Prather support site is listed under reference number 2. I would argue against it's inclusion in the External Links section, as by definition it is POV (it is referenced to cite his current status at the radio station, not mentioned elsewhere). I read Kava's piece, and did not find it overty unbalanced - he criticised both Michael Savage's wild prose, and KGO radio's on-air silence, but that article doesn't add enough information to the subject to warrant a link beyond the footnote either. Seaphoto^Talk 07:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If it can be cited in some shape or form, then it doesn't need to be in the external links section, given that it can influence readers with biased content -- either for or against the child pornography allegations. Note that a decision has not yet been reached -- he has merely been accused of, but it will be a while until the courts reach a final conclusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Leyla Pınar

Hello, I have a problem. I opened a page at here. Anymaterial have licence problem at this page. Biography is erasing by someone. If here is a web encyclopedia how can i introduce a person less biography. Its not to long. I want you to delete this page pls. I didn't edit the page again after someone edited. Look the page and think "what did I see?" URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla_Pınar —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRWebmaster (talk • contribs) 09:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you just cannot delete a page based on the reason of "I don't want the page." The person is reasonably notable, but the insertion of copyrighted material is the reason why the article is so short. Continuously blanking the page is vandalism and will be treated as such. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok but I m the assistant of the Prof.Leyla Pinar. I added this page to wikipedia. We have not a copyright problem because used all materials made by us. This page became a problem to me. Ok show me a way how can I add a picture and short biography. I m waiting your help. Success thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRWebmaster (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Amit@Talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey there! It was unfortunate some hard words were exchanged the between us; I believe you chided me the first time only becuase you weren't all that familier with the subject matter of the Sonia Gandhi page, and then some misunderstanding happened. Anyway, I've got to find some way of fixing the article still. Ciao! Amit@Talk 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

When I have more time to devote to editing WP articles, I'll try to assist in the page. Thanks for the WikiLove, makes editing WP all the more worthwhile! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again so soon, but at least it's on a different topic ... =

Hello again Seicer,

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have been warned before, via an outside email message someone sent me, that there is a lot of political game-playing going on on this site. I feel at this moment that I may have been the object of someone throwing their weight around, although I am willing to look at it differently, if perhaps I just need an "attitude adjustment".

I wonder if you would be so kind as to look at the most recent exchange on my Talk page, involving someone called Kwamikagami, and similarly, the Discussion page for the article entitled "Consonant". I made a change this evening to that latter page, where frankly an irrelevant statement figured prominently in the article that imho did not belong there. I have studied Linguistics formally for eight years -- four undergrad and four graduate -- and I felt I was making a pretty safe change which I was qualified to make; then along came this Kwamikagami person, someone who is clearly very active on Wikipedia -- more active by far than *I* will *ever* be -- and backed out my change, on the excuse that I did not cite any references, in an article that is plainly labeled as having had no citations or references at all, in the first place.

-- I'm afraid I got a little irritated at this person, and it shows in my reply to them. But I don't want to have someone clobbering edits of mine which I consider *very* safe, for lame excuses that don't hold water, and heaven knows what *actual* motivations (The one given, about citations, is nonsense. Also the person is a big talker, making claims to vast knowledge that no one person is likely to be in command of, without offering any citations of his or her *own*.)

I was warned by somebody once that there are bullies on Wikipedia; I'm thinking maybe I've run into one, somebody who feels they *own* an article, apparently even the badly-written parts, and is determined to protect his or her "turf". -- Now maybe I'm overreacting; I admit that's possible: So I'm asking you for your unbiased take on what is really going on. And if, by chance, you agree with me that this person (regardless of the appropriateness of my reply :)) is just lording it over me, I would like to know who polices this sort of thing and whether in your opinion my appealing to *them* could come to any good, or whether on the other hand I'm just asking for more headaches.

Sorry to bother you with this; but you've been a voice of sanity in the recent past. DThrax (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I removed un-sourced text that had been labeled since September 2007 and applied a general unreferenced tag to the entire article. Since you are a former student, you might be able to source the remainder of the text and apply the changes that you committed with a citation. I believe that is the major sticking point at this time -- and if you can produce that (e.g. book with page number, or another reliable source, that would be greatly accepted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Run this by you

You have shown a lot of interest in the Waverly Hills page so I thought I would give you an update on the death rate debate. We have over 2,500 death certificates now which includes 21 complete years worth at an average of 107 per year. We also found that the worst year for deaths at Waverly was actually 162 NOT 152 (likely a typo in the autobiography). I started compiling the facts at http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~waverlymemorial/Facts/deathrate/drmain.html I need to make a few updates for some recently compiled years worth but it's still quite a bit of info. Let me know if this interests you or if you can advise a way in which this could fit on the Waverly page without conflicting with the no original research rule. Thanks 74.241.4.231 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realize that I wasn't signed in John (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)