User talk:Sean William: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:16, 3 June 2007

My talk page

If you would like to leave a message, click the "+" button next to the "edit this page" tab. If you have a question regarding a block that I have enacted on your account or IP address, use the {{unblock}} template and an uninvolved administrator will review your request. When writing a message to me, please try to stay civil and don't be a dick. Cyde's essay also applies.

Archives: 2006: August-November December 2007: January February March April May June July August-November December 2008: January Other: All Signpost

Messages

My RfA

Hi Sean. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 21:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Sean William 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

Yes, yes it was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no it's not worth a revert war. BLP trumps process. Sean William 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there were no BLP issues. You really gotta get on the ball. Between petitioning for unjustified blocks and a complete lack of understanding of wiki policy, you're not doing well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are you. Sean William 00:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i'm sorry. Have I petitioned for unjustified blocks and showed a lack of understanding of wiki policy? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've shown a lack of common sense. Are you here to debate the closures, or to complain about your block? Sean William 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is not common. I'm here for both, actually. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've read the logs. I did not petition for your block. Don't make it sound like I did. Sean William 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Want me to quote you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any quote you can give me would be taken out of context. Such is the nature of IRC. I know what my intentions were on that day. I shared those intentions with you shortly after the incident. We've been perfectly open with you. Is this what I get for apologizing? Assumptions of bad-faith cabalism, compounded with conspiracy theories? You're a nice person when you want to be, Jeff. We're just on opposite sides of a debate. One side's taking it personally, while the other side isn't. And because I'm on the opposite side of a debate, you immediately assume that I dislike you and and want you blocked just for proposing an opposing viewpoint? Sean William 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for nicely expanding the stub article I started, Goss v. Lopez! Do you work in Supreme Court :-)? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but Supreme Court case law is one of my hobbies. Cheers, Sean William 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so it begins. Sean William @ 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Thanks for the privilege. But please, fix Wikipedia:Recent additions page. Previous entries are repeated there, intead of the new ones being added on top. --Poeticbent talk 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how that page works, as this is my first time updating DYK. I only did so because it was behind schedule. I'm going to leave that one to the regulars. Cheers, Sean William @ 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it. --Poeticbent talk 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, congratulations on doing your first update. I trust it was not too painful? Assuming that the next update is ready to go, the process should be simply (!): check the articles are OK, protect the image, copy the update to the main page template and save a second copy to the archive, update the time template, and post the notification templates on the relevant talk pages. Always good to have someone else who can take a turn, if need be. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll help out where I can. Cheers, Sean William @ 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Timeline of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq

You deleted the article based on WP:SYN. However, that states:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

As I clearly pointed out, a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Your invocation of the "original synthesis" argument is therefore invalid.

Am I incorrect?

Furthermore, I fail to see that a consensus had been reached on the article. --User At Work 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I deleted this article based on the AFD. If you disagree with my closure, take it to WP:DRV. Sean William @ 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that edit on my userpage. Very thoughtful of you. Cheers, JetLover -- Talk to me! 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sean William @ 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dfpc

Please check out User talk:Dfpc. He was looking for you on IRC. -- John Reaves (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Sean William @ 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN.

The deletion was done unilaterally. Some things are a bit too silly to waste time on. --The Cunctator 16:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you're making us waste a lot more time. Sean William @ 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was fast...

... thanks for updating DYK! Smee 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No problem. I'm not done yet, though; I still have to serve out all of the DYK thank-yous. If DYK ever gets that badly backlogged, drop me a line and I'll update it. Sean William @ 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help? Smee 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nope, I'll be done in a minute or two. Sean William @ 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm going to start on the next update... Smee 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

O rly?

I had no idea. I'm kind of like Wikipedia's spy on 4chan, really; I have my fun there, but vandalizing the only thing I go to for information kind of irks me, so I report it when I can. Thanks for locking ACK and setting the record straight. ^_^ Cernen Xanthine Katrena 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 :::Nope, I'll be done in a minute or two. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] [[User talk:Sean William|@]] 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 *Okay.  I'm going to start on the ''next'' update...  [[User:Smee|Smee]] 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
+== O rly? ==
+I had no idea. I'm kind of like Wikipedia's spy on 4chan, really; I have my fun there, but vandalizing the only thing I go to for information kind of irks me, so I report it when I can. Thanks for locking [[ACK]] and setting the record straight. ^_^ [[User:Cernen|Cernen]] [[User Talk:Cernen|Xanthine]] [[Special:Contributions/Cernen|Katrena]] 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)