User talk:Seraphimblade

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Please do be nice.

Please read before posting!

I don't always post a full rationale for everything I do, since doing this would take an inordinate amount of time. I do always have one, though, and will be happy to tell you why I did anything if you ask.

PLEASE READ HERE FIRST before asking deletion-related questions.

If you haven't posted a comment already, please put it under a new section at the bottom of the page using markup:

==Section header==
Your comment ~~~~

or click here.

If you have, please post it under the section you started. Responses will be made on your talk page unless you request otherwise.

This page will be archived regularly, generally by an automated process, but that doesn't mean I consider the discussion closed if you have more to say. If your old comments are archived please start a new section on this page for further comment. Please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~.

If I contacted you on your talk page, I'll keep it on watch. Please feel free to reply either there or on this page, whichever's easier for you.

Please refrain from personal attacks. Personal attacks made against me made on this page will be left on it, but this in no way indicates that I approve of them or will not report them if they are severe or continuous. Personal attacks against other editors will be removed or reverted.

Regarding Application Portfolio Management page

Hi there,

For some reason Mr. Ollie is reverting pages edited by many, citing 'external links'. These links have been there since the first time this page was created (that is where I found your name). If one is to remove all references, the page becomes meaningless and empty. At the same time, I note that this must be a popular page as many commented against Mr. Ollie. Please revert to the version that was there before Mr. Ollie got involved. Thanks. Mapador (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding disputed sources

Hi there, I have a question about this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

This article is often edited by the same person, and many of the references that are cited are not public, verifiable sources. For example, references numbered as follows:

19, 36, 39, 42, 46, 47, 59, 60, 97, 98

Those above numbered references as cited in the above article are "letters" written from one party to another. While these may be "authoritative" to the parties involved, they do not constitute publicly verifiable third party facts, so I feel they should not be included. Thus, by extension, the information that these letters support should also be removed, as they would then be without citation and would by default become the opinion of the editor, and nothing more. Just as a reminder, the wikipedia guidelines state:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

So, I find the reference to the "letters" inappropriate.

As a side point, the person involved in adding these references is known online as someone who is a former member of Jehovah's Witnesses and does not agree with Watchtower and Jehovah's Witness teachings, therefore I feel it is not appropriate for this person to be allowed to continue editing articles on JWs and the Watchtower. I personally made a few edits to some of the material in that article because it was distorted and biased compared to what was stated in the actual cited references. (As an even further side point, I have reason to believe that the person involved in making those edits is in actual fact the same person that the Watchtower wrote to in citation #46 -- but I realize that could be irrelevant.)

Thank you for your assistance and any further information you can provide on this issue and how we can ensure that this article is not being edited by biased, self-serving individuals.

Request for advice

Hi! I apologise for bothering you, but I'm afraid I need some advice, and on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance, your name is attached to the first entry.

I seem to be engaged in a less-than-desirable situation, and I would very much appreciate your advice on how I should proceed. The following is my abbreviated (and no doubt biassed) summary of my problem:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zoot. ... Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have placed a warning on my talk page. Why? Have you placed a warning on the other users talk page? Why not? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I placed a warning on your page because you are disruptively edit warring. And yes, I placed one on the other users page also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

I have repeatedly tried to engage the other person in discussion, on talk:Zoot, but they refuse to AGF, refuse to discuss the matter, refuse to answer any questions, and refuse to address the issues I raise. Further, their history seems to suggest they enjoy making points and editwarring. Their edits are unpredictable and inconsistent, and they chop and change in their decisions on which parts of the MoS they are going to follow or ignore, and when, and contradict themself. I am attempting to discuss the matter and address the issues they raise, but I don't seem to be having any success. Further, I have made a number of compromises, but they refuse to entertain the idea of compromise. (Or even the idea of discussion, for that matter.)

Relevant pages are:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoot&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoot&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zoot#Layout
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sesshomaru&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf&action=history

I would very much appreciate your advice on how I should proceed with this matter.

With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only advice I can offer is that you pursue Dispute resolution. I do not get involved in editing disputes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hence, I would very much appreciate your advice on how I should proceed with this matter.
With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the dispute resolution suggestion. I would suggest requesting a third opinion as a starting point, sometimes just having an outsider to the discussion comment can help break a deadlock. I'm afraid I'm not in much of a position to offer such an opinion myself, I'm not very familiar with the MoS guidelines in this scenario, but someone will likely run across it who is and be able to offer some advice. I also certainly advise that you not edit war, the page will be fine left at the wrong version until consensus can be reached. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough - sadly, it seems to me that "dispute resolution" is the only way ahead. The intent of my poorly worded request was "How?". Fortunately, you have addressed that issue! So, "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to 3O I go ... ". Many thanks for your time. Cheers, ~~~~. (Or perhaps that should be ~~~~~?). Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

After having thought about it overnight, I came to the conclusion that it's more than just a little silly to be editwarring over a DAB page. Never-the-less, your help in my "hour-of-need" was indeed what I needed, and has been most appreciated. I'll stop wasting people's time. Best wishes, and thank you very much. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User Meowy

Hi, can you please comment on: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Meowy. You placed him under editing restrictions but did not specify for how long. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of Radek

Could you explain to me why you have blocked only one party in the Rescue edit war? In other words, why have you not taken any steps to block the user who violated 1RR (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1RR_violation_report) or the user matching Radek tick for tack for the past few days ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8])? PS. I think a 3RR warning to Radek would be better instead of a block, given his lack of previous history w/ regards to 3RR issues (isn't it our policy to start with a warning first before the first block?). Although a block may be more meaningful, I'd support shortening it after a few hours served - anyway this should give him something to think about. PSS. I've just realized you came into this from 3RR, not ANI topic, which clarifies to me why you might have not been aware of all parties and their motives. Please look at the ANI topic, as well as please consider what is soon going to happen to a certain involved user and how it affects his credibility. PSSS. The 1RR restriction is of ANI origin, not arbitration (it is part of the evidence), but not an arbcom remedy. Thus enforcing it is within ANI, not AE, power.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain to me then how a user with a 1RR restriction on him is allowed to make two reverts in 10h and get away free? Despite 2 recent blocks for violation of said 1RR making it very clear he should be well aware of it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 08:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Date delinker

It might make more sense if you read this diff. Also note, Date delinker is not a bot, so it would be futile to involve BAG/BOT in this. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, way too much for you to want to read if you really want the dirty details. I don't know if he necessarily had consensus (is that necessary for a situation involving disruption and edit warring?) but he seemed to think he did. What it boils down to is this: ArbCom has made clear that performing massive edits during a content dispute is not okay. WP:EDITWAR is clear that an edit war doesn't simply come down to how many reverts (if any) are performed, it's the attitude behind the edits. While it would be possible to undo all these edits should the consensus be to do that, it would also be unnecessary if Date delinker (Ohconfucius) would stop until consensus was clear. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your block of Radek

If I can chime in: Radek was blocked without any warning whatsoever. If you were genuinely concerned about his disruption to the project, you should have asked him to tone it down -- if you AGF, he may have been genuinely unaware there was a problem. I would respectfully request that the block be lifted, with a warning to Radek to be careful of his editing actions. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I am from Mozambique -- I don't read Polish, so I have no idea what is on his talk page. His edit summary was a warning to Malik Shabazz about 3RR -- he was showing someone the courtesy of warning that Malik had problems at hand. And why do I think yet another warning would have more effect? For starters, Radek received no initial warning from any neutral admin, let alone another one. Also, this is clearly a very sensitive subject to the various editors engaged here, and it is bringing out the worst in people -- I think Angus and Boodles have been equally uncivil in making fun of others, yet they are not being blocked (I didn't appreciate Angus calling my work "dreadful" -- of course, he is an admin and no other admin is going to touch him). Locking the page was a proper course of action, penalizing a single editor without advance warning that his specific actions are problematic, I believe, is not. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. it needs to be pointed out that Radek's last edit was at 1:12am, the article was locked at 7:09am, and Radek was blocked at 7:12am. Six hours passed between the final edit and the block, and Radek was blocked three minutes after it was impossible for him (or anyone) to do further edits. Considering it is now impossible for anyone to engage in edit warring on that article and that Radek was not cited for edit warring elsewhere, the block against Radek can be seen strictly as punishment rather than prevention of a continued edit war on that specific article. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The warning about warring in Polish was given to him after his last warring edit. One would think it should be enough unless he went back to more warring - in other words, he got a warning and a block soon afterwards, despite not having done anything in between (yes, I should have probably translated the warning into English, I was tired). Again: why Boodlesthecat and Malik get free without even a warning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)