This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Seraphimblade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Please do be nice.

Please read before posting[edit]

  • Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.

  • If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
  • If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
  • If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
  • If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
  • While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
  • I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

Help to undelete my wikipedia page[edit]

Dear Seraphimblade,

You deleted a page on Delhi School of Internet Marketing. Since beginning, I tried my best to follow the wikipedia guidelines. Somehow, mistakenly don't know how the guidelines got violated and my page was deleted. Please reverse the Delhi School of Internet Marketing wikipedia page and suggest me with the guidelines to avoid the spam. I will definitely follow those and will bring the changes as per the norms. I really apologize and request you to help me out. The page was made to help students find the information and had always tried to keep it non-promotional.

Sincerely, WriterNeetin (talk)

Help! I messed up trying to fix a page you deleted[edit]

Dear Seraphimblade,

You deleted a page on Clinton Ehrlich. I was trying to fix the draft of the article, but I'm not very good at using Wikipedia. Somehow I managed to instead create a new article called "Clinton ehrlich," with improper capitalization. I'm sorry for the trouble.

Could you please review the article to ensure that I've fixed the problems you identified? And, if so, would you please help me to correct the capitalization error?

I really appreciate it. Sorry for causing a mess.

Sincerely, KirkTiberius (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@KirkTiberius: You did a copy-and-paste "move" of the article, which violates our attribution requirements. I deleted the version you moved accordingly. The article still looks to have some serious issues, so I wouldn't be comfortable helping to move it. Please submit your draft for review through the articles for creation process. If a reviewer approves the draft to go into mainspace, they'll move it over for you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Angie Craig draft[edit]

Got time to move Draft:Angie_Craig to an article? Or to tell me what needs to be changed in the draft? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: I'd probably look into doing either complete paraphrases of the "partial sentence" quotes. Stuff like Craig is a "native" of Eagan, Minnesota. Is that a scare quote, or is she genuinely a native? If there's some controversy over that, we ought to explain what's in dispute about it, by whom, and why, not just use a scare quote, and if there's no dispute over it, we ought to just take the quotes off. Similarly, stuff like Lewis (like Trump) is "an entrepreneur and media personality, whose blunt rhetoric is refreshingly honest to some, simply offensive to others", while Craig (like Clinton) is "a tough female leader with moderate positions, ties to big business, and a penchant for pantsuits." Well, first, the parenthetical "(like Trump)" and "(like Clinton)" need to either go, if they're just someone editorializing, or else they need to be explained. Who compared them to Trump and Clinton? Why did they say so? That's something that would need to be attributed, not just "in Wikipedia's voice" in a parenthetical. And the changing from paraphrasing to quoting midsentence makes attribution of the quote really hard to figure, not to mention makes it confusing as to what we're attributing and what is "in Wikipedia's voice". If it's very important to have the direct quotes, they should be split off, else we ought to just paraphrase the entire way through. Those would be the main things I'd see. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: Who compared them to Trump and Clinton? Note sentence prior Area alternative weekly City Pages describes the campaign as resembling the 2016 presidential campaign. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty clear. We'd just need to take the parentheticals out then. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:parentheticals replaced by dashes. satisfactory? --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Rereation of Article Sharon Joseph[edit]

Hello, I wanted to create an article of South Indian Playback Singer Sharon Joseph, that is when I saw a message saying that this was an article that had been created earlier and had been deleted and I had to forward the request of recreation of the same to you. Do I have the permission of recreating the same? Hoping for a positive revert from you. Thank you very much in anticipation. --Kalepradip (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (IST)

Well, you don't strictly have to, but it doesn't hurt to ask. The prior article was deleted since it was promotional. Remember that we don't allow promotional content on Wikipedia at all. Additionally, if you are being paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia, there are some disclosures you'll need to take care of making before you begin to edit. These disclosures are mandatory if that is the case. Once that's taken care of, you should start the article as a draft, at Draft:Sharon Joseph. Once you think the article is ready, an experienced editor will review your draft, and either move it to the encyclopedia or call attention to any problems that need to be corrected first. When writing the article, bear in mind our policies on neutrality and sourcing. Make sure you have available plenty of source material that meets our requirements for reliability and was produced independently of the article subject (not by the subject or someone else with an interest in promoting them). If substantial amounts of such reference material can't be found, we can't accept an article on the subject at all. That's a point to start. If you'd like my advice once you start your draft, feel free to ping me here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Seraphimblade. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Finch (production)[edit]

Hi, Please can you advise why you speedily deleted my page? All sources are verifiable, all content is factually true and the page is intended to show facts and information only. Michaelhilliard (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Michaelhilliard: The article was deleted for being promotional. The entire thing read like an ad brochure, with a full client list, a big laundry list of awards, and a list of "notable projects" (notable according to whom?). Very little of the material was supported by any kind of reliable reference. Wikipedia articles must be strictly neutral in both tone and content; we do not permit advertising, marketese, "copy", or PR. Additionally, we do not permit articles written like a "company profile" rather than an encyclopedia article. Finally, it had just purely inappropriate stuff like "... at the intersection of storytelling, entertainment and technology." We don't use purple phrasing like that. I will note, as standard when an article is deleted as promotion, that there are some disclosures which must be made if you are paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia, including if you do so as part of your employment duties. If that would apply to you, please take care of those prior to editing further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

writer needed[edit]

Hi, we are social media advertsing agency in Saudi Arabia and we would like to create a page for a bank in Saudi Arabia. I was wondering if you can do it for us with paid job of course. Please let me know if you are interested in doing so. My e-mail address is Thank you Noor Rashi (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Noor

@Noor Rashi: I'll give you some credit for at least asking openly. I don't do paid work on Wikipedia, though. You might try Wikipedia:Requested articles. Do keep in mind a few things, however.
  • Anyone who is paid, compensated, or employed to edit Wikipedia, including who does so as a duty of employment, must disclose that fact. I'm glad you're doing so now, but you should have done so prior to editing. Paid editing without such disclosure is not permitted by our terms of use.
  • Such editors must abide by our conflict of interest rules. Generally speaking, that means they should be writing a draft of a new article to be reviewed by a neutral editor, or for existing articles, should be suggesting changes on the article talk page rather than making them directly.
  • Articles must be on a subject which is notable. This means that substantial amounts of reliable reference material independent of the article subject must be available. If such reference material is not available, we can't have an article on the subject at all. If you know where to find reference material of that type, pointing it out is always helpful.
  • This is not just arbitrary. Requiring such referencing is how we keep articles neutral. Wikipedia articles are not permitted to advertise or promote anyone or anything.
Please do keep this in mind if you're planning on hiring someone to edit. Also, if you (or they) receive a warning or are told what you're doing is unacceptable, don't just keep doing it, stop and figure out what the problem is before you continue. When you keep at something unacceptable, you wind up with a situation like we've got here, where I've now protected the page because advertising was posted repeatedly. Of course, if an acceptable draft were written and accepted, it would be unprotected at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello. Following this comment you made at AE, could you please also comment on the case directly above it? It also involves a 1RR violation and outright refusal to discuss the reverts. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And a related question: is administrator shopping a violation of WP:CANVAS? Zerotalk 23:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: It would seem that it is. I'll comment on the AE threads I care to review and have time to, but it makes no difference if I'm canvassed to check on something. If I don't have the time, there are plenty of other AE admins who do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
If it's a CANVASS violation then I withdraw my request. It never occurred to me it might be a problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Angie Craig draft[edit]

Got time to move Draft:Angie_Craig to an article? Or to tell me what needs to be changed in the draft? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not an AfC reviewer. You've got it up for review. Wait for that to take place please. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your service (2015 Film) Page deletion[edit]

Dear Seraphimblade,

You deleted a page on Thank You For Your Service (2015 Film). I do not understand why the page was deleted because it had been existing before recent edits began. The only problems were with "advertising" which I could not locate and there is no specific accusation. If you have specific problems I will change the page, but I need the original page up to even understand what went wrong. I would really appreciate if you could put the page back up, either in it's original format or recent formats, that would be very helpful because I do not want to have to start all over again.

I apologize for causing some errors, but I do not feel the page in it's entirety should be put down.

Sincerely, User:Weicj100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Weicj100: Here's a sampling (note, not an exhaustive list) of the problems:
  • A laundry list of awards. And apparently that's not even quite enough, they have to get called "accolades". Normally, we would include only major, very notable awards, and we'd call them that.
  • "Thank You for Your Service takes aim at our superficial understanding of war trauma and the failed policies that result." We don't use second person like "our" in articles. Also, according to whom is this understanding "superficial"?
  • "Observing the systemic neglect, the film argues for significant internal cha nge and offers a roadmap of hope." Huh? What does this mean? What specific subjects does it cover? How? In a synopsis, we're looking for detail and information, not a "teaser".
  • "The film received positive reviews...". The Village Voice article cited does not say or support that. We take falsification of references very seriously; anything written must be supported by the references used for it. In that same sentence, saying it was listed as "one of the best", when it really just got a brief blurb in an article providing summations of over a dozen films, is rather misleading.
  • It was clearly created as part of an advertising campaign. Your previous account was blocked for that. You shouldn't be editing at all, it is considered block evasion and sockpuppetry to create a new account and edit with it when one is blocked. I understand you may not have known that, but now you do. You will, instead, need to make a convincing unblock request on the previous account. Given that you don't recognize the serious problems with your previous articles, and have not specified how you intend to manage your conflict of interest, I certainly am not convinced enough to do so. You're going to need to convince someone that you understand what the problems were, and that they aren't going to happen again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]