This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Seraphimblade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at


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

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, 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.

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

Undeleting Article to Continue Working[edit]

I would like to be able to edit the page Gregorii as I think that it provides value to wikipedia. I was not finished with the article and have reputable references and citations to add. Also, there is historical content and descriptive info pertaining to an evolution of artistic stlye. It is not propaganda or promotion, but a page about an artist who is creating a new artistic process involving light that is changing the way digital art is viewed. I would really love the opportunity to update the article with the sources and with any other feedback you might provide. Thanks for the consideration.

--Tangerinecircus (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue that led to deletion is stuff like the following, though this is by no means an exhaustive list:
"...a unique, mood-provoking method..."
"...but something seemed to be missing. Gregorii wanted to incorporate a full emotional experience into the pieces..."
"...designed to completely immerse the viewer in the overall emotional experience felt by the artist..."
"...the grandest structural shape of our environment..."
"Oil lamps gave a lively look to the art..."
That is all spam and puff. The article was full of breathless exhortations like that, and we will never allow an article such as that, written like a glossy brochure. Also, the reference after the initial naming is "Trombo", not "Gregorii"; per our manual of style, we do not use the first name except to initially name the person. If you can show me some reliable sources that cover this person in depth, I'll try to help you with writing an appropriate article. If those do not exist, I'm afraid we won't be able to have such an article at all. But regardless, any article must be strictly neutral and based strictly upon content from those reliable sources, and not in any way serve as a promotional piece. For someone who does art, I imagine a neutral piece would seem rather dry and lifeless, but I'm afraid that's still a non-negotiable requirement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I have an updated version I'd like to resubmit. How should I do that? --Tangerinecircus

@Tangerinecircus: If you'd like to post it in a userspace draft, I'd be happy to take a look. Also, the lack of references was a significant issue, so if you'd like to note here what reference material is available for the article, I can give my thoughts on that as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've included reference and taken out the "fluff." If you could please review the revised edit here. I really appreciate your help and feedback.

Tangerinecircus The newer article is somewhat better, but stuff like "...tone for tone, pixel for pixel..." is still awfully fluffy, and is also totally unreferenced. It looks like a good portion of this article is written from personal knowledge instead. (One example: "Viewers of Gregorii’s art have commented..." Who? Where did they say it? How can we verify that?) The referencing is very light, but at least it includes a few unaffiliated sources. The bulk of the article looks to be from self-published material, so that will probably also need some cutting. Also, I do notice that this subject seems to have been your sole interest since joining Wikipedia. Please do consider if you might need to make the disclosures listed under the "Paid contributions without disclosure" heading located in the Terms of Use. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'll go through it again and see if I can add more references as well. I'm learning there is a big difference between journalistic writing and writing for wikis. Yes, this is my first article, but I wanted to make sure I could get something that works before attempting any more.  :)

OK. I updated again with more explanation and references and stripped out a bunch of the other stuff here. Thanks!

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]


How is asking her to recuse on the LB case not regarding this case? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Technically, I suppose it is "on topic", but the request has already been made and noted in several places. We've seen it, there's really no need to have it posted all over the place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Request[edit]

Dear Seraphimblade, I was trying to fix the health section of the Ramadan article. There are extremely dubious medical claims on that section titled as Benefits and their sources are not reliable for scientific topics. I first removed the content (and explained why I removed them) which I thought was not supported by RS's and looked like Fringe ideas. It was reverted and I was asked to seek consensus. I tried to do that, and further searched for scientific studies that may be useful for that section, and find out that claims in our article had no basis in any respected scientific study. You can see the discussion(or rather a monologue) here Some people in that talk page are quick to revert but really reluctant to address the issues. Do you think I should back up a bit or am I right to insist that those claims should be removed? I don't think we would accept a medical article to have these kind of claims with these sources, why should we allow them in other pages? Thanks in advance for help. Darwinian Ape talk 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Darwinian Ape: I would start by having a look at the standards for reliable sources for medical claims, which are normally more stringent than for other types of information as there is a lot of junk medical information floating around out there. WikiProject Medicine might be able to give you a much better analysis than I probably could, so you might consider asking for their thoughts as well. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again for your advice, the issue has been resolved. Darwinian Ape talk 00:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]