User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What if one discovers evidence of conspiracy against one?

Saw that you had a sensible comment on the David Abrahams, including to, JzG so thought rather than put this on the BLP discussion page where people were calling me paranoid, I'd just ask you personally. I was watching this users page for an ongoing discussion and discovered this posting. Entitled "oh, carol" one editor replies to the User's suggestion he watch changes on an article (Not Abrahams) by discussing "inflaming" me and "going large" on me. The language does sound rather conspiratorial, doesn't it? Just because one is paranoid.... Should I bring a complaint somewhere? Or just answer them there and them it's bad wiki policy to conspire like that. Or both. Advice welcome! 00:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Post From My Talk Page

Would you please explain why you took it upon yourself to delete someone else's post from my talk page? ----Rodzilla (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You did it to me too. Why? ~Richmond96 t • c 17:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And, mine too. Newguy34 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing cleanup. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
You did it on my page as well. It's not cleanup, it's vandalism, making you a vandal. If you do it again, I report you as such. Ndenison talk 18:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC on College Football logos

As the NFCC talk page was becoming difficult to navigate, I have moved the RFC to a subpage at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos. If you had the talkpage watchlisted, you may wish to add the subpage also. Best, Black Kite 11:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your input my Survey results

Hey Searphim, I would love to get your input on the various CSD Survey's that I've done. So far the people who have reviewed them have agreed with most of my analysis... although, there are some where there are differences. I have no doubt that you'll have a different take on some of them than me, but that is why I would like your input. You have a different philosophical perspective on CSD. The surveys are: A1, g1, A7 and g10... but the G10 was pretty straight forward.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! I've left my first opinions for A1 at User talk:Balloonman/CSD A1 survey, I'll leave the remainder on the respective talk pages as I look over them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds great... I know that the other two people who have commented on them, hold similar views to my own, so I appreciate the input from the dark side of CSD ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Jenny Hendrix

Hi Seraphimblade
I had left you a message at Talk:Jenny Hendrix, not sure if you are watching it after you last change.
Cheers, Amalthea 02:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, the name bits aren't worth it anymore. Pretty soon, every one of our BLP articles are going to read "[name redacted] is a [removed for privacy] from [privacy] known for [don't violate privacy] born in [private information removed]." Maybe then we can remember why we have this. Until then, not a fight worth having at this time apparently. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't looking for a fight, and that she put it on public record herself in the whois info could actually convince me to re-add it. I was also not looking to remove private information at random, if it were published in even one respectable source then I'd be fully OK with it. Thus far though, the only more or less reliable source I knew of was this article, which reads to me like a horribly biased tabloid piece, pretty much only disparaging her. That combined with the indication that she doesn't want her real name known and that she is only notable through her pseudonym made it seem like an easy choice in this particular case.
Anyway, thanks for getting back. I obviously haven't been in as many of those discussions as you have, judging by your weariness, so I might not be looking at the big picture. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 04:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I already found the big picture here and here. Especially given that I initially pushed for BLP in its early stages, and told those who thought it would be taken too far things like "The community would never stand for this being used to exclude properly sourced information", it's a bit of a sore spot, since I feel like quite the naive jackass, at least in that regard, and the people I was telling that to predicted basically this exact scenario. It's nothing against you, I'm sure your intents are the best, but I personally believe "Follow the sources, don't second-guess them" is the only way to maintain NPOV on a project of this scale. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright. FWIW, I seem to be somewhere in the middle here. I fully agree with you on Star Wars kid, if each and every reference we list in the article names him then there's just no reason to omit it in his encyclopaedic article. It was harder to find the name of the Richardson girl, it was only mentioned in one news source that I could find, so I'm OK with leaving it out.
Anyway, thanks for initiating me into the gory depths of this issue, and have a merry christmas (or the equivalent of your tradition). :)
Cheers, Amalthea 04:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holiday season

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.
Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

While some of us may find ourselves in disagreement (to put it mildly), I think it's important to remember that ultimately, we work toward the same goal—a free repository of knowledge, and maybe a little better world. So while there are far too many people to thank individually for that, I hope everyone watching this page has a wonderful and happy holiday, of whatever variety they may choose to celebrate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Regarding your edit,[1] Jossi is in fact involved in the case; he remains a named party until/unless the arbitrators remove his name from the case and his actions remain subject to their scrutiny. Did he specifically ask you to remove the post of my offer from his user talk? If so, then barring a fuller explanation I will interpret that (per your edit note) as his rejection of my offer. If any further words are appropriate, please respond. Best regards for a good holiday season, DurovaCharge! 04:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was at his request via email. He didn't indicate anything but a wish not to have it in his userspace, and barring extraordinary circumstances I'll generally honor such requests from retired editors. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 05:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A true CSD Survey

Well, I've gone through a number of CSD nominations from the past month and found about 40 that I thought might pose interesting questions on how people perform CSD's. Basically, I'm asking people to review the article in question and answering the question, "how would you handle this" with one of four options: 

  1. Agree with criteria for deletion.
  2. Disagree with criteria for deletion, but would delete the article under another criteria.
  3. Disagree with the criteria for deletion, but this is a situation where IAR applies.
  4. Disagree with speedily deleting the article.

To see the surveys, go to this page. I'm hoping to get a good mix of people to participate in the surveys---people who agree with my interpretation of CSD and people who have different views. I'll post the results in a couple of weeks after getting a decent return.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.


The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 45 24 November 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: 200th issue 
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones 
Wikipedia in the news Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 46 1 December 2008 About the Signpost
ArbCom elections: Elections open Wikipedia in the news 
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System Features and admins 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 5, Issue 1 3 January 2009 About the Signpost
From the editor: Getting back on track 
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK 
Editing statistics show decline in participation Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting 
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments Dispatches: Featured list writers 
Wikipedia in the news WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New straw poll

You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — talk 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your input requested

Your input is requested. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 2 10 January 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: December themed Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [2]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CyGamZ

This article has been recreated after a previous deletion discussion, which you closed. The gaming center is now closed, which further (in my opinion) proves it's lack of notability. While I could just speedy G4 the thing, as an involved party in the AfD, I would like another set of eyes to affirm my view of the subject. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 3 17 January 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom Wikipedia in the news 
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 4 24 January 2009 About the Signpost
Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices 
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet 
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 05:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Your input requested again

Your input is requested again, at User_talk:Hammersoft#Time_for_the_next_step. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose?

Your opinion on WP:FICT is unclear, do you oppose? If so, I suggest putting *'''Oppose''' thanks Ikip (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I oppose bolded pseudo-votes in such cases. I don't agree with the guideline in its current form, and would agree with it if some changes were made to clarify restrictions or it did not attempt to loosen the requirements of WP:N, which subguidelines cannot do. I hope that by omitting bolding the opinion will be read rather than a nose-count taken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 5 31 January 2009 About the Signpost
Large portion of articles are orphans News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored 
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on Dispatches: In the news 
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

Please stop removing the non-free images from Zinta's page before discussing the matter and reaching consensus. This issue has been running on Wikipedia for a very long time. Almost all the BLP FACs (specifically on actors and filmmakers) use images which are fair use. It is because it's important to show an actor in some of his roles, and that his called critical commentary (on the film and its contents). The images add a lot to the understanding of the subject and provide a critical commentary on the film and its contents, just like the license requires. See the rationale first.

After that go and fight all those who supported the inclusion of FU images in such articles. Start new discussions - just like I started back in time, then reach consensus, and then -- remove all the free images from all the FACs of BLP actors and filmmakers. You are the one who has to start a discussion. The fact that the article passed FAC with these images says it all. The oppose of the one who opposed to the images on the FAC did not stop Raul from promoting it. Go and see the FAC, the subsequent discussions which took place on numerous noticeboards. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 13:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't act as God who knows all the answers and takes all the decisions. You're wasting your time. You are the one who changes something that was accepted and well discussed - so you are the one who must start a discussion first before changing. You say the images are not permitted according to this policy. I say it is permitted according to this very policy (later in this message). You just remove and don't even try to explain on what particular basis - because clearly you yourself can't really do that. If numerous BLPs on actors pass FAC and get promoted when they include so many images - it means a lot. Or will you say that you're the only one who understands this policy and all the ones who took part in those FACs are blind or dumb?
And what I see particularly wrong in your perception of the issue is that "it was not caught during the FAC". With this particaular article this issue has been discussed a lot. In peer reviews, in FACs, in noticeboards, in talk pages. Do you think that after that you can come and do one edit and cancel all that happenned? Start a discussion first!
Secondly, there's much to discuss. First, you say: "'Replaceable' means"... Interesting, who are you to decide what replaceable means? Replaceable is whether a particular image can be replaced. Images which were aken during shootings and screenshots are not replaceable. Replaceable means (from the policy): "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" - so here you see that your words are misleading. These images are not replaceable. Nobody said that just other images of hers but that have the same effect. In this case, screenshots from films
Thirdly, please read this: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - that's exactly what I worked for. These images were chosen specifically, and their rationales are amazingly elaborated and well written.
Apart from this, each rationale explains why the images provide a critical commentary on the film and its contents. This is what the copyright license asks for.
Do you have anything else to say? You are not dealing with fools, that's for sure. Next time you remove the images I'll ask for admin help. If you still think these images are not permitted, start a dscussion. Y-o-u must start a discussion, because what you're doing now is an attempt to create an edit war. Shahid • Talk2me 07:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, 3RR applies to reverts made in 24 hours. Secondly, We have both reverted each other's revisions. The difference between you and me is that you had gone against something which had been discussed by both admins and well established editors on different and many occasions, and I only tried to move to the talk page. And no, I did not ignore any of the messages posted on the talk page. I talked in personal to every editor who had raised concerns (ie Black Kite who decided not to go on with his objections).
Thirdly and most importantly, you yourself misinterpreted the policy and mispresented its criteria (at least in this particular case). Both Blofeld and I tried to explain why these images are acceptable and are not in violation of any policy. My previous message to you (you can re-read it if you want) explains why it does not go against the policy and its criteria that according to you are violated. My explanations, along with the long rationales the image files contain, say it all (and perfectly). Shahid • Talk2me 17:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
They won't be removed. And if they are, they'll come back. They are not replaceable, however hard it hurts you. Your explanations are incorrect not mine. You're saying things without any basis on policy. I'm on the other hand taking full quotes to explain every single criterion that supports its inclusion. If great editors that review FACs on a daily basis agreed with this fact, discussed it in different places and did not remove it eventually, neither will you.
And now go to the talk page. And BTW, again, your way of talking as if you own this entire website and take all the decisions is very wrong. You will have to discuss - and if you have nothing to say about all my explanations (which show that you yourself don't really understand the policy you're presenting) except for "I will remove", it means you don't have any argument to back, so it's better for you to give up, because I never do. Shahid • Talk2me 18:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Dear Seraphimblade, would you be willing to provide a second opinion in a convoluted dispute? The issues relate to WP:V and WP:OR. The article in question is Scriptural reasoning and its (very long) talk page. Many thanks for considering this. Thelongview (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Again

Look, you left the discussion where you were left with no words to say. Both Blofeld and I proved perfectly why these images do not violate policy. We also adhere to policies. If you think they do, continue the discussion, because many other editors claim the images are permitted, and you are the only one who removes them. The discussions show clearly what makes these images acceptable. You had nothing to say, and now you return deviously to the article itself as if no discussion happened?

No no no. You first discuss, come to consensus, explain why the images violate the policy (you didn't do that. You only cited the policy and the criterion, to which I wrote a long message which explains the opposite and disproves your words) and then remove from all the FA BLPs actors. Shahid • Talk2me 07:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Last warning

I've already consulted an admin so I hope for you your warning will not turn into a boomerang code.

This issue has always been debatable as you can see and it was heavily discussed on several talk pages, including the FAC and the article talk page (where it was perfectly proved that the images do NOT violate the criteria and they are NOT replaceable). You left the discussions with the last words being ours (of Blofeld and mine), you have to fight all those who supported the inclusion of these images at FAC, and the other discussions it had. Then you have to remove such images from such articles as Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy etc.

You did not explain why these images violate WP:NFCC, while I did explain why they don't and how they make it fulfilled. The last word i not yours. You are literally nobody to take the decisions. And therefore I warn you here:

Please stop! If you continue to remove images against consensus and policies, without discussing it properly, you will be blocked from editing. Shahid • Talk2me 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Incivility in the Armenian Genocide area

I don't know how to make a particular report about an editor under restriction who is making personal attacks, so I figured I should just come to you. User:Meowy has been posting to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Mehmed Talat, making attacks against Ibrahim4048, as well as me. Also, I have small suspicion that he used User:onlyoneanswer as a sockpuppet, but I don't think there is enough evidence to be close to sure, as it was a single-purpose account. I'm not sure of the proper route in this case, so I'd appreciate it if you'd look into it. Tealwisp (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

After another personal attack, I have decided to simply take this issue to AN/I. Tealwisp (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards

Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

user:Meowy

Please see "As I have said on a number of occasions in the past, I do not recognise both the validity of those particular arbcom restrictions and my placement under those restrictions. I would like to now formally discuss my concerns about the latter point (what I consider to be my invalid placement under those AA2 restrictions)", this post by user:Meowy. --PBS (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Backmaun Back, Mon?

Dear Seraphimblade,

I am writing this to you because you were the one who closed the inquiry into the sockpuppetry of User: Mattisse re: User: Backmaun, User: Alien666 and User: RasputinJSvengali two years ago, and you wrote at that time that I should "please report back with any additional problems". I'm not sure how to open a case about this, or if it should be a report of a suspected violation of a previous block, or what, so I'm hoping you can help me get this posted to the proper place.

I am concerned that the sockpuppeteer who went as User:RasputinJSvengali, User:BackMaun, and User:Alien666 (who I suspected might be connected with User:Mattisse) may be back as User:67.177.27.74. I originally contacted Thatcher, since he was the one who indefinitely blocked them[3], but he replied that he no longer has Checkuser.

I have noticed similar activity on some of the same articles once edited/vandalized by them. Examples include the introduction, four times, of “Satanists” in the section of Starwood Festival that pertains to attendees by User:67.177.27.74[4].

User:RasputinJSvengali made the same edit here: [5] and here [6] and here [7]. He was indefinitely blocked on April 26th, 2007 by Thatcher [8]

This user edits articles once heavily edited by User:Hanuman Das and his socks like User:Alabaster Crow, User:Tunnels of Set and User:Khabs such as Illuminates of Thanateros, and Chaos Magick (also edited by BackMaun, RasputinJSvelgali and Mattisse). The edits of User: 67.177.27.74 have a lot of similarity to those of RasputinJSvengali, Alien666 and BackMaun. Those editors were determined to be one, and in the same decision it was stated that they shared an I.P. address with User: Mattisse. I don’t know why that is, but Mattisse had a series of contentious interactions with me, the Hanuman Das group, and User: JeffersonAnderson, who Thatcher had determined was victimized by RasputinJSvengali, Alien666 and BackMaun.

Perhaps there is no conclusive evidence that Mattisse is involved, but I felt I should mention it since the original case was the fourth one concerning her sockpuppetry, and they all seem to contend in the same way about the same articles. In any case, judging by his talk page and those of the articles involved, User: 67.177.27.74 is certainly being contentious, and he/she is vandalizing the Starwood Festival article in the same way that RasputinJSvengali did, which he was told could not stand without documentation. The attempt to associate satanists with Neo-Pagans is one of the banes of the Neo-Pagan Movement, and regarded as quite as vile as the historic blood-libel accusations against Jews.

I hope you can help me out. Rosencomet (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Seraphimblade, I have not heard from you. Should I expect to? Rosencomet (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dread Central, is it notable yet?

Hi, since you're the last person to delete the several-times-deleted "Dread Central" article, I'm wondering if you can advise me whether it might now be notable enough for an article. Google News indexes the site as a news source, and the site is currently hosting the work of Robert "Bob" Martin [me], a fairly notable person in the horror world [even if I say so myself, which I do...and yes, I have contributed to my own entry, but very carefully!].

You can't measure everything with money, but these guys are paying me as well as any magazine publisher ever has, and they've been around a few years now. The last discussion for deletion was fairly "iffy," and it was 2 years ago. What would you say is needed to prove notability? Bustter (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wall ball

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wall ball. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall ball. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo article you gave a second opinion on last year

Seraphimblade, I'm going through and cleaning up the mess I made of Jetsunma's article. I wasn't straight with you guys, though my spin-doctoring against Jetsunma was pretty obvious to the Wiki community I'm sure. I did not have scholarly integrity in how I wrote the article about Jetsunma, cherry-picking negative information to put together as negative a picture as possible -- even more negative than the most critical materials out there. I knew what to use because I was one of the main sources on the book, The Buddha From Brooklyn, which is major conflict of interest as well (especially since I didn't admit my involvement and presented myself as an outside party and then used that book extensively for the article). In fact, my real name is Michelle Grissom, formerly known as Ani Dechen, and am actually a student who broke with Jetsunma in 1996. I was one of the main reasons the book was so slanted against Jetsunma. I was not honest in that book either, slanting information exactly the same way I did here on Wikipedia: I used things that weren't really a problem for me because I knew they would upset non-Buddhists. Describing a confrontation where -- after 8 years of my rebelling against the monastic community and my breaking my monastic vows -- she yelled at me and swatted me once, I called it a "beating," simply because the police term for any kind physical contact is battery. I swept my own behavior that led to this under the rug. Jetsunma has been divorced several times, to men who either were or later became her students, and I used that in the article to make her look like she was sleeping her way through her students. I also used the generosity of her students as a way to paint her as being very greedy, even though she's never even asked for a salary, and blamed her for the ongoing struggle to build a monastery, even though the main reason the monastery hasn't been built is that the land bought for it doesn't perk. I've taken all the spin-doctoring out of the article and I am very, very sorry I abused Wiki for my own personal vendetta. Longchenpa (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing
—Kww(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved comment from misposted position

Todd, here is an article from the New York Times that mentions Web del Sol and Michael Neff as the founder. Is this not good enough as good sourcing simply because the entire article isn't about him?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/books/review/03ORRL.html?pagewanted=6

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandpalaver (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for commenting. I returned here because I wasn't sure how to respond on the page with your comments.

Please help me here. If I say he is a director of WebdelSol.Com, e.g., and point you to a page at the website where it makes it obvious this is the truth, why is this disputable or insufficient? If I link to an article from ArtsWire about his assisting the ACLU, what could be better proof of what I am saying? You demand an entire article devoted only to him? It doesn't make sense. Why would a bona fide article that notes his contribution be insufficient for you?

If I link to his film and it is made obvious on the website (and the interview mentions it also) he is the author of the film why is this disputable or insufficient? If I link to Wikipedia articles referencing him, e.g., as the founder of Del Sol Press, why is this insufficient proof? If I link to his novel at Amazon, why is this disputable or not enough proof?

As far as Notability, if you are of the personal opinion that editors of independent presses who are also first time authors and directors of literary web portals, etc. are not notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, I can't help that. You are the one in power here. I must respectfully disagree and I will spend time listing many other literary types who should also be taken off Wikipedia if Michael Neff isn't qualified in your opinion. This is really baffling!

I do not know what was on the page previously, but I made sure and include links to everything I say.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandpalaver (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello. I just added a new "Michael Neff" page with linked factual sources directly in Wikipedia and you instantly deleted it. All the statements are verifiable. It makes no sense to me. He is an established author and contributor to the literary scene with far more credentials than others established on Wikipedia.

I see you call yourself a "deletionist" and that's fine, but a spontaneous deletionist or reasonless deletionist is another matter altogether. The sources I included for Michael Neff are totally verifiable. Please reconsider this action.

He IS the founder of Del Sol Press, he IS the published author of Year of The Rhinoceros, etc. For you, in effect, to call us both liars in the face of obvious evidence doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandpalaver (talk • contribs) 22:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Artsandpalaver (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

T,

If you wish me to specifically delete any mention of the fact that he is the founder and director of Algonkian Writer Conferences because that qualifies as "selling his stuff" then I will do so, but for the record I find that arbitrary and often not an issue with other writers, artists, etc. who have galleries or editorial businesses or some such who are not disallowed from this. How is the mere inclusion of a major corporate business on Wikipedia not interpreted as "selling stuff"?

Also, left other message for you. In general, I want to work with you but find your issues too vague to understand exactly what course of action to take. All of my sources are thin or some or? I don't understand.

Artsandpalaver (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just left another note trying to understand exactly what you are getting at. I feel like I am going insane at this point, seriously.

Let's cut to the chase. Either Neff is sufficiently notable or he isn't. I've provided proof of my claims regarding his authorship, press, wds.com, and so forth. These indisputable facts, in my opinion, make him notable. If that isn't enough in your mind to make him notable, then just say so and let's stop gaming around here. It is fruitless and so tiring. If on the other hand, you want more bio info, I'll supply it. If you want me to stop "selling his stuff" excessively (which I fail to comprehend) then tell me exactly what to delete and I'll stop trying to guess.

Artsandpalaver (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Todd,

Just for clarification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Allen ... Are you more notable than Neff because you filled out your appearances on IMDB as opposed to the confirmed existence of an ongoing operating literary press, literary community portal that gets thousands of page views daily, a debut literary novel, etc etc as well as a literary journal, e.g., that Neff founded and edits on a regular basis and that evidently publishes really good literary writers and poets? I'm trying to understand why you are notable enough for W and Neff is not. One of your links to an article is dead and the other to one review about you? Why is this review such great sourcing, e.g., more important in XYZ Canadian source just because it talks about you than a proof, e.g., that Neff, according to the New York Times, is the founder and editor of Web del Sol, the most important literary website on the Internet since 1994? It was the NYT! The NYT listening Neff's website as one of the TOP TEN on the Web, and to you this means he isn't notable enough? And this is just one thing. Is it because you work in more of a film medium? More of an entertaininment medium? Don't you think you have a distinct bias in making a decision you are notable over others like Neff in "lesser" mediums you deem not notable? And you are a comedian on top of it all! You seem from your website that you are an affable fellow. Why then, oh why are you being such a dictatorial fellow now and busting my dearly tired and adorable chops with all this stuff?

btw, Neff continuously edits and maintains Web del Sol, and this is just one thing. What do you do right now, right this moment, that makes you more important, meaningful, or notable than Neff in this one area alone? I'd argue that a man who publishes literature with his own press is more notable than you and your pursuits no matter what references you have. That is obviously my bias. You are judging Neff with your own biases, not with anything else. Isn't this evident?

You fault Neff, e.g., for not having a specific article written about his serving the ACLU, deeming the link I provided to be unimportant even though it proved the contention, and together with everything else, proves Neff is notable, i.e., Neff was instrumental in those years for being a daring plaintiff who challenged conservatives in their own states. He did the same thing in Michigan and I published an article myself and linked it to the WikiP page you deleted that proves he worked with the Government Accountability Project on free speech issues. Not one of these by itself is important, but to sum it up, the man publishes speech and protects it with his own skin. How is that less notable than your various comedic appearances and small film roles, etc? Can you tell me? And how is anything you've written more notable than Neff's novel, Year of The Rhinoceros? Do you think, honestly, you would have the same reaction if you were not a Canadian but an American? Would these issues be more notable to you, or do you think you are totally free of biases of any kind?

What makes you so notable, Todd Allen?

Artsandpalaver (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Assistance on Involuntary euthanasia

Involuntary euthanasia

I made an edition on involuntary euthanasia. But Ratel deletes it again and again. We discussed Ratel's questions, but now he is not giving arguments but acussations. He says the gramar must be improved but doesn't help but deletes. Therefore here I'm asking for an editor assitance.

See the discussion here: Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia#Murder

This is my edition and the quote box I added to the article:

Also in the modern world, any euthanasia, thus also involuntary euthanasia refers to some special legal situations, precisely some specific legal exceptions. For example in the Netherlands, euthanasia has not be decriminalized nor legalized by any means but it is illegal and defined in the Criminal Code as murder, although under certain conditions, the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person[9] (Groningen Protocol is an example).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Involuntary_euthanasia&diff=323488822&oldid=323469068

"...The Committee is well aware that the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide...The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person"

UN - Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Netherlands.[10]

190.25.99.55 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Replying here, since you're editing anonymously. I do see where an issue might arise with your edit, as it seems to contradict itself (it states that the act is not decriminalized, but then states that people will not be punished for it under certain circumstances, which is in essence what decriminalization is.) I think, given that, you may wish to discuss with other editors how you can more clearly express what the current situation is without confusing article readers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Characters of Final Fantasy VIII

This page was never used. The project does not use subpages for assessments. It seems to have been one user's idea to make it. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is still not common practice, or a speedy criterion, to delete such pages. If you believe deletion is warranted, you're welcome to file it at miscellany for deletion, but generally, even largely unused project space pages are kept as archival. The reason I didn't speedy it, however, is that since it's not a settled question whether we delete such pages, I can't call that an uncontroversial deletion—I don't know if it would be or not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, but I listed it at MfD. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Seraphimblade. You have new messages at Basket of Puppies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basket of Puppies 16:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dry glue

You declined the speedy but left the tag on. Any objections to me taking it off - I found a load of info sitting in the Van der Waals force article which I have moved into this one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very odd—I did some basic wikification here and removed the speedy with it [11], but it seems it crossed over your hangon request and that somehow put it back [12]. Seems that should've edit conflicted, but for some reason it didn't. Anyway, removed it again, hopefully decides to stay gone this time! Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to have been a lot of that going on recently - I wonder if an update to the software is generating it? Anyway, thanks for removing (again). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ongar the World-Weary

Thanks for watching this page as well...I've put a notice at ANI, an RFPP, and an AIV notice on the one named user (not an IP) who've been doing this...I've also e-mailed the user themselves in the hopes of them returning someday soon! Frmatt (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Del Sol Press

I was looking up Del Sol Press today and I noticed an edit made by [13] Artsandpalaver that removed critical information about the press (it was actually exactly what I came looking for). I've left him or her a note on their talk page, but I'm not a user and don't usually have access to Wikipedia in my home country, so I thought maybe you would be interested. This person seems like they're affiliated with the press, to me, but I don't know if there are rules against that or not. 222.62.120.189 (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The information removed was not cited to a reliable source, so, per our policy on verifiability, it is subject to removal by anyone at any time. If you can find a reliable source supporting that there was a delay, you can add that back, citing the source. If it's just someone's personal knowledge that this occurred, however, and it wasn't reported in a reliable source, then it wouldn't be appropriate to include. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sophia Stewart

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sophia Stewart. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Stewart. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

iPod Touch images

Hi! The (informal) decision reached a few months ago was that a free photograph or rendering with a black screen of a multi-touch device would not serve the purpose of illustrating the subject. It would look like a black rounded rectangle; it would be utterly unhelpful. I think that the only way to represent the product is Apple's image. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not tend to agree, many of the iPods are represented that way. "Replaceable" doesn't mean "as nice", it just means "could be replaced". It's also possible Apple might release some type of publicity photo under CC-BY-SA if you asked—Wikipedia is a large site, and they may want an image here that way! But if not, we could replace the image with free content. The question at that point is not whether we'd like to, it's required. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
iPods have a hardware interface, so renderings can replace it. And Apple, the super-secretive company with a fierce legal team and an army of animators who make these images, they are NOT going to give us images. Although they have let us get away with what is apparently an invalid fair use rationale. Besides, they want people to see their products in the best light, not as lifeless shells. But, I've found some renderings on Commons of the iPod Touchs. What it comes down to is if File:IPod Touch 2.0.png does something File:IPod Touch 2G.svg doesn't. I'm working on improving the renderings, but I would like to have some time and bring in some other opinions before we hit delete, okay?. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone's welcome to comment on the issue. I do stand by what I've said, but as it's I who placed the tag, it would obviously be inappropriate for me to also decide on deletion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. And I fixed the link to the rendering; there's also File:IPod Touch 1G.svg. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles

Hi. In among all the rubble of the (well closed) WP:ANI#Request_for_more_eyes_on_a_volatile_situation_regarding_The_Troubles section, I thought that the WP:ANI#Discretionary_sanctions_for_Troubles_articles offered a glimmer of hope for the future. My assessment is that there was quite a bit of support, a few were on the fence, and a good number of participants wanted broader participation or were in fight or flight mode. Where to from here? or, Did you really mean to snuff that out along with the Vintagekits mess? John Vandenberg (chat) 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I did mean to close the whole thing, and I'm afraid if we leave that where it is it'll just attract those who weren't quite ready to be done with the Vintagekits discussion. If you see some hope in it, though, I've certainly no objection to putting the current discussion in its own section away from the rest and continuing it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless you feel that the Discretionary Sanctions discussion was to be closed as "no consensus", then yes, I'd appreciate if you could either re-open it or move it elsewhere. It was a side thread, related to Troubles, but not directly related to the VK block. --Elonka 05:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. I sure hope you're right, something's got to solve these issues where real life conflict spills over here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that works!  :) --Elonka 05:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
All very curious. I think the sanctions "more eyes" discussion that was closed should not have been re-opened; and the other discussion should be closed as there is clearly no "consensus". If we had some matching draconian sanctions available for Admins who administer bad blocks I'd be more open to consider sanctions. Sarah777 (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
And Admins who dismiss the votes of a whole host of opposed editors (the folk who are actually writing the articles, btw) as "Turkeys not voting for Christmas" shouldn't be let within an ass's roar of troubles-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DeshiCafe

Hello, you just deleted User talk:DeshiCafe, a page that I had tagged. This was a recreation of a deleted article by the same user. Should the person be warned any further? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't worry about it too much. If you should need to report them to WP:AIV at some point, I'd note that their talk page was deleted, but it seems they've gotten the point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbulus Xax's RfA

Thanks, Seraphimblade, for supporting me in my RFA. It passed unanimously. I am very grateful of your input – if you have any further comments, let me know!
Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (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.

Review request

Please have a look at my talk page and offer your reply to my protest against your actions. Peter Lee (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC). Yet another reply needs your attention. Peter Lee (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC). Once again please. Peter Lee (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC). Your reasoning is completely off track. Please read my latest reply. Peter Lee (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Jklein212/jonathanhay (publicist)

The user article (edited March-April 2009) was probably the draft for the article nomiated for AfD on May 7, 2009 and deleted May 16, 2009, but I couldn't see the deleted article. It doesn't appear subject has gained any notability since then, and the refs on his user page have little or nothing to do with him. Flowanda | Talk 08:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree the userspace draft doesn't show notability at this time, but I don't think it's unambiguously promotional. Having an article userfied to attempt to improve it is one of the recommendations if an article is deleted, and userspace drafts do have a wider latitude than articles in article space. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Distinguished Hive Mind Member Barnstar
Congratulations on earning a distinguished spot on Hive Mind, you must be doing something right! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

La Pianista's userspace

Hi Seraphimblade. You might want to see this. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 06:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention! I'll start checking on those and removing the tags. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am so angy

Actually, I'm not. However, since your an admin you probably expect such a post. For whatever reason I still have your talk page on my watch list. I read your diatribe about BLP and felt I needed to make a post here. You're a great person and you're one of the few users on here who I look forward to running into. I hope your frustration over any particular issue could be dissipated and you could remain active on here. WP is a great site, but it has a way of consuming much time for some frustrating arguments. I'm glad you're an admin because I believe you represent values that I hope to see furthered on WP.

You friend,

Alan.ca (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, glad to see that you're still around as well, and I certainly thank you for your message. Though I've never received a message from an angry editor, I don't know what you'd be talking about there. And our first order of business will be to teach you to spell "angry"! (Sorry, had to.) I actually think things are going in the right direction there, so I'll probably be removing the venting sometime shortly. I am curious, though—what are the values you would like to see furthered? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
In general, I think you deleted the R from angry on me. I support this theory with the evidence that you are a deletionist. The main value is:
  1. Wikipedia should be about more quality and less quantity.

Alan.ca (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't argue there. Now that's not to say that we shouldn't write every quality article we can. That's led me to find some surprises, like at brine pool, and that led me to start the article on salt tectonics that someone has taken far beyond my stub on it. But I certainly don't think we need a permastub on everything someone wrote a line or two on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for psyBNC

An editor has asked for a deletion review of psyBNC. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Hm2k (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You think I represent Denon?

Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. If you would like a response, please leave a clearer message. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You erased my article Denon AVR-5308CI. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did. That does not mean that I believe you represent them or anyone, as I have no way to know. It simply meant the article has a promotional tone, right down to superlatives like "flagship" and "multitudinous", and a sale price. If you would like to rewrite the article with an appropriate tone from substantial reliable sources independent of the subject, I'd be happy to userfy it for you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Please type in Denon AVR... and click on the suggestions and erase those articles on crappier units. This really is like a top of the line model. you could have just edited but I know with admin tools it's easier to just delete. Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the quality of the product—for all I know, it's the most amazing thing the world has ever seen. Even if that is true, however, that does not change the requirement that the article be reliably sourced (and since no independent sources were cited, I couldn't edit, I know nothing about the thing), and most importantly, that the article be neutral in tone and not serve to promote its subject. My offer to userfy stands if you believe an appropriate article can be created. If you believe other articles in this area or any other meet our criteria for speedy deletion, feel free to tag them. Otherwise, there's other stuff too is not a valid argument. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi dude

Dude, there's been an interesting development over at user talk:Highenergypulses that should be of concern to you. Apocalypse Hour (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is your first edit. Isn't that interesting? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Just read the damn page. You made a mistake, and we'll see if you can correct it. Apocalypse Hour (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You are notified, then, that I have brought you up in connection with the discussion I started at the incident noticeboard. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of male performers in gay porn films

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of male performers in gay porn films. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Farnshon

Thank you so much. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby says you should also protect the user space for these socks. I am glad you were watching! Thanks again. ~YellowFives 09:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article page

hello User:Seraphimblade

sorry, I have no experience of contacting users or sending messages on Wikipedia so I am leaving a message as I know how.

I want to say that I do not agree with your speedy deletion and the reason that you gave for 'speedy deletion'. I kindly ask you to restore the page ... my reasons : the page is not advertising ; my contribution was simplly to furnish info about the CEO, not to promote the company, whose page already existed, and I note that you did not delete the page of the company, mediaedge:cia. If your concern is advertising, then you should also delete company page. But for me, that is unfortunate, as my only interest here is to furninsh info about a guy who is alumni of a college, Malvern College. I think this guy and the company he works for, one of the world's largest media agencies, are deserve their place here. So I see no reason why you deleted this page ...please restore it!!!!!!!!!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abacchus1974 (talk • contribs)

(moved by: — ækTalk 09:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

If you tell me what article you are talking about, I might be able to help. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Seraphimblade, I am referring to the Charles Courtier article : Charles Courtier, CEO of Mediaedge:cia ....

Alex

--Abacchus1974 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I really don't see anything in the article that indicates that the subject is notable, and it largely does just state why the company is good. If there is a significant amount of reliable source material written by sources independent of this person about the person, we could certainly support a biography on them, else we could not. If you can direct me to that type of source material, I'd be happy to help you with writing an article in a more neutral tone. If such sourcing does not exist, we couldn't support a full biographical article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tattoo Rodeo

Hi there! I'm a bit confused about the speedy deletion of Tattoo Rodeo, which came up at WP:REFUND. You deleted it as an A7, but the article has the band recording two albums for a major label -- seems like a claim of importance to me. I'd appreciate it if you could weigh in at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#Tattoo_Rodeo or at Esperanzawalker 's talk page. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:1malaysiadevelopmentberhad

The user has requested an unblock to allow them to submit a username change request. Would you agree to this? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done now, thanks for letting me know! Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


About the page ELDAR

I wish to say I give up on that article. I thought it would be helpful for people who want to know the basics about ELDAR (which is all there is to know about it), as those information were quite satisfying to me when I found them, but it seems like I was wrong.

I'm very thankful for the tolerance and the seven days (not) given to me to improve my article. I'm also very thankful for the consideration you (didn't) took of my justification at the discussion page of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munácio (talk • contribs) 04:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your justification there actually added to the deletion reasoning. If the article is "all there is to know about it", then it's not an appropriate article, as articles do require significant third party reliable source coverage. We specifically aim not to be the first to publish regarding something. I certainly appreciate that your intentions were good ones, and I know it can be hard to get the first article you write deleted—the first one I did was too. There are a lot of other bands out there, if that's your interest, I'm sure there's something you can find to work on! Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

re EAR

Amen. I can't tell you how much I appreciated this. It's always good to know some people still think the policies are worth going by. Cheers! :-] Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 20:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Stevan Stepić

Hy Seraphimblade! You deleted some articles of User:Aleksandar1996 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republik of Peć. This article seems to be a fake also. Would you like to have a look? Thanks --Otberg (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Got that one as well. Good catch. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, he played the same game just now at the german WP (and is blocked now). Yours --Otberg (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Blatant advertising

Hello. Regarding this image, can you show me an example of unambiguous advertising in a file allowed to stay?--Rockfang (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The file is being used in userspace. Generally, we allow a great deal more latitude in userspace than we do in an article. If the user had simply posted a message that he does this stuff, it wouldn't have been a big deal, and an image or two uploaded by established editors for userspace is generally acceptable under the userpage policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, sorry people if I'm ruffling feathers. Thanks Seraphimblade for being generous about it. I do think policy and precendent support your decision (or I'd not have posted in the first place).
I posted for a few reasons:
  • we work with human beings here at Wiki and anything that helps us relate to one another's humanity seems good
  • I use my real name at Wiki, but I could be an imposter, little things like this mean people can be more sure
  • a Muslim-Christian dialogue, hosted by Muslims, is a peacable thing given the international situation (and I will never have any comment on that politics)
I'm well aware that there's a difference between user and mainspace, it's good for us all to be clear about that. I actually added a {{Noindex}} tag to the top of my talk page to ensure Google can't pick up my talk page while the event hasn't taken place (i.e. while it could be classed as advertising).
I respect your objection Rockfang, btw. Advertising in main space should be ruthlessly eliminated. If your objection is more of a religious nature, though, please just talk to me one-to-one. I'm quite likely to take something down in response to a private and personal request. If things are public and a bid is made to enforce something, I'd have to resist that though, for the sake of other people's freedom on their talk pages.
Very best regards to everyone. Go team Wiki!
PS Mustafa is cool about it, he's really the mastermind, and it's all about promoting his thing really. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
To Seraphimblade: That is a guideline and not a policy. That being said, if you check in the section named "What may I not have on my user page?" it specifically lists advertising.
To Alastair Haines: My objection isn't because the image is related to religion.--Rockfang (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Alistair has explained that he intends the image to show the type of work he does. Since he's not doing something clearly unacceptable (like advertising a full series of such meetings) and is an experienced editor, I'll presume that the intentions are good ones. Generally speaking, we don't intervene in userspace unless there's a very significant reason to do so (nonfree images, attacks, that type of thing). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, number 6 is the point isn't it Rockfang?
"6. Advertising or promotion of a business, organization, or group unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links)"
the brackets part doesn't apply, since there's no links and it's not commercial
it is unrelated to Wiki (except as background to an editor)
it is advertising (it's a copy of a flier)
it does refer to an event sponsored by an organization, or group (it is a non-profit, but could be broadly classed as a business)
by the letter of the law, I think Seraphim is right, because it advertises an event
by the spirit of the law, I think Seraphim is right, for the several thought-out (and kind) reasons proposed
But, to be honest, I think you're a champ to make me justify myself on this one Rockfang. And thanks for clarifying that you don't find the religiousness of it problematic. People trying to make money off Wiki really stinks, and so does people using it to push any personal political or other agendas. I would like you to become a Christian Rockfang (if you aren't already), but I seriously doubt the flier would move you an inch. ;)
Guys, thanks for this discussion. Come back at me some more Rockfang if you want (maybe on my talk page). Even though I've got Seraphim's support, the two of us could be wrong, maybe a fourth or fifth opinion would be different, and I can still just choose to take it down just to please you personally, Rockfang, mate.
Got some RL work to do, thanks for hosting this discussion Seraphim. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I've made a request of you on your talk page Alastair. BTW, I'm an atheist and I don't plan on becoming a Christian any time soon. ;) Rockfang (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, whatever. Thanks heaps for being our friendly host Seraphimblade. Happy ending with lots of thanks to you. I've decided to remove the image because I respect the hard work Rockfang does for us all, and want to encourage him in it. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thermawing Article

My "Thermawing" article received a proper speedy removal i see for no copyleft permission. First time, my bad. I did not want to include this on the website so I've sent an email to: permission-en@wikimedia.org After affirming that we want to publish under CC-BY-SA & GFDL, what else would I need to repost my article? - Thx Bcahalin (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if the material were to be relicensed as copyleft, it wouldn't make for an acceptable article. As one would expect for material from the website, it serves to promote the item in question. One would, of course, expect this from one's own website, but we require articles to be strictly neutral and not promote or attack anyone or anything. Promotion is also grounds for speedy deletion. That is why we require significant reliable sourcing written by sources independent of the article's subject for an article. We also recommend against writing articles on subjects one has a close personal affiliation with. If there are significant independent sources and you could point me to them, I'd be happy to help in writing an article. If there are not, the subject would not be appropriate for an article at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Decade (character)

The article is about a fictional character who is the protagonist of his own eponymous series and has been in a total of two feature films with another film coming out next week. He is most definitely notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Seraphimblade's Day!

User:Seraphimblade has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Seraphimblade's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Seraphimblade!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah

I am having trouble with the page Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, about an early Muslim leader. I found it tagged for single source and warned for probable copyvio. I added two brief paragraphs, both sourced. User Bagusheria added a huge mass of material showing heavy religious bias (also removed the two small paragraphs I had added). This contained sequential numbers that I took to be page numbers. I therefore removed it as presumed copyvio and unsourced. Bagusheria restored it, removing "my" two paragraphs again, and supplied dozens of footnotes, not tied to the text. I asked that they be linked, and offered help. Another editor removed all the unsourced material. Bagusheria has restored his mass of laudatory material, removing mine, which is respectful. I said on the talk page that this isn't getting us anywhere, and that help is available and that at this rate the page will probably get locked in a short form and Bagusheria blocked. No answer. To this hour I am the only contributor who has written anything on the discussion page. J S Ayer (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that things have settled down for now, and that Wasell has come along to offer a third pair of eyes. It certainly is a good thing that you asked for help rather than engaging in an edit war, though do keep in mind that removal of clear copyvios is not considered edit warring. Hopefully the additional pair of eyes will serve to cool things down, but if the copyright violations continue, I would advise seeking administrative intervention. I would also advise seeking some additional sources, and to clarify in the article what is religious belief and what is known historical fact. From reading the article currently, I can't tell which is which, and that's an important stylistic consideration in articles about religious figures. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

This is involves editor User:Peter Lee you had previous dealings with: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#This_person_keeps_calling_me_a_vandal.2C_a_deceit_and_many_other_insults_and_does_not_stop_smearing_my_name. Gerardw (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just dropping a note here to say "Thank You" for reverting the anontalk spam on my Userpage.The WordsmithCommunicate 07:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How is 'Vaginal Jesus' an attack page?

I presented matter of fact information on a band. What is the problem?

Stating that someone is "racist" and the like, without any sources to back that, is absolutely a violation of our biographies of living persons policy—it is a charged and negative allegation, and would have to be backed up by very strong sources. Even failing that, the band is not notable as determined by a previous deletion discussion, so an article on them would be inappropriate in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are all of the bands on this page necessarily notable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_death_metal_bands I recall a user or two stating in the talk section that they've never heard of the band, nor do they know anyone who has heard of the band. I doubt they asked many people. It seems like they simply dislike the content of the band, understandable but Wikipedia is all about matter of fact information - no bias. I don't believe all of the bands in 'List of grindcore, death metal, punk rock, etc ' sections are all that noteworthy, yet they remain in that section.

I put it in the death metal section since the number of bands there were fairly abundant, making it less likely to stick out than if it were placed in the grind core section. That mann (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If other articles are not notable, then they need to be taken care of as well. That can take time, it requires someone to notice. But other articles existing is never a justification for an article. Substantial coverage in independent and reliable sourcing is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you find this relevant?

http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=19762

How do you determine if a website is good enough for notability? This appeared to be one of the only websites on a different band I think is worth writing an article about. That mann (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's one of the only sources on it, that band would not be an appropriate subject for an article. The source must be reliable—I don't see any indication that the source you site is. In addition, it provides only trivial coverage, some "basic stats" as it were. In order to be an appropriate subject for an article, the band (or any other subject) must have received significant, in-depth coverage from multiple sources that meet the reliable source guidelines. If that's not the case, we should not have an article on that particular subject at this time. Of course, if coverage increases in the future, we always can reconsider at that point. Finally, no one "deserves" or "doesn't deserve" an article, and it's not some badge of honor—we just have the sources to write it properly, and we do, or else we don't have them and we don't. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 04:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

RfB

Someone forgot to sign, it might have been you. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently was. Guess I need another cup of coffee, thanks for letting me know though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Btw, thanks for participating in the survey at WT:BLP#Signpost Policy Report. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fire Fly (Band) redirection

Have you, as requested, userfied my article?
Regards,
Thetictocmonkey 11:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about Fire Fly (band), all you'd have to do is look at an old revision and copy it into a userspace subpage if you'd like it userfied. Redirection does not remove an article's history, and it looks like a merge candidate—that's exactly the reason why I didn't delete it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up and the response to my question. I remember looking through most if not all of those references and not seeing anything too reliable. I did, however, backup from the situation as the page in question is still very much in development. Also, I agree that a suitable reference in one context may be entirely unsuitable in another. Thanks again. Supertouch (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

3O Award

The Third Opinion Award The Third Opinion Award
For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion question

hey you deleted a page titled anal kitties (band) you said reason was promotional. this was not the intent of the original page and was never the intent to the page being created. other users converted the references to appear that way. this page is a victim of knowledge originals getting changed because people are not enjoying a page. - thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicsorus (talk • contribs) 18:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did look back at the old revisions—I never perform a deletion as promotional unless I have examined old revisions. If there is an older, neutrally worded revision to revert to, I'll always perform that over deletion. However, let's look at a passage from the article's very first revision, persisting all the way until tagged for deletion:

The music is goth industrial and delivers dynamic rich textures with heavy heart pounding waves of distortion. guitar and bass creating melodies with strong structures, melodic, and sometimes punk rock. Male vocals presence passionate feeling to the brink of pain and understanding. with strong signals and symbolism coming from a castle of mystical sounds.

That's something that could come straight out of ad copy, and is unacceptable. It's most certainly not neutral, it is promotional. If the band has been the subject of a good deal of coverage by unaffiliated and reliable sources, it's certainly possible a neutral article could be written about it. If not, it would not be an appropriate subject for an article at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Edit warring is not a good practice. You are now going against consensus and policy. See the talk page to understand why, the images perfectly comply with policy and many users disagree with you. Other than that, many feratured articles on actors have used such images, no one questions them. In fact, you were also reverted on the Cillian Murphy article which shows that represent neither the majority view not policy. You must first discuss this issue on some prominent board to get a broader number of reactions from different editors. As you see, this issue is not clear. Other than that, please stop edit warring. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Shahid • Talk2me 12:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate your advice, removal of material which clearly violates the nonfree content policy is not subject to that policy, please see WP:3RR for details. As this material is used in an article where free content is available, it clearly violates criterion #1, as it is replaceable and indeed replaced by free content. Please note that nonfree content is not a policy subject to override even by consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Nor is your personal interpretation of this policy the only valid reading of the policy. NFCC does not say the things you're claiming it says, as I have pointed out on the talk pages. I do not care about these articles per se (I happen to have Cillian Murphy on my watchlist from reviewing it at FAC three years ago, and have no other stake), but what I do care about is you wading in with a fairly extreme interpretation of policy, claiming that your personal interpretation of the policy overrides consensus about 1) how to interpret the policy and 2) the actual wording of the policy and 3) threatening to block people who disagree with your personal opinion. As a bystander who just happens to be watching this unfold I would like to reiterate -- this is inappropriate behavior for an administrator. Please cease the threats to block and the edit warring. --JayHenry (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No replaceable nonfree images is not an extreme interpretation of policy, and is actually in the Foundation requirements. Given the extent of the problem that I've discovered, I'm willing to discuss it so we can get it fixed more thoroughly, but I certainly see nothing wrong done here, and it does ultimately need fixed. The characterization of a "threat" is rather inaccurate—I told one editor that should he continue to reinsert nonfree images (including abuse of rollback to do so), this would result in a block. Once he started talking, no one got blocked—I would much rather explain than block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to the 3RR complaint

See WP:AN3#User:Seraphimblade reported by User:Shshshsh (Result:), where you seem to have four reverts. I think you see your reverts as being justified by your admin role, as enforcing our policies. My impression is that there could be legitimate controversy as to whether WP:NFCC may still allow the image to be used here. Can you explain why you think consensus supports your position? Unless there is black-and-white certainty that policy supports this, can you open a discussion in some appropriate venue, perhaps ANI or one of the image forums, to get consensus on this? The claim that the article passed FA while including the image suggests that there could be legitimate uncertainty. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there now. I'm honestly not sure what FA has to do with this, but given the confusion, I'm willing to go to explaining for now. FA does not set or affect nonfree content policies, and no replaceable images is in the Foundation requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Movie stills and WP:NFC

The 3RR is now closed, but I took a look at the article to see if I could understand the WP:NFC arguments. (I also looked up the FA promotion to see what they said about the images). If you often work on images, maybe you know where the past policy discussions have been held? I can't really tell whether FA reviewers should allow such images or not. WP:NFC#UUI #12 might suggest that movie stills should *not* be used. But if the article says "Joe Smith was widely recognized for his role of Zorro in Movie X", then it might be argued that showing Joe Smith as Zorro might be encyclopedic. (For the goal of showing Joe Smith in the role, the image is not replaceable). There is some stronger language in WP:NFC against using movie stills in a later section about list articles (that mentions roles) but Preity Zinta is not a list article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about deletion

Hi -- you recently deleted a couple pages that I created on a Zen Buddhist temple and its Abbot. Before writing the articles I read the other Wikipedia pages on Zen temples/Abbots and tried to structure this one similarly. Having read the explanation for the deletion am not sure what would need to be changed for it to be in keeping with Wikipedia's standards as I'm not sure what was different about this one vs. the ones that have not been of concern. Any specific pointers that you have would be much appreciated. Thanks very much for your time in reviewing the pages and helping me bring them up to Wikipedia standards. As a first time author, although I tried to be informed before creating the post there is obviously room for improvement! If you could reply on my talk page that would be much appreciated. Jmgoldberg (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which article you're referring to? I'd be happy to provide some advice on it, but I'd need to know what I'm looking at first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at your talk page, actually, I believe I see the two that you're talking about. There were two serious problems with those articles. The first, and the one that led to deletion (under this criterion), is that they were both written in a promotional/boosterism tone. Articles are required to be in a strictly neutral tone, and not be used to express opinions or promote something. Even if this issue were to be fixed, however, the articles also did not cite any reliable sources independent of the article subjects that have given the organization and/or person significant coverage. If such sources do exist, please point me to them and I'd be happy to help you with getting an appropriate article together. If such source coverage does not exist, those subjects would not be appropriate ones for an article at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response and for being willing to help me revise the articles. I don't have the posted/deleted versions saved so can't send that to you, but can send you the Word version that was the basis for the posting if that would be useful. In the article about the Zen temple there were five independent references cited in the article -- four media outlets had coverage about the temple (1 TV show, 3 newspaper articles) and also there was an online newsletter that is independent of the temple that provided coverage. For the article about the Abbot there were less sources (just one newspaper article) so if that's not sufficient I can appreciate the reason for the deletion. Part of my uncertainty is that in looking at other pages about Zen temples and Abbots on Wikipedia they all seemed to be pretty similar to the one I wrote (and some didn't have any citations), so I really appreciate your advice on how to proceed. Happy new year! Jmgoldberg (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any sources cited in either article. There are some general names of media outlets dropped in the temple article, but that's not the same as a citation listing the date, author, and title of the source (and hyperlink to it if it is available online). As to other articles being similar, sometimes things seem similar but really aren't, while other times we just missed something. Could you please point me more specifically to the sources covering the organization? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That's odd that the citations aren't showing. The sources that should have appeared as citations in the VZC article were:
1. “Eshu Martin Interview”. Sweeping Zen. 7 November 2009. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [14]http://sweepingzen.com/2009/12/23/eshu-martin-interview/[/a]
2. Shaw Cable Victoria: “The Daily” show – Feature on Doshu Lars Rogers. This is available on YouTube at [15]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovaFxFL0p2s&feature=channel[/a]
3. Gibson, Jim. “Taking the path to peace: City’s first Buddhist ordination takes place at UVic on Sunday”. Victoria Times-Colonist, July 16, 2009. This one isn't available online.
4. Weighton, Lisa. “First Zen monk ordained in Victoria”. Victoria News, June 30, 2009. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [16]http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/victorianews/community/49547577.html[/a]
5. Stevens, Darshan. “Life after death: The making of a Zen monk”. Monday Magazine, July 15, 2009. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [17]http://mondaymag.com/articles/entry/life-after-death[/a]
There were also additional media references suggested as further reading (but not citations for specific statements in the article):
• “A gathering of faiths”. Victoria Times-Colonist, 20 January 2007. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [18]http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/life/story.html?id=d392bad6-b9ce-4647-9b72-17a9f5f14455&k=52028&p=1[/a]
• Lundgren, Vanessa (2007). “Prayers and potlucks: Higher spirituality with higher education”. The Martlet, 60(2). Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [19]http://martlet.ca/index.php?iid=9546[/a]
• Villett, Michelle (2009). “Master mind: How do you handle stress?”. Elle Canada. Retrieved 14 November 2009 from [20]http://www.ellecanada.com/living/health/master-mind-how-do-you-handle-stress/a/27693/4</a>
Thanks very much for your help with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmgoldberg (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- haven't heard anything further since posting the above on Jan 2. Am sure you're busy and if you just need more time to evaluate it that's fine, but I wanted to check to see if you need any further info from me. Jmgoldberg (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Tracy Emblem article

Dear Seraphimblade, Could I please be provided a copy of the Tracy Emblem (first letter in caps) article I created and was rapid deleted? My email is agarciaherbst@gmail.com. Also, would you be so kind as to take a moment and look at what I composed and PLEASE provide input as to how what I wrote could be improved to meet your standards. Thanks, Arleen

PS. I was referred to you by the user message below:

I'm not an admin, so I can't provide a copy. The admin who actually deleted the article is User:Seraphimblade, so you might want to send that admin a message. As for improving the article, the bigger problem that you are going to have is that Tracy does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies, particularly those for political candidates. Even though she is running for a Congressional seat, she has not progressed past the party stage yet. Candidates who do not meet our notability standards for other reasons are not generally considered notable at this level of office until they win their party's nomination. That's going to be a tough hurdle to overcome, unless you can show how Tracy has met the standard in other ways. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) ArleenGH (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Realkyhick is right. I'm a bit uncomfortable emailing it, as it seems we may be seeing it back again. At this time, it does not seem that Emblem is notable by achieving substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, so absent that, she is not an appropriate subject for an article at all—that's not a question of what anyone can do, there's nothing to be done in such cases. The article was promotional, and was deleted for that reason, but no article would be acceptable until substantial coverage is shown. Regardless, since you're involved with the campaign, you should not be writing or involved with the article. If there are appropriate sources (sources which meet our guidelines for reliability, are independent of the subject, and provide substantial, in-depth coverage of Emblem as opposed to something related to her) then I can help you write an appropriate article. If such sourcing doesn't exist, the answer is "We can't have that article at this time at all". If I do email you the article, do you intend to continue posting it regardless of this? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Draconity

Hi there. Back in 2006, you participated in an AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draconity. The article has been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draconity (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Hello,

You visited my page last time and nominated it for speedy deletion :-) ... I need a favor from you. You see, after you've unblocked my username (and I've managed to get my username changed too, thanks), I've actually re-written my article in the style I hoped would be of Wikipedia standard. Can you actually go to my page and check to see if my article is ok to go live? Appreciate your help on this matter. Thanks. Nadine Azz (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I still don't see any reliable sources apart from the organization cited that cover it in depth. That really is required, and if those sources don't exist, we really can't have the article at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright, so looking, I do see one in your userspace draft. That's a start at least, though it's a bit thin (it basically looks like a reprinted press release). Multiple sources would be necessary. Also, the marketese ("sustainable, long-term economic development", "enhance the multiplier effect", "benefit to be felt across Malaysia", etc.), would absolutely need to go, regardless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Seraphimblade. I still have no idea where to get these reliable sources from, because the only information I have of them is from their website and news coverages. They are a new organisation so they don't have much of a history and/or references. And I can't cite their website in here for fear of being speedily deleted again. Any ideas? BTW I take note of your advice on the market terms and amend them. In the meantime, any kind of help is highly appreciated. Thank you so much. Nadine Azz (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Seraphimblade! I have finished my amendments, and I've also added in some new info based on the latest developments. Hopefully this version is okay and I can go live soon. Please take a look and advise. Thanks. Nadine Azz (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Democrats

Hi, you may remember responding in December to this issue in which yours truly was described by an earnest editor in disagreement as "toxic and biased against the party". I don't have any problem with that correspondence, least of all with your sane reply. However, you may now wish to bring yourself up to date with what may really have been happening there, by looking at this correspondence. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This thing is not notable?

http://www.laaudiofile.com/images/denon_avr5308ci_back.jpg Denon AVR-5308CI Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

History of Chess: dispute about historical map

We are having trouble with the article History of Chess. There was a map showing the dispersal of chess from its origin in India to the rest of the world. Jean-Louis Cazaux, one of the acknowledged experts in the field, said he thought it should be removed, and gave reasons. I agreed, and removed it. It was replaced without comment. I mentioned several other errors and inadequacies of the map, and deleted it again. It was replaced without comment. I repeated that the map was seriously flawed, and said that anyone who thinks it should be in the article anyway should please discuss the question, and removed it. It has now been reinstated without comment AGAIN. I consider this grossly improper; can you help? J S Ayer (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Julie Stoffer

You started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Stoffer in the past, a discussion where you noted that the subject had requested deletion. The article is now listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Julie Stoffer. Cunard (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Sfan00 IMG's tags for speedy

Please do not revert edits such as this — it's a file description page for a file on Commons, and exactly the case for which F2 was designed. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Corrupt image tagging

I suspect Sfan was using the second part of the F2 reasoning, rather than a corrupt image reasoning: "or a file description page for a file on Commons". My understanding is that images on Commons shouldn't be put into local categories, except on rare occasions such as local Featured Pictures; so if the only local content is a category, it can be speedily deleted. If you look at your recent deleted contributions, you'll see that another admin has quite happily deleted some of these files on this basis, as have I (a couple of weeks ago, when in the mood for some CSD patrol) and others. Regards, BencherliteTalk 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct, and I've self-reverted. I didn't see the newer addition to that tag, so I was looking at the first bit. Thanks for letting me know though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

F2 images

I expect a measured apology.

I was using F2 as per the revised template, to flag-up 'local' description pages where the image was on Commons. This was after REPEATED notes (including from other admins) that I should use F2 rather than G6 (which I had been using previously precisely because of this issue.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted myself after realizing I was incorrect, and didn't realize the new criterion for F2. If you want something more than that, consider yourself to have it. Sorry for the error. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of my profile:)

Hi, my name is Maxim Behar, a Bulgarian businessman, journalist, PR expert & diplomat. My profile surprisingly was deleted by you. I do declare - it was just a bio and nothing else it was no advertising or whatever else. Today my webmaster in the company tried to load a picture on my profile and most probably did something wrong or put a wrong picture.

If it happened like that, I do apologize.

Therefore, I kindly ask to restore my profile. If there was anything wrong, pls make a note and I will correct it immediately. - - Thank you in advance.

- Maxim Behar Chief Executive

M3 Communications Group, Inc. A Hill & Knowlton Associate www.m3bg.com

60, Bulgaria Blvd. 1680 Sofia, Bulgaria Phone +359 2 818 70 10 Fax +359 2 818 70 11 Mobile +359 888 50 31 13 e-mail: max@m3bg.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxbehar (talk • contribs) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with the picture. The biography did not cite any sources unaffiliated with its subject, and also was very similar (or basically equivalent) to a resume/CV. Advertising of anyone or anything, including an individual, is not acceptable here. Are there any sources that are not affiliated with you or your company, and meet our standards for reliability, that cover you in depth? If so, it might be possible for someone who is not affiliated at all with you or your company to write an article about you. Under no circumstances should you or someone affiliated with you write or edit it. If such sourcing does not exist, a biography would not be appropriate at all. Hope that helps to clear things up? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010


Re: Alan Flyng bio under construction

Thank you for your attention, I am currently working on citations etc. that can underpin the importance of the page under creation. Since you are more involved in the whole wikipedia creation process I would like to make a suggestion that you could take forth.

I suggest wikipedia creates a userspace sandbox visible only to contributors and invited editors, where one in peace could work on a number of articles, and then have said articles crawled by automated bots checking for different standard issues. This way it could be pointed out that for instance external sources were needed, bio info should be in a bio info box, an image should be included, etc. This way contributors could deliver better work to the site saving you guys from obliterating the most obvious junk from orbit

E petersen (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)e_petersen

LASOS Local Information System page

Hello. I'm new to the creation/editing side of Wikipedia but I 'think' you recently deleted a page for South Yorkshires Data Observatory, LASOS. Is this right? if so, can you be a bit more specific about the reasons (I gather you think the page was advertising)? and advise how we should go about putting up a new page for the system (what should/shouldn't be included and who should write it). also, why is something like this [[21]] ok but our page was not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeEmSee (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

re: BoogaLouie

Just a clarification -- I didn't say BoogaLouie's IP was associated with RevolutionExpert's; I said the IP that made that nasty edit was associated with (and is probably the same person as) RevolutionExpert. So it still does boil down to the connection between BL and RE, which I guess someone is convinced of. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In view of the uncertainty and unclarity, I accepted BoogaLouie's latest request and unblocked him. If I am being credulous, which is surely possible, a bit more rope won't hurt too much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I found a pretty distinctive "signature" between the two (both BoogaLouie and RevolutionExpert write "THE ASSOCIATED PRESS" in all caps in references), so I'm pretty convinced they're the same person, especially since that's the only thing they seem to capitalize that way in refs. But hopefully no more incidents, in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Dave Hedgepeth

The Page I created for Dave Hedgepeth is not an advertisement, but truly of wikipedia worthiness. He is a political candidate and there are only so many articles published about him thus far. What else do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonsmandel (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The initial article about him was advertising him. The second one had less of an ad tone and at least thin sourcing, so it was not eligible for speedy deletion. I've instead nominated it for a full discussion through our articles for deletion process, which you are welcome to participate in. Please notice, however, that if there is very little material published about him, it is not acceptable to have an article about him here. All subjects here must be notable, which means to be extensively covered in reliable sources unaffiliated with the article subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Deletion of my profile!

OK, thanks, i was not aware of that. Will find the proper sources, there are thousands. If anything wrong, pls contact me back. have a great day

Best,

Maxim

.


User talk:Bodycorporate

Were you aware that this editor had a previous account? The name was the same at the now-deleted page they created. (Can't remember the name, but I remember the article and the user name were identical.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Luckman Associates and User:LuckmanAssociates are not registered (the name of the article was Luckman Associates). Regardless, most spammers like that take off after they figure out they're not going to be allowed to continue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I guess I'm wrong, but I could have sworn I'd seen that page in the last day or two. Sorry to bother you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot something! :)

Hello. I need to ask you a question. I left Wiki in 2007 and, I'M BACK lolI do not have the same email and I forgot my pw. How can I regain my user page? It's ok to leave responce on my page...or how ever you want. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  63.3.3.2 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my spelling. I just arrived back in Phx after a 3 day greyhound bus ride. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  63.3.3.2 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you regain access to the email account you were using at that time? I think that would probably be the simplest way to do it, unless you have some guess as to what the password on the account may be—can't hurt to try. I don't know of any way to recover a password other than having it emailed to you, and even if there were you'd have to prove who you are. I don't see an identity commit on that account, so that might not be too easy in itself. Trying to get access to that email account back (or if you know and trust the current owner of the email, recovering it, having them send it to you, and then immediately changing it) would really be your best bet. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried that. I was just looking for ideas. Thanks. --  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  63.3.3.2 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Silverstream School

Thanks. I'm working with the author to get this page up to scratch (by helping him find 3rd party resources). I appreciate your help, and with luck we'll have another Wikipedian! Techhead7890 (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I see some references are getting added, so you're certainly going in the right direction. However, for the school to be notable, there must be substantial third-party sources that cover the school, not its alumni. I'd probably focus on those before worrying about alumni. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Seraphimblade. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Allen Technologies page

Quite by accident, I learned the ATI page had issues over the weekend. It would have been helpful to be notified. I tried to correct these issues, but the more I tried (adding citations, more info, etc.), the worse things seemed to get. I think it started with one Wikipedia issue and the last time it had four. The whole process was very frustrating.

On the talk page, prior to deletion, one of the editors wrote something to the effect, If ATI can be shown to be the first company to provide an interactive tv in a hospital setting then it might meet the notable criteria. Since this occurred 15+ years ago, I couldn't find an independent source confirming the statement. ATI's Founder was on vacation and I could not reach him over the weekend. I got the email below from him this morning: 

 * ATI was the first company to provide interactive TV in healthcare I will look for some stuff .  We also sent the first E-mail to the patient bedside.

Is there any chance of getting the page re-instated or am I wasting my time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.195.190 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you could email me at (email redacted) it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.195.190 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note above regarding communication by email rather than talk page, but I'll be happy to discuss it with you here. The article was deleted because it didn't assert notability. Notability is not being a "first". Rather, it is significant coverage in reliable sources not affiliated with the subject. If there is significant coverage of this company in reliable sources, it's appropriate for us to have an article on it. If there's not, it's not appropriate for one. The distinction is very simple.
That aside, it appears a strong likelihood that you work for the company. We very strongly discourage editors from editing articles on subjects they are closely affiliated with—friends, family members, and, yes, employers. If you would like, however, please feel free to suggest any sources that exist, and I'll be happy to take a look at them. If an appropriate article can be written from them, I can certainly help you do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of CTVAA

Why you deleted the CTVAA article ? Can I learn the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.64.189 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I provide some further clarifications of deletion reasons here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversion attempt

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

Nope, sorry, I'm still an atheist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, you have a bad destination. So, here is some for you to wake up: "Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. PURPORT The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas." And this is after that I moved the only tables I made to new article, you removed that!!! How could you... Do you know that demons/asuras/atheists/materialists are killed by Vishnu Himself or sent to hell??? Yes, see here cosmology with numbers - this might be convincing: [22]

I haven't removed any tables from any articles, but if you need help with one, I'll try to help you. You'll have to be more specific though. If you're interested in a theological debate, I do those too, but you'll have to make some type of sense first. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe you are not so bad, because there is picture of Einstein on your page and you use some angelic picture. But anyway, if you call yourself atheist - that is nonsense. Einstein was theist, and accepted Vedas, read Bhagavad-Gita. But in any case you should not delete theism articles as that is dangeour not only for you but so many people related to you - your relatives, friends etc. However, usually sinner suffers for his own sins only. So you must at least put vakc that page which disappeared:

[23] If you say it was not you who deleted it - wikipedia recorded your name, so I guess it was not a technical mistake.

Yes, I deleted that page. If that's what you're referring to, article space is not an appropriate place for portal tables, they'd need to go on the portal page itself. If you'd like them restored to your userspace in order to do that, I can do that for you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversion attempt

‘chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala (previous name for Shri Chaitanya-bhagavata), he immediately becomes a great devotee.

Nope, sorry, I'm still an atheist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, you have a bad destinarion. So, here is some for you to wake up: "Anyone who does not float in this inundation is most condemned. Such a person cannot be delivered for millions of kalpas. PURPORT The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas." And this is after that I moved the only tables I made to new article, you removed that!!! How could you... Do you know that demons/asuras/atheists/materialists are killed by Vishnu Himself or sent to hell??? Yes, see here cosmology with numbers - this might be convincing: [24] And read about thousands of planets in hell - there you may go if you like, but why? You are eternal soul, why you have to suffer. So Krishna consciosuness is solution. But anyway read about hells, A Description of the Hellish Planets: [[25]]. "If a person deviates from the path of the Vedas in the absence of an emergency, the servants of Yamarāja put him into the hell called Asi-patravana, where they beat him with whips. When he runs hither and thither, fleeing from the extreme pain, on all sides he runs into palm trees with leaves like sharpened swords. Thus injured all over his body and fainting at every step, he cries out, "Oh, what shall I do now! How shall I be saved!" This is how one suffers who deviates from the accepted religious principles." in the province of Yamarāja there are hundreds and thousands of hellish planets. The impious people I have mentioned — and also those I have not mentioned — must all enter these various planets according to the degree of their impiety. Those who are pious, however, enter other planetary systems, namely the planets of the demigods. Nevertheless, both the pious and impious are again brought to earth after the results of their pious or impious acts are exhausted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualities108 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is totally bad to delete Krishna consciousness articles, as Krishna is Supreme Personality of Godhead. So what you did is described here in wiki humor: [26]

Adminitis is a state of mind in which some Wikipedians find themselves at times. Though generally confined to administrators, the condition has been observed in some non-administrators. Although the exact causes are unknown, there is thought to be some correlation towards extensive and prolonged anti-vandalism activity.Contents [show]

[edit] Symptoms Strongly believes that all users are equal but admins are more equal than others Assumes bad faith frequently TLAitis (see WP:WOTTA) Stops editing articles, but continuously pontificates about "writing the encyclopedia" Impatience Exhibits immediatism Hangs out in project namespace Has no time for featured articles Frequently refreshes pages to catch the latest change that (of course) needs to be reverted Believes that he or she is always right (sorry, EVula...) Believes anyone who uses the word 'vote' for 'express a view in a straw poll' should be banned for life Originally hailed as the nicest person on the wiki, now reviled as the most hated troll Prevents pages from being edited in encyclopedic fashion for policy reasons Seems to enjoy biting new users General BOFHness Strict adherence to "Wikipedia policy" while not using common sense or conversely, Strict adherence to ignore all rules, as a strict rule... while not using common sense Self-denial. "This page cannot possibly apply to me" Humor breakdown. "This page is not funny" Sudden spike in use of specific admin tools, or use of admin tools in areas where he hadn't been using them before Requires less and less evidence to be convinced of sock puppetry until confidently asserting that all new users are the same person Spends hours writing sarcastic pages about admin behavior Believes he is the only real claimant to the "Defender of the Wiki" barnstar Exhibits signs of MPOV Thinks people are attacking them when they're only trying to be nice Has a habit of removing criticism while pretending it's a personal attack Indulges in biting delicious newcomers [edit] Diagnosis

It is a near universal truth that sufferers from this illness will reject any diagnosis of the condition by an outside party. With that in mind, it's important for those who have received this diagnosis to conduct a self-test. If more than three of the following apply to you, you may be suffering from this illness: You frequently feel that pages are broken and must be deleted (protection is for wusses!). "Everyone is a vandal or a troll, and must be blocked" is a recurrent thought. "Blocking people is a punishment! (not a tool to get people to cool down and edit the wiki)" is a mantra, not anti-wiki. If you nominate this page for MfD even though it's only 2 minutes since the last revision, you may possibly be suffering from adminitis. Corollary: If you speedy, you are certainly suffering from adminitis. If you accuse the creators of this article of making a WP:POINT, especially if you forget that making a point does not imply disruption (you need to disrupt to make a point, not make a point to disrupt! :-P), you are probably infected. And if you buy the above line of thought, you are definitely infected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualities108 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Kludge and Melodic.net

Kludge was a popular American webzine. Its writers are professional critics including Chris Green [27]. Kludge is also a magazine so it is notable. Melodic.net is founded by a professional critic (Pär Winberg)[28] and it is the Europe's leading webzine for modern rock [29] (These sources are reliable and come from The Music Factory). These webzines meet the criteria at WP:WEB, they are notable and I explained why. I don't understand the deletion. They are very similar to Pitchfork Media.--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Who the founder of something is has no effect on its notability, nor does popularity. Only substantial reliable source coverage impacts notability. The "musicfactory.se" that you sent me to does not even mention the website, let alone cover it in detail. If you have any sources that are reliable and cover in depth the website, I'll be happy to help you evaluate them. If you do not, the sites are not appropriate article subjects at all, and cannot be until and unless such sources are written. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
This mention the website and its founder. And the source clearly states that Melodic.net is the Europe's leading webzine for modern rock.--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Seraphimblade, could you re-review the article Kludge (magazine) since Strawberry Slugs has decided to reinstate it. Thanks. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 21:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As for Kludge Magazine, Melodic.net is used as source by Billboard, PureVolume, Rivel Records, Code (band), Harem Scarem, AbsolutePunk, BizShark [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. So the article meet WP:NME. Melodic.net is also the Europe's leading webzine for modern rock and it is founded by Pär Winberg which has worked with EMI, A&R, The Real Group, Robert Wells (composer) among others [36]. I think that Melodic.net is notable to have an article, or am I wrong?--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

When did Kludge become a "magazine" rather than a webzine? Which is it?
Regardless, to reply to both above: To establish notability, you need substantial sources about the article subject, not notability subguidelines (which are just guides as to when sources are likely to exist, passing a subguideline is not a replacement for substantive sources!), not "Someone else mentioned it or said it was leading!" You need in-depth sources about the thing, not that drop its name or praise it briefly. If those do not exist, yes, you are wrong, and we should not have an article. If they do, we should have an article. I don't see any used that meet the criteria, so unless better exist, we shouldn't. Do better, more substantive sources exist, or not? (I don't speak Swedish, so had to use Google's translation of your Swedish source, but the URL "melodic.net" does not even appear within the article. If they're talking in depth about the creator, that may contribute to the notability of the creator, but unless it goes into depth about his creation, not for it.) Regardless, however, the initial speedy on Kludge was declined, so it would need to go to AfD (as presumably a prod would be disputed). I'll hold off nominating it for now, until I get an answer on the source question, but of course anyone else may do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
On the article appears "Europe's leading site for modern rock - Melodic THE NET (the original states THE MELODIC NET) with about 4000 visitors per day". However, this states "Leading European Modern Rock E-zine www.melodic.net".--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete I-Jet Media

I ask you to restore this article. We need some more time to finalize the article and to make authors of other Wikipedia put a link to this article. Russian Wikipedia has approved publication of this article because of its real significance I-Jet Media Rero26 (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC) ReRo26

You need to not write about subjects you're affiliated with. If you have appropriate sources for the article, I'll take a look at them, and help you write it if necessary, but from your use of the term "we", you clearly have a conflict of interest and should not be writing or editing the article. Please also note that the Russian Wikipedia has different policies, practices, and enforcement levels than we do, so something being appropriate there does not mean it would be here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We means my friend and I who likes writing various articles on various subjects. Sources for the article are the following:

Russian sources:

Being prominent mass media and blogs, they all include all the information I put in the article. If this is not enought, could you please help write it as you mentioned? Rero26 (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Rero26

Blogs are generally not reliable sources. The two English sources I checked are about "Happy Farmer", and only mention I-Jet in passing. Passing or trivial mentions do not show notability, only substantive coverage does. I can try translating the Russian sources (I do not speak Russian), but are any of them more in depth about I-Jet rather than something it produced? It is entirely possible for a product to be notable but its producer not to be, since notability is not inherited. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Al Hussein Irbid

Hello. I notice you deleted this article under A7, and I wanted to let you know it has been re-created. First, I disagree with the speedy deletion (the article indicated it was about a football club playing in Jordan's highlest tier of football). Second, I wanted to ask that if you plan to request deletion again (I've added a reference now which makes the notability claim more concrete), please take it to AfD. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the highest tier of soccer is the World Cup. If I'm wrong on that, could you please explain? I don't know soccer very well, so it's entirely possible there's something I don't know about. Regardless, however, all articles require reliable sources, and this one just cites a directory. Also, please remember to discuss deleted articles before recreating them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, you are correct that the Wolrd Cup is the highest level of national team competition in football. However, club football is organized in essentially every country in the world and Jordan is no exception. This club plays in highest level of competition in Jordan and has even participated in a continential competition (2005 AFC Cup) so it is one of the most notable football clubs from the country (and a relatively important club in Asia). I added a cite to RSSSF, which is a reliable source (I can't recall where it was discussed right now), and it verifies the club's participation in the 2005 AFC Cup. Finally, if you read the article history, you'll notice that I didn't re-create the article, and actually notified the deletor (you) of its re-creation. In any case, I still disagree with your A7 deletion of the original article, and would hope you would seek discussion before making similar deletions in the future. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that does make at least a credible assertion of notability, so I've restored the deleted edits. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process for unsourced articles

I think it might be time to revive this idea in respect to new articles, given the increasing number of unreferenced new articles and the relative success of the BLP prod experiment, and incorporating ideas from that. Sparked by recent thread at ANI about backlogs. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you propose to do so, without encountering the objections encountered the last time around? Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I would start off by pointing out the relative success of the PRODBLP experiment (it has been considered a success, no?), toss in the statistics of articles newly tagged as unreferenced (averaging about 3300 a month per the sidebar at Category:Articles lacking sources), tweaking the wording of the old proposal to bring it more into line with the blp prod policy, and crafting it to apply only to newly created articles, also a mirror of the BLP tactic. It won't directly reduce the backlog, but it will help to keep it from growing at it's current rate. Basically, any new article, no matter how notable the topic, would be subject to deletion if no sources are provided within a week or so.
I've only skimmed the old proposal so I'm not sure how closely my suggestions equates to what's there, but I hope that times have changed enough in the last three years that it will get a better hearing. You probably have a better idea of where to launch such a discussion than I do. Village pump, perhaps? (Not one of the pages I visit with any frequency, my last viewing being months ago, but I'd chime in on this one. Let me know.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimmie Johnson/Sprint Cup Races

It can now be deleted. --Nascar1996 01:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Bell

Could you userfy this to me for a short time? You deleted it and I had it watch listed but I don't recall why. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The full text of the article I deleted was only "Ashley Bell", so I don't think userfication of that one would do you much good. There was an older version that was deleted as spam (and quite correctly so), but if you want to work on that version, I'd be happy to userfy it for you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. I expect I'll be coming back to ask for it to be deleted again, but it seems odd this was on my watch list and I'd like to figure out why. I must have thought it had some value at some point (or maybe I was making sure no one recreated it?) Need notes on the watch list feature... Thanks in any case. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied it to User:Hobit/Ashley Bell. To avoid moving a page that might get deleted again, I just copied it and put the edit history on the corresponding talk page. If you actually intend to restore it to mainspace, please let me know, and I can do the appropriate history merge. It looks like you requested the first speedy though, so I'm not sure if you intend to or if you just watched it after you put the speedy tag on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I guess I'd nommed it for a speedy and the tool that did that put it on my watch list. Please delete and quite sorry for wasting your time. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Diane Simmons/Harrow Sports

You deleted this page claiming conflict of interest. I do not work for Harrow Sports and I wasn't advertising the company. I was merely noting who they are and that they are a major player in the sports industry - especially the squash sports world, and I provided references. I took my cue on how to write the article from a couple of their competitors - Warrior Lacrosse and STX and I provided more references than either of them. They just link back to their own website. Therefore I respectfully ask you to restore the page. Dssimmons (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That article cannot be restored, as it is not at all neutral, which is an absolute requirement. We also require that all articles be fully supported by reliable sources not affiliated with the subject, to demonstrate notability. If you can write such an article, go ahead, but it may in no way promote the subject. If it looks like an ad or brochure, it will be deleted again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to rewrite it but please explain to me how it is any different from the Warrior Lacrosse and STX pages? They don't have any links except to their own websites? Dssimmons (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The existence of other articles in poor condition is not a justification for any others. It may be that those articles need to be deleted as well. Since you didn't provide a link to them, I'm not going to go search them. To see how to properly write articles, take a look at our notability guidelines, first. If the company does not have such sourcing available, you'll need to find something else to write about. If it does, please also take a look at the neutrality requirements. An article may not promote or advertise for anyone or anything, it must be strictly neutral. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, their articles are here - Warrior_Lacrosse and [stx]. I felt like I was following the guidelines to a T but I'll try again. Dssimmons (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You were right, those were pretty bad articles. One had nothing at all worth salvaging, one very little. Articles have to be neutral in tone. If your article looks like something the company's marketing department would be glad to see, you need to rewrite it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet block

Greetings. I'm not entirely as familiar with wiki as others are but me and some others have had massive issues with binksternet and would like you to either extend the block he has or keep a close eye on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toddst1#User:Binksternet

I as well as others have been the victims of his ego and abuse of power and we would appreciate your ability to put and end to it. thank you.123.243.203.94 (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As Toddst1 indicated, Binksternet is already blocked. By all means we will help if problems continue to occur after the block expires, but our hope is of course that problems will stop after it. I'm not going to extend the block just on principle. If there is any additional misconduct which occurs after the block expires, however, don't hesitate to ask for help. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Scaramucci

Hi - I am new to Wikipedia (creating articles, I view others all the time). I had a very difficult time creating the above article due to a very confusing set-up, to only find that inputting a biography, that is truly representational of the person, was deleted for reasons I don't understand. Scaramucci is in the world of business, very well known and only becoming more so as he becomes more of a public figure through his media (publishing, broadcasting and film endeavors). I've seen very similar bios over the years and would really appreciate your help in recreating this in a format that is suitable for Wikipedia. I look forward to your response, and if you're unable to assist, I'd appreciate your letting me know who to reach out to for assistance. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishtar123 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That article was deleted because it read like an advertisement or puff piece. Articles may not promote their subject, and we do not allow hagiographies. If this person has been substantially written about by several reliable sources which are not affiliated with him in any way, he may be an appropriate subject for an article. If you can point me to such sources, I can evaluate them and help write it if they're acceptable. If such sources do not exist, he would not be an appropriate subject for an article at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrés Cabrero

Why did you delete the biographical entry for Andrés Cabrero? He is a professional soccer player with years of experience playing for professional teams, and for the Puerto Rican national team. If his entry read like a "blatant advertisement" as you said, you could have at least had the common courtesy to inform people of your intent to delete it, to give people a chance to improve it to the correct standard, instead of just summarily obliterating the thing. Please restore it, and I will make the necessary changes to the page to make it Wiki-appropriate. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that you can use to appropriately improve the article? If this is the case, I would be happy to do so. The article was a puff/fan piece, however, and that is never acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you restore it to your sandbox and let me take a look at it? I can have a go at finding sources from there. --JonBroxton (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I've userfied this for you to User:JonBroxton/Andrés Cabrero. If you do intend to move it back to mainspace, please let me know, since it will need to be history merged. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It looks like it just needs a bit of basic cleanup and re-wording for it to become a standard soccer article, so I'll see what I can do with it. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rishikeshan: Public Domain

Making Wikipedia Public Domain Will not affect Wikipedia. Please make Wikipedia Public domain. Public Domain is Helpful to all. I think wikipedians are good-hearted and not selfish. Wikipedians are not Stall-mans to behave rude at licenses like the sucking GPL and LGPL. I don't even use GPL'd software. Please make Wikipedia under Non-Copy left license by accepting new content under a permissive license or public domain. What about making a modified BSD license with advertising clause?

Please help authors. Stop sucking stall-man-ish copy-left. Let's make community useful to all developers to make both open and proprietary things.

I don't want to do anything in fear of stupid selfish stallman-ish copy-left licences.

If this writing is bad, Please report me--This is what on my and some other peoples' mind.

Rishikeshan (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Rishikeshan

I fail to see how you call copyleft "selfish", but are fine with the idea of totally proprietary licenses. Wouldn't those be even more selfish, then? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet abuse... AGAIN

Greetings. I would like to report I have been having trouble with user Binksernet.

  1. I edited an article about the Wife acceptance factor in which he kept vandalising my edits. I discussed this and explained why it was called a wife acceptance factor.
  2. The user abused his privilages and incorrectly marked me for vandalism supposedly this was a mistake.
  3. violated a 3rr and engaged in MANY edit wars not just with me but other users
  4. I'm not familiar with wiki but enough is enough and I'm taking a stand against this thug. You can see he has a history of abuse and NEEDS to be stopped. Currently he is vandalising my edits on the wife acceptance factor page.
  5. has edited out criticisms so they have not been seen.

Interesting links can be found here: Incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Wife_acceptance_factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#August_2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Memorex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#WP:AN.2FI_Discussion_Regarding_Your_Recent_Edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#rollback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Request_for_mediation_rejected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Behavior_of_Binksternet_towards_IP_user In this link you can see he has removed my contribution completely and thus deleted what I had to say.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Behavior_of_Binksternet_towards_IP_user.

My user talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:123.243.203.94

Any help you can give to solve this situation would be appreciated. Also note I have tried to make peace with the user and concede to his overly PC views but he has not even compromised NOR apologised. The person needs to be stopped. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The two of you are engaged in a content dispute. While it's true that Binksternet has not maintained an admirable level of civility in the conversation, to be quite blunt about it, neither have you, so if I'm going to block anyone for that I'd have to block the both of you. That being said, the links you cite were dealt with over a week ago, so I really fail to see what harm I'd be preventing by blocking anyone. I'd strongly advise you both to consider engaging in dispute resolution, and more importantly, to quit calling one another names or speculating as to one another's motives, and focus on the content only, as gotten from reliable sources only. You'd be surprised how often that can bring you to a conclusion all sides can agree to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind taking a bullet so he can take one too. I'm sick of his abuse and constant edit warring. I caved in and let his nonsense through. Can we have the page changed and both be blocked from editing the article. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not doing that. I already provided my advice, above. You two might certainly be on a course to both wind up blocked if you continue this, but it is very much my hope that will not occur. Take a few days away from the subject, and then look at it again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that there is any abuse going on here, only that allegations of abuse have been stated by the IP editor. I would like to correct Seraphimblade's assumptions listed in the preceding note: at no time have I been uncivil to the IP editor, nor have I called him or her names. I have never speculated upon his or her motives. It is true that I have not embodied the Welcome Wagon complete with an offering of fresh-baked cookies (I do not generally follow such a course with any new editor), but I have never communicated to the IP editor in any but the most truthful, neutral and direct manner. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anon blocks

I completely concur with your recent use of a soft block on the IP sock that posted on your page; but I noticed that the instructions for {{anonblock}} say not to subst. Maybe we should change the template to use references to pages that have the relevant information rather than links to e-mail addresses and forms that may change as there are performance disadvantages to transcluding. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've got a bad idea there. I'll admit I haven't looked at the instructions for {{anonblock}} in a while, it was my understanding that all user talk warning/block messages were subst'd for that very reason. Do you think a link to WP:APPEAL would be an acceptable substitute? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
That would probably be the best choice, though that's a mess now that I look at it; there is no obvious link to e-mail the unblock list. Seems like we need a page that just says:
  • 1. Contact the blocking admin, if they don't respond
  • 2. E-mail the unblock list here or submit a form to the list by clicking here, if you think you've been treated unfairly by everybody
  • 3. File a Request for Arbitration
For further details see WP:APPEAL
What do you think?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yow, you're certainly right about APPEAL, I haven't looked at that in a while either. I think a simple subpage could be done easily enough though, and since the template would point to that, it wouldn't matter if the template were subst'ed. I do think the advice of "contact the blocking admin" might be of limited usefulness for something specific to anon blocks, though, since anons can't enable email. We could recommend that the anon attempt posting on their talk page, since I think in practice most admins watchlist the talk page when they block a user, and if that fails or receives no response include instructions on how to use {{unblock}}, contact unblock-en-l, and the like. I'm not even sure we need a full project-space page for that, a subpage of the template might work just fine. I might knock together a draft here if I have time tonight. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
That sounds great. I agree that "contact the blocking admin" might not be useful for anons, I was just listing the standard list of course, and pretty hastily at that. Thanks for working it, I'm only on for short spurts right now but I'll try to pitch in.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Got a start of it going, here. Advice/improvements would be most welcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a look and it looks very good and has the emphasis on creating an account like it should be. I have a few thoughts I'll try to add or comment on later, not much editing time at this moment. Thanks for working this issue.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Michael Kirmse

Please restore this article; I had reviewed it while deleting CSDs, and the nominator used rollback (!) to undo my decline of the speedy. I'll go to DRV if you choose not to restore. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not notice that, and probably would've suggested prod or AfD if I had. I was looking for earlier versions to find a non-promotional version, and couldn't find one, but didn't notice that the speedy template had gone and reappeared. Can you suggest a version that is not promotional to restore? Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't see any of them really as being the "exclusively promotional" that qualifies for G11 speedy, so I can't recommend to you any of them over another. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Thank you in assisting me in deleting the useless pages.Reqluce (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize for the WFCR Foundation thing. I made an error in creating a merge request and incorrectly formatted the merge tag. Since your deletion, I was able to correct my mistake so that the proper discussion appears in the right place! NECRATSpeak to me 08:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, but you don't need to apologize. We've all made erroneous edits and had to fix them in various ways. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Shell Transource Ltd

It is the largest non voice BPO in india, please revert for the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxer (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the note I left on your talk page as you left this one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The page was just created minutes ago.I would have added some more information,its not promotional its just a company,a company in India. When you surf the net there is lot of information about shell transource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxer (talk • contribs) 09:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"...provides unparalleled solutions to fortune 1000 companies...", "proven track record of catering some of the conventional Indian companies...", "...best-in-class practices." All of these are marketese straight out of a glossy ad brochure, and are in no way a neutral tone. If you have appropriate sources you can point me to, I can help you write the article, but it cannot sound anything like that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom Clements (politician)

Hi there Seraphimblade, I am really curious about your deletion of Tom Clements (politician). I have the text of the article and it is not promotional in tone or substance. True, it mostly uses his campaign as a source, but that could have been easily rectified by substituting the large number of mainstream sources for the information. Given that the man is a ballot-qualified candidate for the US Senate on a national party, I think your deletion was quite hasty. Please undo your deletion and I will include the large number of outside sources available for the environmentalist and politician.--TM 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was basically a list of his campaign platforms that would go in a glossy campaign brochure, no different than an ad article for a company. What sources have you that would allow an article to be written on him that's a biography and not a brochure? If you've got them, I'm happy to restore or userfy the article for you, but it couldn't be like it was. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are a few sources for the Clements article [37], [38][39][40]. Again, I will ask that you be more hesitant to speedily delete articles like Clements, given his high profile electoral campaign. A simple prod or tag would have been much more effective.--TM 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Given that, I might be willing to provisionally userfy, but definitely not restore wholesale—most of this coverage is either local or somewhat partisan, such as Commondreams. Has he been covered by any neutral source outside his local area? Regardless, I stand by the speedy. The article was a campaign brochure, and regardless of other considerations, that is unacceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Using local, reliable sources for a state election is perfectly acceptable. As you know Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Can you explain to me where local sources are somehow lesser than national or international ones? Common Dreams NewsCenter, statedly progressive, is also a reliable source. I think the best option is to fully restore the article and nominate it for AfD. There is a clear assertion of notability and as much as you may think so, it was not simply written as a campaign brochure. If you still disagree, I am fine taking this to deletion review.--TM 22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly your option. If you're stating that the article is acceptable as was, I disagree, and am unwilling to restore it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've listed it at DRV.--TM 23:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Earlier today, I asked "Please undo your deletion and I will include the large number of outside sources available for the environmentalist and politician" and then provided several reliable sources. How is that not explaining how I would expand and improve the article?--TM 23:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
You provided a few local and one partisan source. Local coverage, in the case of politicians, is essentially involved and trivial—it almost has to give them some airtime. Especially in the case of third party candidates, who are not often even viable, they need substantial coverage outside their political position and local area. Unaffiliated sourcing is the definition of notability, and sourcing of the same locality or persuasion as something or someone has a strong affinity to it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing Tags

Hi there,

I contributed an article about a month or so ago and I would love your help and feedback. Originally the article was tagged as being biased in tone and reading like an advertisement. Since then I have seriously taken the info down to its bare bones and still the tags are posted. Is there something you can do to help guide me in a direction that will get them removed so that the article doesn't appear fictitious? Even some of the references I have listed have been called to question and they are completely legitimate publications. Aside from the resources however, I do feel like the article is neutral in tone and merely provides the highlights of an artists career. You're suggestions would be most helpful!! The article title is "Todd White- artist". Thank you so much. Looking forward to hearing from you. LindsayCervarich (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest with you, I'm not sure that the subject is notable at all—most of the sources I can find there look to be pretty small-time, specialist stuff. Also, while I can't read OTRS tickets, it appears it was confirmed that you have a connection to the article's subject. Generally, that means you shouldn't be editing the article at all. Please see the guidelines on conflict of interest situations for further guidance in such a situation.
Do you have any better references available than the ones there, perhaps in some larger or better-known publications with a bit more of a reputation that can allow us to assess reliability? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. Yes, I noticed the tag that confirmed I have a connection to the article's subject which really isn't the case at all. I'm simply a freelance writer and art enthusiast. I looked up other artists that I am familiar with in the LA area and I was hoping you could guide me in the direction of making the Todd White article a "stub" page, like theirs. Justin Bua, Sebastian Kruger and Opie Otterstad are all artists with pages that fall under that category. And while I realize that the resources that were used for the Todd White article are mainly from specialty mags, they are indeed legit publications that you can easily find online. I'm not sure how to go about correcting that. Again, your suggestions and help have been very appreciated!! I'll wait to hear from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayCervarich (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like several of the other pages you cited may need to be proposed for deletion, as well, so I'd advise strongly against emulating them. Regardless, other stuff existing doesn't necessarily make a new article appropriate—the other one may just have been missed. Similarly, being available online is not a requirement for sourcing. Reliability is. Can you indicate that the sources you used meet the guidelines of reliability from the reliable sources guideline? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Spam block

See my talk. Cheers, Connormah (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks

You closed my appeal, inviting me to appeal to ArbCom. I will do that, thank you. My apologies if this was not the right place to do so in the first place. I'd like to point out that the "banning policy" page, however, explicitly directs users to appeal in that space, which was the reason I did so. I realize I'm relatively new, but I'm a quick study and still find the protocols extremely confusing, even contradictory. Just a point for admins to consider. JRHammond (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

While technically the banning policy may say that, the arbitration enforcement guidelines direct you to appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (which you did), and if that is unsuccessful to appeal to ArbCom. I would, however, strongly urge you to consider what has led to this point, that several editors have expressed support for the actions taken, and what behaviors you can change to show that you have corrected the problem. Continuing to assert that there is no problem is unlikely to be successful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kelli Scarr

Materialscientist (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Odko

Hey There,

I am Batnaran, I am new to wikipedia and I was trying to publish a new page on Mongolian hip hop artist "Odko". And it is deleted. Please do some research oh his work and Please help me to publish this page. I can translate from Mongolian, If you find any Mongolian articles on him,

Thank you,

Batnaran —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batnaran (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really find any sources from a quick Google, and I wouldn't even know if Mongolian sources were about him, nor could I assess a Mongolian source's significance or reliability. If you can find substantial sources covering him, I'm happy to help you evaluate them and help you to write the article if they're independent, reliable, and substantial enough, But to finding sources, that part's your job, before you ever first put in a new article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Im not bad i know the truth.

Dude people should know, the truth, stop editing my edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatyourpork (talk • contribs) 09:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Bill Nye / xkcd

Re this edit to Bill Nye: The quote is from the tooltip text of the comic's image. It doesn't matter to me whether it's quoted in the article but I thought you'd like to know. —Mrwojo (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have even thought of looking there! It may work then, though I think if it's going to be there that might be best explained in the text rather than used as the ref quote. But thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring policy discussion

I appreciated your thoughts in the "What's a revert?" thread I started at AN yesterday. It often takes kicking an idea around with others, and hearing what they have to say about the topic, before I can get to the question I really need to ask. So the discussion was really helpful to me, and I've been able to say at AN what I was asking there much more concisely:

Can an editor use "his daily 1RR" revert to delete some content added by an opponent an hour ago, and then also walk through the article like a shopper pushing a cart down a grocery aisle and just remove (or restore) whatever additional content he chooses to suit his POV? Merely because that additional content was added (or removed) a year ago or a month ago, and is thus not under current dispute? Doing so might violate other policies, but does it violate 1RR or not?

If you have the time and inclination, I'd be grateful if you wouldn't mind weighing in again at AN, on this more specific question. Sorry it took me so long to be able to formulate the question clearly and state it concisely. I'm not trying to shape the outcome by asking particular admins, btw. I'm making this same request to all admins who contributed. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Article content

Can you please provide me with a copy of an article that you deleted entitled Jihad satire. thank you.AMuseo (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from userpage where it was mistakenly added. Apologies for sort-of-stalking! Bigger digger (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
(Don't apologize for the stalking of my talk page, help is welcome!) I can do that. Are you disputing the prod, or just requesting a copy of the deleted text? Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
My appearance here is quite complicated, but I stunbled across the original query and answer here and just wondered how it was progressing. I think Amuseo is contesting the prod, but isn't fully aware that's possible (learning curves...). I will also stick a talk back in place. Bigger digger (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am disputing the prod. And thank you both for helping me along on my learning curve.AMuseo (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I do want to recreate Jihad satire. It may well need improvement, but the article was featured in DKY where it got thousands of hits. So it seems doubly odd that you would take it down, without notifying me (I created it) or having an AFD.AMuseo (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You may wish to see the proposed deletion process for clarification on how that process works. If you were not notified, you may wish to speak to the person who placed the prod notice, as this is customarily done by them. Since no one objected to deletion after seven days, the article was deleted. As with all articles deleted by this process, anyone can debate a deletion under it and request that the article be restored. Since you have done so, I will restore the article. Please do keep in mind, however, this is the normal way that proposed deletion works (other than not notifying you, which is not standard). Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user issues

Two questions:

1) Where was that unblock request page you were working on and what's the status now? I've been away more than I'd like and couldn't keep on track with it.

2) See the following and comment if you want User_talk:Chudasama#Progress_with_user.

Thanks, --Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I know very well how the busy bit goes. But as to those, the anon block page is here. I think it's probably about ready to get suggested as a page for the template to point to, so that we could subst it. As far as Chudasama goes, I've no particular objection to what you're proposing, but Dominic originally did the block. I'm interested to know how he didn't understand socking was disallowed, when that appears to have been what his initial block was for, but I suppose the misunderstanding could've been occurring then too. I'm also not entirely sure that he "gets it" after putting yet another note from an IP on Dominic's talk page, but Dominic would be the one to ask anyway—I just declined the unblock, he's the one who originally placed the block. Also keep in mind Dominic's a checkuser, not sure if that came into the initial determination of socking or not, but might be worth asking. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Anonywiki

Thanks. --John (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mail

Hi Seraphim, just to let you know I've dropped you an e-mail. --JN466 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Angeli Di Pietra pages removed, why ?

Hello,

I was wondering why you have removed the Angeli Di Pietra band-page, as it is in no way a personal or subjective article. I wrote it myself, with a lot of links to albums, other bands, musical instruments and techniques, studios and more music related issues.

The article itself is unbiassed and completely objective. I do like the band (otherwise I would not write an article, or have so much facts about them), but since I'm a journalist, I know the importance of objectivity in writing. That's why I do not understand why this article is removed, as it is just a band biography as there are thousands of them, spread over wikipedia.

Could you please provide an answer ? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatorn (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Galatorn (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Eurokin pages removed why ?

I've created a page on the Eurokin consortium. The page used parts of some text from the http://www.eurokin.org website after requesting the autorization of the owner of this website. The autorization email I received was transferred to "permissions-en@wikimedia.org", but the page was deleted for "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement". Can you explain what I did wrong? Thanks in advance. JanVerstraete (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if you do have permission to use the text (which is not noted by OTRS, and we cannot just take someone's word for), the article was promotional in tone, and also did not assert the notability of the organization by appropriately citing reliable sources that cover the organization itself in depth. Please see here for additional clarification. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

user:ClaudioEM and ReinXeed genre

It's not completely a content dispute. The problem is that the editor doesn't speak English fluently. I don't think the editor fully appreciates the difference between truth and WP:V. Do you have a suggestion where I can find a Spanish-speaking editor to explain this more clearly? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Failure to speak English properly is still not vandalism. You could take a look at the Babel page, which lists editors fluent in many different languages. I can speak passable Spanish, but not totally fluent, so I'm afraid I might do more harm than good in an already touchy situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Judah

Thank you for considering the 3O. However, I have tried everything that comes to mind, including RFC, MEDCAB, WP:ANEW, et al. It has been a two-editor discussion for two or three weeks now, and in the entire month-plus, PiCo has not allowed a single sentence of my original edits to stand, while every sentence of PiCo's original edits failed source verification immediately, and while PiCo feels permitted to make sweeping changes elsewhere in the article without discussion, all of which I documented as stated in the request section of talk. This is unlike any other DR experience I've had on WP. Can you tell me what might grease the skids here? It is a simple matter to look at the sources for the 12 remaining sentences/clauses and determine if they support the current text or not: I DID IT a month ago. But with this ongoing resistance nobody has joined me in the fray. What particulars would you suggest? JJB 19:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you believe the edits are not supported by the sources, you might try the no original research noticeboard, specifying what you think is OR or unsupported by the source used and why. There is also a reliable sources noticeboard if you believe the sources used are not reliable ones. I don't think, at this point, that a third opinion is going to solve the issue—that's meant as a very lightweight process for when only two editors have been involved. Here, the involvement of additional editors clearly did not settle the matter before. I'd try bringing the sources to the appropriate noticeboard above. Also, it is not a "simple matter" to go and read twelve sources. You need to specify exactly what part of the article is not supported by its source(s) when you do bring it there (should be clearly stated for each disputed section, and be as brief as you can about it). If the problem continues, there is also formal mediation or as a last resort arbitration, but arbitration especially is not generally a good place to wind up, as the behavior of everyone involved will be examined. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, off to NORN, in due time, thanks. JJB 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion removals

I noticed that you removed a pending request from the list there and declined it in this edit. We very recently adopted a new guideline at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Declining_requests_for_third_opinions which says:

Even if a request does not fully comply with the guidelines set out here, requests for third opinions should not ordinarily be removed from the list of active disagreements unless a third opinion will be given or unless the request has been listed for more than seven days. If you believe that there is a compelling reason to remove an item from the list for some other reason, it is usually a good idea to discuss the removal on the Third Opinion talk page before taking any action.

It's so new (and at the bottom of the page to boot) I'm not surprised that you missed it, but just wanted to let you know. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to leave even noncompliant ones? I'm not sure I see the point of leaving ones that don't fit the criteria. (Obviously, we wouldn't want people arbitrarily removing them without providing opinions!) Not sure of the purpose for this, though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed a listing from the 3O list because it was a conduct dispute, not a content dispute, which set off the discussion which resulted in Athaenara removing the content restriction and me adding the non removal guideline which I quoted, above. See this discussion. Since the time that we adopted the staleness guideline (in the next–to–last paragraph of the How to list a dispute section), there seems to be more support for the idea of just leaving disputes on the list to see if anyone will take them regardless of nonconformity and only removing them if no one wants to do so and they become stale. Watching the list over the past few weeks, I've discovered that as a purely practical matter very, very few listed disputes stay on the list long enough to become stale, someone almost always gives an opinion. The thought is that the real value of the 3O project is as a quick and informal opinion by an editor who is a neutral to the disputants and the dispute and that the opinion is not a tiebreaker, i.e. that it doesn't !count towards consensus. The two–editors–only, civility, content–dispute–only, and other restraints make it more likely that 3O will settle the dispute, but if you think about it for a minute there's little harm done if if does not. Moreover, any Wikipedian is free to issue a neutral opinion in a dispute without reference to the 3O project. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images in list articles

Regarding this edit to List of Hannah Montana main characters, can you please direct me to a policy or consensus that specifically states "Additional nonfree content beyond cast photo disallowed in list article", because it does not say that anywhere that I can find in WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Please see the nonfree content criteria. The image in question fails both #1 (it is replaceable, and indeed replaced, in this case by the text which quite well describes the differences in appearance), and #8 (since text does an adequate job of explaining these differences, the image is decorative rather than crucial). Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:NFCC does not state that at all. It provides for judicious use, not one and one only. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
While your principle is correct, any given must pass all of the criteria. Since this image fails two of them, it would be excluded. If you take a look at similar "list of characters" articles, you will find that alter ego or minor characters, even those not featured in the montage or cast shot, do not then have individual images. It has generally been held that NFCC does allow one cast or montage shot for a list article, so that one is fine. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I have to ask, where in WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS does it say "Nonfree images in subarticles disallowed"? Given your comment above, "It has generally been held that NFCC does allow one cast or montage shot for a list article", this seems to be a contradictory edit summary. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Such is allowed in "List of X characters" articles only, not in every article which happens to be about it. I'm quite sure I specified character list articles as an acceptable place for a montage shot, but it can't just be splattered all over anything somewhat related. You cannot have the montage shot in every season, episode, etc., article just because it happens to be about the show, just as you cannot have an album cover everywhere the album is discussed (such as in a discography list, etc.), but only in the main article. The logo is even questionable in subarticles, but as long as it's the only one, probably alright. Since subarticles already reference the main article, there's no reason for it to be in them as well. There are a lot of permutations to minimizing use. In this case, it also fails #8 (there's no particular contextual significance, it's just placed there as decoration). Since it fails NFCC #1 (replaceable by referencing the article that uses it), #3a (not minimal use), and #8 (no real context to the article), it wouldn't be allowed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this explanation is it does not demonstrate that your stance is supported by policy, or even by consensus. Neither WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS says anything to support you. However, WP:NFLISTS says "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image." This is a clear endorsement of the use of the season 2 cast image in Hannah Montana (season 2) and List of Hannah Montana main characters. To be honest, your edits in this matter are more than a little puzzling. You seem to have no problem with inclusion of all four season cast photos in the main article and inclusion of cast photos in the season 1, 3 and 4 articles and List of Hannah Montana main characters, you just seem to be picking on season 2 for whatever reason. In creating a quality encyclopaedia, or any such document, consistency is important and removing the cast photo from only one article removes consistency. For the record, I've removed the cast photos from the main article, as their use there was more decorative than encyclopaedic.[41] Originally I moved them all into {{multiple image}} to make them all a consistent size and tidy up the cast list generally,[42] but the cast list in the main article only lists the cast. It seemed more appropriate remove the image from Hannah Montana#Cast and leave them only in the season articles, where they already existed and where the cast is actually discussed. File:Hannah Montana cast 2.JPG is used in the character list article because it is the best representative image of the cast over the four seasons, but its use there does not preclude use in the season 2 article. Since there's no part of the policies that says the image can't be used, at least none that you've demonstrated, and since WP:NFLISTS states that repeating an already existing image is preferable over uploading a new image, there's really no reason why the image should be deleted. WP:NFCC#8 is not reason enough. That criteria can be used to exclude virtually every non-free image on Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade/archive_9&oldid=1166514093"