User talk:Seresin/Archive 18

This page is an archive of User Talk:Seresin (or perhaps something else). If you wish to discuss something here, feel free to bring it up again. The history for this page is here, not on the main talk page. Thanks.

Archives Until August 2007 — September 2007 October 2007 — November 2007 December 2007 — January 2008 February 2008 — March 2008 April 2008 — May 2008 June 2008 — July 2008 August 2008 — September 2008 October 2008 — November 2008 December 2008 — January 2009 February 2009 — March 2009 April 2009 — May 2009 June 2009 — July 2009 August 2009 — September 2009 October 2009 — November 2009 December 2009 — January 2010 February 2010 — March 2010 April 2010 — May 2010 June 2010 — to June 2013 to November 2014

Happy New Year!

Dear Seresin,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost

Seresin, thanks for your work on the Signpost. I hope to catch up with the last few weeks by publishing a big edition soon, hopefully tomorrow. Would it be possible for you to update the features you work on through December? No pressure, of course, but I would be extremely grateful.--ragesoss (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks much.--ragesoss (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I noticed that the Features and Admins draft ended on December 16. I had started compiling the section for admins, bots, FAs, etc. before I saw your talk post to Ragesoss - are you in the process of creating this, or would it help if I posted what I've got? Cheers, Hermione1980 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually almost done updating it. The only things I don't have are the admins and bots, if you'd like to post those that would be great, but I've got everything else. It might make be good if we compare what we have, since it's a large issue to see if I missed anything. Let me know. seresin ( ¡? )  00:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be as follows:

'''Administrators''' (5): {{goa|Wehwalt|}}, {{goa|Icewedge|}}, [[User:Lustiger seth|Lustiger seth]] ([[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth|nom]]), {{goa|AniMate|}}, and {{goa|GrahamColm|}}.

'''Bots''' (12): {{boa|Muro Bot|4}}, {{boa|ProtectionTaggingBot|}}, {{boa|Addbot|15}}, {{boa|DYKBot|2}}, {{boa|Simplebot|}}, {{boa|XLerateBot|}}, {{boa|SassoBot|}}, {{boa|AnomieBOT|19}}, {{boa|PDFbot|3}}, {{boa|AnomieBOT|18}}, {{boa|RibotBOT|}}, and {{boa|NobelBot|}}.

I'll be more than happy to compare notes. —Hermione1980 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are in addition to what I already had, I take it? And sounds like a plan. seresin ( ¡? )  01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Your lists of FAs, FLs, and FPs matches mine, and I hadn't done anything else. That's a lot of featured stuff. :-) Hermione1980 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. I've finished my update and look over, if you'd like to have a last look at it, that would be great. Otherwise, it's ready to go. seresin ( ¡? )  01:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nitpicky question: Everything says "...since the last issue" except for the featured sounds, which says "this week" - could you change that for consistency? Other than that, looks good. Would you, in turn, mind looking at the articles I've written (User:Hermione1980/ArbCom elections and User:Hermione1980/MediaWiki facelift)? If you don't want to, that's okay. Hermione1980 01:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See, that's why I needed another pair of eyes :) I'd be happy to look at them. seresin ( ¡? )  01:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They look pretty good. WRT to the interface one, I would put the content that you copied in quotes, or, preferably, rewrite the content in your own words. Also, making note of the fact that they intend to have results beginning in mid 09, and that the grant isn't counting toward the fundraiser's goal and why, might be good ideas. For the ArbCom: you could note earlier that the number of seats was expanded; note the greatly increased percent of new members; tighten the chart of new members (too much space); note that the Arbitrators began voting earlier than usual; and, just a person pet peeve, change the word 'comprise' to 'composed of' or 'comprises'. If you would prefer, I'll actually edit them, and you can keep them or take them out. But however you'd like is fine. seresin ( ¡? )  02:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually heading to bed right now, so if you would make any changes you feel are necessary, that would be much appreciated. I'll take a look at them in the morning. Thanks! Hermione1980 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I made changes I liked to the ArbCom report. You're totally free to keep them, or remove them as you see fit. As for the grant article, ragesoss merged it with Phoebe's News and Notes page. She also covered your suggestion about the fundraising goal being met. seresin ( ¡? )  05:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what I love about Wikipedia - other people see things that I don't. Thanks for the help - looks great! Cheers, Hermione1980 13:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Move/redirect the article to Antisemitism

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (2nd nomination) ‎

Would you agree to move/redirect the stub to Antisemitism? If so, email the creator of the article, and then speedy close the AfD. This will probably prevent the article ever being created again. travb (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Thank you for recalling the AfD. You maybe interested in the talk page of this article. travb (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

'post

Thanks for your note -- I saw the Stanton article and the other drafts. I'll work on polishing up news & notes, per ragesoss's note, and see if I can get together enough to write about the VK block in more depth. Cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. seresin ( ¡? )  02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi! I just noticed that my page regarding Pirates Online was deleted and read the discussion coming from it. I'm totally fine with the deletion and just wanted to clear this up with all users who were nominating it, so maybe if you could spread the word around! First: I didn't know you couldn't have your own personal pages with information, because I had seen other users with the same sorts of things on their personal pages (e.g. Brethren Court, etc.). Second: I wasn't aiming on threatening vandalism tags with everyone – there was a specific person, whose IP and various accounts (accused of sockpuppetry) had been personally harassing me and it was agreed between myself and a few administrators that the more he put my mainpage/talk pages, etc. up for speedy deletion, the more vandalism tags he would be given. Hence, I had posted a notice, specifically for him. I'm sure I should've been more clear about that. That is all, and thanks so much for telling me what I should've been doing, I didn't know I couldn't have my personal page on that. Regards, BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 21:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstah

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I'm sure you had fun writing the featured list section of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-03/Features and admins! Xclamation point 05:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you. seresin ( ¡? )  22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter articles

Since you were an active voice in the notability debates in the WikiProject HP, then you might be interested in a merge proposal regarding Luna Lovegood at Talk:Dumbledore's Army#Merge proposal. Greetings! --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Building

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost articles?

Any idea of when the Signpost features will be ready?--ragesoss (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized you wanted them today, the deadline was usually Sunday. My apologies. I'll get on them tonight, and I'll certainly have them by 20:00 tomorrow. seresin ( ¡? )  01:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'll be offline until sometime close to 20:00, but if you want to publish before then, go for it.--ragesoss (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question

My apologies Seresin. You're right, I did interpret it to be an insult, and I apologise for not assuming good faith. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: 4_chan protection

It is perfectly fine, and in fact we were holding bets on IRC as to how long it would be until someone reprotected it (slakr won, by the way). I was completely expecting it to be reprotected sometime soon; I wasn't expecting it this early, but I do thank you very much for not going nuts on me. I will not unprotect it again, as you are correct, it is picking up again and there were at least two threads on 4chan pointing out that the article had been unprotected. Good protection, and thank you again for not biting my head off. :-D Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was a total surprise. I'm giving it another half hour, although it's been surprisingly quiet. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous Block action

Hello! I am a relatively new contributor. I had a disagreement about the wording on the paroxetine page. I failed to reach an agreement with user TVC 15, so I sought the help from more experienced users. Two of them made useful contributions. TVC 15, undid their conributions. I grew tired of his behavior, and resorted to a tit-for-tat game of 3RR. I realize my behaviour is unproductive, but I feel TVC 15 is trying to control the page. I bring this to you because I noticed you reprimanded the user in the past. Thank you, Mwalla (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Please bring the Paroxetine page and the actions of TCV 15 up for review. Let's go with the version Casliber created, which TVC 15 removed. Mwalla (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Hi - if you do have time to look at the article, a disinterested perspective might help. The disagreement concerns the two introductory paragraphs. They had been stable for a long time, listing both benefits and notable side effects. Recently, a small number of editors from the pharmacology project started to delete the side effects, leaving only the benefits. As I wrote on the discussion page, "even a 30-second TV advertisement _for_ the drug would be required to warn of side effects. WP is supposed to provide a neutral article _about_ the drug. If you make the intro solely about the drug's benefits, but delete the side effects, then you're slanting WP even more than would be allowed in advertising." I have offered several compromises, but Mwalla reverts them all (eight reverts today), with hardly any discussion, including this: "I will be here all day, try the veal." I am not trying to "control the article," or to censor the benefits for which the drug is approved; however, I believe that WP:NPOV requires balancing the benefits against notable side effects and the mandatory black box warning.TVC 15 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The page had been stable because TVC 15 took conrol of it and blocked the attempts of others to add neutrality. Mwalla (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Discussion about the content goes on the talk page of the article, not here. Accusations and bad faith will not contribute to a productive discussion; cease. Put aside your differences, both of you stop edit warring, and try to work out an agreement. You've received an opinion from Literaturegeek, try to work it out. Rseresin ( ¡? )  22:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine protection

Go right ahead, I'll defer to your judgment. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be monitoring the situation, and I believe it can be resolved amicably with little further administrator intervention. seresin ( ¡? )  00:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms of endearment (2nd nomination)

In my review of the discussion, I could find no definite consensus. While it was leaning towards deletion, there were also good arguments for merging or userfying the page. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there were also good arguments for keeping the page, so I believe my closure was appropriate. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to me that the editors in favor of keeping the article did provide sufficient reasoning, particularly WilyD (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. With any luck, we'll be able to establish a firm consensus at DRV. Regards, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Long-term effects of alcohol

Argh crap, lapse of judgement there; sorry, and thanks for fixing it, shouldn't ever happen again :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem :) seresin ( ¡? )  06:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I'm not a native English speaker, but I'm quite sure that there was vandalization here, for the rendering of the first phrase doesn't at least resemble what is written right above. Could you take a look?Frajolex (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus

Thanks for fixing move protection on Jesus, forgot to put that back... Dreadstar † 01:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh not a problem. seresin ( ¡? )  02:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxxy

The entire article is sourced from blogs, read WP:SPS and WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They can't be used alone, especially in biographical articles. As you are not reading the pages I have given you, I will paste the relevant parts here.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

--Otterathome (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You would be right, but as all the sources are blogs, it's goes against BLP policy.--Otterathome (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxxy

Thanks, I was trying not to be overly tyranical. Did not realize the page move vandal on Boxxy was "autoconfirmed." Starkid had less than 20 edits and was a VOA. I thought the whole point of autoconfirm was to prevent this sort of thing. Oh, well. Dlohcierekim 15:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this page, only ten edits and four days are required to be autoconfirmed. As only autoconfirmed editors can move pages, (see here) he had to have been autoconfirmed; therefore [move = autoconfirmed] is pretty useless. seresin ( ¡? )  05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I did not realize how fast auto confirmed occurred. I thought the threshold was higher. So all one has to do is make a few innocuous edits, wait a few days, and then go to town. Like you say, it doesn't do much good at all. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Prussian Blue

Since the AfD nomination for this article was placed by our friend G***p, can you place a speedy close on the nomination as bad faith? It was going to snowball anyways. Nate • (chatter) 05:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. seresin ( ¡? )  05:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Watchlist-details

Yeah, sorry about that. I wasn't familiar with the protocol on that page, and I'm bringing it to the talk page now. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)