User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you
For reverting vandalism to my user page. --John 04:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And for cleaning up after my own personal stalker. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion something
Hello there. From the history of WT:AFD, you are quite active there. I am about to write a proposal there (currently in User:Krator/Sandbox4), but I would like some feedback from people I actually know will be sensible about it, and are knowledgeable in the area. I'm cross-posting this at both User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide and User talk:Seraphimblade, as I happen to remember you two. Thanks in advance, User:Krator (t c) 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Replied here if you're interested in my thoughts. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
Inquiry on Editing the Victory Christian Fellowship Page
Greetings, Seraphimblade!
I have been a contributor for the Victory Christian Fellowship page. When Every Nation entry underwent mediation, the Victory Christian Fellowship page was also included in the process (as Victory is affiliated with Every Nation and they were facing the same issues on editing). I understand that when a page is under mediation, no one is suppose to alter it while an agreement is not reached.
I haven't been active with Wikipedia for a time because of work concerns but I have found a published material about Victory Christian Fellowship that is worth posting as a reputable source. Will I be allowed to do this now? Is mediation finished for this page?
Please let me know. I will put my posts on hold until I get permission from you. I would like to do this according to proper Wikipedia procedures.
Thank you very much for your time and advice.
Sincerely,
--Chickywiki 09:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Question re; Talk: Distributed Generation page
Seraphimblade, I am doing research on legislation related to global warming and urban planning. I would like to use some information on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation and more importantly, on the Talk page associated w/ that article. However, I am unsure of where this info came from. On the talk page, there is a section titled "Distributed Power Generation" which seems to continue down to 16 References. It seems that this is from the book you mentioned "Electric Power Industry" by Denise Warkentin-Glenn. Is this correct? If not, where is this info from? Thanks for any help you can provide,
Jay
71.94.157.167 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for AGF
Hello, this is already in the talk page. Talk:Binary_economics#Ownership_Again appears twice Talk:Binary_economics#Ownership_Again_2. If anything I was helping the user by moving it to the bottom where people actually check new comments. Having two copies is not constructive because it decentralizes discussion. Please, remove the top with a message clearing any confusion (I already responded to the one in the bottom...) It helps discussion to have only one version of the discussion. Thanks, Brusegadi 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. You seem experienced and have described some problems in Binary econ. I was wondering if there was an additional problem of WP:COI. There is a section on that talk page about studying the latest books (trying to sell copies?). Correct me if I am wrong, but many of the editors in that page (one example is Rodney) seem to be the authors of the main sources used in the article. It seems to me that it is impossible for this to be enforced, so I decided to keep it out of the talk for now. Yet, I noticed you did some great work, among other things, with sock puppets. Do you know if there is a way to actually enforce COI despite the fact that a person (or small group) can just come in with dynamic IPs and claim different identities...? Brusegadi 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
About Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series
How can the result of this AfD be delete, when the first one was "no consensus" and this one wasn't properly made? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 15:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- My argument wasn't actually intended to be a "Keep" one, but I understand. Thanks for explaining. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 16:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"Continuum (Choir)" deletion
Hi -- I wanted to find out more about your rationale here. (I am the director of the group, but not the one who posted the article.) I can see how this article might fail on notability standards, but isn't the posted rationale ("blatant advertising") an objection to the content of the article (and isn't that usually about link spamming)? If format/content is an issue, it makes it difficult to fix these things when the page has been deleted and when the poster had indicated a willingness to rewrite to meet community standards. (Not throwing a tantrum, just trying to figure out how things work.) Cogidubnus 15:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
DRV Notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Booting (chat room slang). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booting (chat room slang), you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot 10:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Student Youth Network
You may want to revisit your salt comment on the deletion review page. Benjiboi 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, etc
Could you please help me nominate this page for deletion? I've tried to do it myself, but it didn't work as I planned to. I've never done this before. Thanks. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Unjustified editing restrictions?
You have imposed serious editing restrictions on me, citing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 as a reason, with the words "any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I have looked through the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 page, and can see no such words appearing anywhere on that page. Please point to me the location where this remedy was decided on. The remedy in the page you have cited refers to "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts", so why have you placed the restrictions on my editing for a talk-page comment of an article that is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan???? Meowy 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding you comment on my talk page. Firstly, you have completely failed to answer my question about where, in the RfA remedy decision, the word Turkey is mentioned. Secondly, you seem to lack any knowledge of the history of WW1. The Allied occupation of Constantinople was not (as you call it) an "ethnic conflict" and it is completely unrelated to Armenia or Azerbaijan. Meowy 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- And regarding the reply you made to the above. Please, Seraphimblake, I have asked you a simple question. Do me the courtesy of answering it! All I asked is where in that RfA decision is there mention of "Turkey"? Where did the text you posted here come from? You cannot go around imposing that Armenia-Azerbaijan RfA remedy on whatever subject you like - it has to be on a subject that is covered by that RfA remedy. As I stated, the Allied occupation of Constantinople was not an "ethnic conflict" and is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan so why are you applying that remedy as a result of a posting I made on that entry's talk page? Meowy 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Binary economics
EconomicsGuy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Just thought you might like some moral support. I've been involved with that article and the pattern is the same as usual. I don't know if you've read my comments on the COI noticeboard but the reactions you've been getting on the talk page follows the exact same pattern as previously. The meatpuppetry itself should have been enough to ban Rodney a long time ago. He's incivil, POV pushing, disruptive and uses meatpuppets whenever he gets into trouble. EconomicsGuy 06:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Eupator
Please note that User:Eupator deleted your warning from his talk page: [1], which is a blatant show of disrespect against the rules and your warning. Please keep an eye on it if you will--warnings are meant for a reason. Personally, I think the one-week ban was too light, considering his direct comment on User AndranikPasha's talk page: [2]. He basically threatened AndranikPasha (the comment translates "Stop jumping up and down, or I will put you in your place. I am not going to pretend that a little dog like you is a human."). The one week ban can do for now, but please make sure he doesn't delete the warning, and that he avoids from further threats. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Eupator, like anyone, is free to remove material from his talk page. The ban is logged at the ArbCom case page as required. Of course, were anyone but an arbitrator or clerk to remove that, this would be problematic, but that has not happened. Removal of a warning is simply considered proof that its recipient has indeed read and understood it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
My impression was that users aren't allowed to do that, unless they archive it. I restored the warning. Should I revert myself?--TigranTheGreat 15:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, if he doesn't want the notice to appear on his talk page, he can remove it himself. Thanks anyway.--TigranTheGreat 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Can I ask about another thing? An admin Dab added many unsourced (seems to be biased) information to the different Armenia-related articles (unsourced description of a large number Armenian historical books as a "nationalist luterature", unsourced classification of an Armenian academian as a "Armenian nativist" etc. [3][4], our talk[5]) and is now supporting Eupator in his another editwarrings (in which Im not participated), and calls an Armenian user IP (noone knows if he even were blocked) "what a (Personal attack removed). Not only does he shame his own nation by his behaviour, he also disrupts free improvement of Armenia related articles. A true anti-patriot, if you ask me" [6]. id like to know if I can ask any other admin for checking of this admin's neutrality at Armenian-related articles. Sorry for disturbing you here, Ill be glad if you help to find a solution for this situation! Andranikpasha 18:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you believe that the additions to the articles are problematic, we have dispute resolution for good reason, and some of the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles may indeed benefit greatly from a neutral mediator or a request for comment. If you feel someone's behavior has been problematic, you can bring that up at the incident noticeboard, but I'm personally not terribly concerned by seeing a blocked user who's using sockpuppets called an idiot. That is a frustrating situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Andranikpasha 20:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's good that the the activities of Dab have been noted here by others. I was worried that if Seraphimblade is unable to justify his RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan edit restrictions warning he gave me for an entry completely unrelated to Armenia or Azerbaijan he would backtrack and actually say it was really for some editing discussions I had with Dab on an article that did deal with Armenia. If he is considering this option, then I hope he actually looks at the exchange which were full of aggressive replies and insults from Dab and by proper requests for discussion on my part. Meowy 02:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- PS - I am still awaiting your reply to my questions? Meowy 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Scarlet Letter Characters
Hey, on the Scarlet Letter article there are pages fo three of the characters. They are pointless as their personalities and motives are clearly explained in the article. I knoiw you are a deletionist and thought you would like to know since I do not have the power (or knowledge) to delete articles. BioYu-Gi! 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
ANI User:Whig
Hi there, there is a discussion about a user who you advised a few days ago. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Whig, any comments or suggestions would be welcome. Tim Vickers 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Beginnings of an edit war
Hi! I'm hoping you can give me some constructive advise about a user regarding material added to the Karyn Kupcinet article. Long story short, I reverted an edit by a user that insists on adding longwinded, unneeded info to the page (it's a somewhat controversial topic). Right now, the article is a mess (to me anyway) and reads like a bad true crime novel. The user called me a vandal for reverting their edits and vowed to "keep this up as long as I could". Whatever that means. I'm not disputing the content of the information per say, just the way it's being added and being overly repeated. The other editor seems to be missing that point and is now making it personal. I've attempted to be civil, blah blah blah and now I'm just irritated. Any assistance would be great! Pinkadelica 04:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup Taskforce
Please feel free to assign yourself tasks from the list of unassigned tasks at Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. Arranging assignments is too much work for me to do by myself. We have a large backlog of unassigned tasks and there is probably something in there that will interest you. RJFJR 22:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Oppose due to answers to question 6, and more especially 9."
It seems that I was not clear enough in my RfA that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others.
Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Project 17 Frigate
It's not possible to get the images or design of the frigate from any other source. It's an ongoing project of the Indian Navy. May be when the frigate is launched someone from Wikipedia will be able to take pictures. Till then let this image stay.
Chanakyathegreat 12:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Not yet. The table shows the details of the ship name, launch date etc. Three ships are already launched.[7] One media reported that the first ship is undergoing trials. So there is a chance of it getting commissioned in one or two months. Chanakyathegreat 11:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The ship exists but not in the complete form. The image cannot be replaced because the public has never been allowed to take the photo of the ships. Chanakyathegreat 14:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Syaoran Li redirect
I'd like to restore the page to Syaoran Li as the CCS article would cover none of his actions in xxxHolic or T:RC, in which he is the main character, even more so than Sakura. As such, I think he is important enough to merit his own article and I was planning on getting around to putting some sources in when I had the time (though that might not happen 'til around Christmas or so). I'd just like to discuss any objections you have so we don't end up getting into an edit war. PeRiDoTs13 15:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
About Human intelligence controversies
Hello, I see that you declined CSD G4 on the article above. While I understand your position, can you tell me if the fact that it was pieced together from parts deleted out of other articles deleted by a multiple merge initiated from this AfD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history) changes anything? My wish is only to better understand the CSD process and eligibility issues, as I feel this is a relatively complex situation. Thank you for understanding.--Ramdrake 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification; it certainly helped! :)--Ramdrake 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
An application of BIO
I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I am more interested in th eprecedent than in the Clem article. Do you have time to chat in a sidebar?
-
-
- I see that the PC World incusion of Clem in their list does not give us mcuh information on Clem, but does demostrate that he is being noticed in a broad arena.
- You make a good point that the Comixtalk interview is not a valid source of information, since it is an interview; however, doesn't it demonstrate that he is noticed? We typically expect source to perform a doubl duty of providing material and demosntrating notablility, but invalidating one aspect doesn't always invalidate the other. A second point on Comictalk is whether the existance of scheduled and dated issues indicates that it is a publication rather than just a blog. Just because a site has a blog section, should not invalidate it's journalistic aspect (?). What do you think? I always respect your thoughts, even whn I don't agree. --Kevin Murray 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
-
Notes at Clem
HI. I suppressed the notes at Clem, because they were becoming a distration for the AfD participants. I didn't want to take the time to delete them all if we are going to lose the article - a lot of work. Can you see my point? --Kevin Murray 16:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Legacy images
Hi there. I was a bit concerned to see the exchange between you and Wikidemo at WT:NFCC. As far as I can tell, you both want to improve the encyclopedia, so I'm not quite clear what you are disagreeing on about legacy images. Are you saying that legacy images should be deleted without some attempt to save them? Further down the page, someone else made this observation: "There is a steady drip of legacy images uploaded from as far back as 2004 being deleted because their uploaders do not edit anymore. I've also come across anonymous IPs who are tagging legacy images for deletion, and not notifying any editor about it, and these images are being lost because the editor who uploaded the image is not around to notice an edit to the image on his watchlist." - I once advocated deleting everything and starting again from scratch, to make sure people get things right the second time around, but I now think that this would be: (a) too destructive (could drive people away); and (b) would take a long time to build things back up again. Do you think you could try and take another look at the proposal and see whether it or you can be reconciled? Carcharoth 01:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with anyone writing in rationales for older nonfree images, if that person so desires. I do have a problem, however, with any of the following:
- Stalling again on cleaning up the noncompliant ones. We already did a month's suspension shortly after Betacommandbot began tagging, and have been finding and tagging them for months now. Plenty of warning has been given that salvageable images should by now have a rationale.
- Use of boilerplate rationales. That makes the term "rationale" meaningless. The rationale should be "I, the uploader, think that this image is necessary enough to ignore our free-content mission and passes the nonfree image requirements when used in that article because...", not "This image is of a certain class, so eh it's fine." Boilerplate tags are specifically not rationales for very good reason, thought should be required.
- And finally, as our goal is as a free-content project, yes, we should err on the side of "don't include" when it comes to nonfree material, and delete until unequivocally proven necessary enough to compromise our founding free-content principle. If someone wants an exception to that rule, it should be judged case-by-case, and that requires individual, handwritten rationales. I have no problem with the "helper" template, as it just simplifies the formatting of such rationales, but such cannot and should never be by a boilerplate tag. We're not currently exactly short of nonfree material, we're flooded by them. Every nonfree image discourages inventive methods of replacement by free images, and dilutes that core mission. "The free encyclopedia" doesn't mean our goal is to be free of charge, it means libre.
If a proposal were put forth which addressed these concerns, I'd happily support it. The current one, however, is a step in exactly the wrong direction—toward more nonfree content, when our use is already way past "minimal". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I sent you an email, and just wondered if you could have a look when you get a chance, please. Cheers TigerShark 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Brine Pool
I like what you've done with the brine pool article. It's still short, but it seems to be good coverage of the topic, with good formatting. -Fcsuper 17:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ubuild
uBuild is a new community, using a commercial package to provide disadvantage, disabled and unemployed people the possibility of setting up an eShop If you object to the way its worded perhaps you would like to help me word it so that it passes criteria, as this is not only a worthy cause no one else is doing it uBuild is a non profit organization, and as such is entitled I believe to have an entry on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuild (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
3rd time's a charm
High Neighbors: Dub Tribute To Phish is back for the 3rd time, you deleted #1 as High Neighbors: Dub Tribute to Phish. I've requested G4, and a bit of salt this time to the deletion, with both correct and incorrect capitalization. Thanks! SkierRMH 00:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot 08:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Images in lists
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights (2nd nomination), you said, "nonfree images are disallowed in lists." Could you point me at the guideline for this? I've seen it mentioned and disputed, but not been able to find relevant guideline. —Quasirandom 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Issaquah Middle School Deletion
I logged on to Wikipedia just this afternoon, and noticed that the page was deleted for the reason of "recreational 'deletation'". However, I do not believe that the page was "recreationally deleted", but I do believed it was unreasonably deleted earlier in April of 2007 due to its "notability". Regarding its notability, Issaquah Middle School is an actual school in Issaquah, WA as proven by the website link http://www.ims.issaquah.wednet.edu/ . I would like you to reconsider the deletion of this page as I was the main contributor to this page thus putting much time and effort to create the article to expand the wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmuchim (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Fedayee
I would just like to note that one of his reverts did not require any discussion. On the article Armenian, he reverted a banned user User:Ararat arev. Reverting banned users, particularly for blatant vandalism requires no discussion even if on parole. Just want that cleared out since you mentioned that article as well on the notification message on fedayee's talk.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 12:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Your block of Fedayee
An unblock request has been posted at User talk:Fedayee. As you imposed this block, your comments there would be appreciated. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
About Image:Gundam firefighting.jpg
I don't think removing it from an article and then immediately saying it is orphaned is valid, at most you can doubt its usefulness in the article, but not saying it should be deleted because it is orphaned. It serves as a source of that claimed sentence, and this kind of article had faced various deletionist attack on being too much original research and having too much unsourced information, thus a picture to prove the claim is necessary. MythSearchertalk 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Seraphimblade, a belated thank you for the barnstar. And thanks also for the warm welcome back. It is good to be around again - and everything is going great with the new bundle. Pastordavid (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Timpcrk87
Was User talk:Timpcrk87 suppose to be deleted when the user page was deleted?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 05:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:EA
I just took a moment to look when and by whom EA had been started, because I wanted to express my appreciation of that thing. This is precisely what I had been looking for all this time: it provides a perfect go-to point both for, well, editors seeking assistance and for non-admins like myself who nevertheless know their way around and are eager to help out others with smaller issues that don't require immediate admin attention. Really a great thing. |dorftrottel |talk 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Issaquah Middle School Follow-up
The school's name is listed on the Issaquah School District page for wikipedia and therefore I have no business adding it again to the list of schools. I found a informational link on a "independent" event of Issaquah Middle School regarding its job shadow program: http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/spring_96/page22.html Maybe this will convince you to bring back the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmuchim (talk • contribs) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
ELWARE
Sorry if this is the wrong place to say this, but otherwise I don't know where to say it. I think it is you who speedily deleted 'ELWARE' in the last 12 hours or so, even though I had affixed a {{hangon}} and replied to the various comments on the ELWARE talk page. It seems to me that the article does satisfy the criteria of notability and verifiability. This page has now disappeared along with the article itself, so the debate is summarily curtailed. Is that all there is to it? Do you just overrule me like that, or is there some process of reasoned debate? TobyJ (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Todd, I copied this here from your userpage and added the {{tl}} to the hangon tag because it was appearing in C:CSD (diff). James086Talk | Email 13:21, 21 November 2007 (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/Anime South.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Not the 1st and only incident
I would only like to point out that this is 'not' the first time Durova has wrecklessly jumped into action, improperly or too quickly blocked, or made public accusations without merit. This just happens to be the first time it's attracted this much attention.
If you really care to, I challenge you to go through her edit history where she routinely 'dismisses' those who post objections on her user talkpage. When challenged on any given incident, she routinely cites her Joan of Arc work, as well as tossing up a litany of previous accomplishments as if they justify or explain the issue of objection.
Yes, I have an axe to grind. Durova has abused me, threatened me and publicly accused me of wrongful conduct. Because I'm a small fish, nobody paid any attention. Yet, because of that interaction, I've watched these same situations come up time and time again on her talkpage.. with virtually the same response from her..."I am too busy to read it all carefully" "If you want more on the matter see my article -> (link to Joan of Arc)" .. "I have been very instrumental in getting several people blocked via arbcom with my sleuthing contributions" ... etc etc..
Seraphimblade, scan her contributions, count how many times she blows her own horn.. or includes herself in her own posts...
This is not an isolated incident and she has repeatedly demonstrated that she is incapable of accepting responsibility for her conduct. Yes, she occasionally pays some minor lip service to an established mistake, but that does not indicate, to me at least, that she has accepted the fundamental complaints against her methods and carelessness.
To that end, claiming this is the 1st and only mistake she has made, or implying that she has paid proper homage to the "im sorry" gods, does a serious injustice to all those she has wronged, and to wikipedia.
Best Regards,
Lsi john (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply?
Hey; when you have a minute, I'd appreciate your checking out talk:Barenaked Ladies and responding to my comment asking for clarification on yours :) Thanks TheHYPO (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Userpage semi protected
Hello Seraphimblade, just want to inform you that I've semiprotected your userpage due to vandalism from a dynamic IP. I hope this according to your will. Of course feel free to change this ;) --Oxymoron83 12:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Breathtaker
Sorry to bother you again. He removed a sockpuppeteer template I put on his User talk:Breathtaker plus several warnings regarding invalid rational for fair use images . Is he allowed to do that?--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yawp
I think you forgot to salt Yawp when you deleted it. I noticed I can recreate it. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 09:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer to create it. I notified you about the problem exactly 13 minutes after you salted the page according to the log. Maybe it takes a few minutes for the system to activate a protection. Anyway, everything is OK now. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Belldandy
Hi. I'm the editor who added part of the content you just deleted from Belldandy; I also added the cite-tag to the second paragraph. I believe the second paragraph should go, but the first is sourced review of the character. Thoughts? --Jack Merridew 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Jane_01
And yet another editor who thinks they have the right to delete information on a users own talk page! Unbelievable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.98.78 (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- User talk pages belong to the community, and may not be used for personal attacks or the like by their owners. Users are given wide latitude with userspace, but "wide" doesn't mean "unlimited", and it's a lot narrower for blocked users. For a blocked user, the purpose of the user talk is to request a block review or communicate with the blocking admin, not to use as a soapbox. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Todd
I'm sorry, but its a bit sad that you've memorised wikipedia policy....loser! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.98.78 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote on my RfA
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1. Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well. I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely. |
 |
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Insight
Can I get your insight on my position in this debate. [8] Alan.ca (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)
You made comments in opposition to the acceptance of Wikipedia talk:Notability (media). But the proponents are pushing for acceptance and not considering your past comments. Perhaps you need add your opposition at the current evaluation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fabolous street dreams cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fabolous street dreams cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please help with image/copyright clarification
I am looking for clarification on uploading images and hope you can help me. I am currently contributing to the Camp Yawgoog article. I uploaded an image that was deleted by two other editors for copyright violations. I thought I followed the process but the image was deleted.
I uploaded my image based on the fact that a similar image exists. According to everything I have read, non-free images can be uploaded provided:
- fair use rationale is posted with the image, which I provided.
- permission was granted by the copyright holder, which is.
If my image can not be uploaded then why hasn't this image been deleted?
--Mikemarseglia (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. You said if I upload as "non-free" and provide a fair use rationale that would be OK. I did exactly as you described twice. I used the same rationale both times I uploaded the image. I used the same rational from image. My image was deleted by two different editors. How do I get it uploaded without it getting deleted by a third editor? It appears that the editors are not reading my fair use rationale. --Mikemarseglia (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears another editor has found my image and restored it. Thank you for your help. I'm new and guess I just need to be patient and let the system work. --Mikemarseglia (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of PSPP
Hi Seraphimblade,
On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PSPP you decided to delete PSPP. It does not seem that there is a concensus to delete, moreover PSPP is included in Debian[9], Gentoo[10], NetBSD[11] and probably other distros, has been the topic of a lightning talk on FOSDEM 2007[12] and has had a French book on how to use it written independently about it[13][14].
Please consider undeleting. Thank you --MarSch (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Thanks for granting the rollback request, I'll be sure to play around with it on some of those practice pages when I get a chance before using it for vandal fighting so I don't screw anything up. Thanks again!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
3RR Page
Thanks, I think my report is complete now [15]RomaC (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Rejected proposal
G'day Seraphimblade. I was just wondering where the discussion was that arrived at the consensus to reject the Wikipedia:Notability (schools) policy? If you could supply me with a link to that discussion it would be appreciated please. The tag doesn't seem to have a link to the actual discussion so I figure asking you is the easiest way to find it. Cheers, Sting au Buzz Me... 02:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I disagree with your decision to tag the proposal as rejected. Discussions were still taking place on the talk page. I would have thought that placing a tag like that would have been first discussed on the talk page? Sting au Buzz Me... 10:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Objective criteria for episode notability
I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed images and Wikipedia:No original research
Hi Seraphimblade,
I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.
Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Cites, WP:BLP
Given the sad tone over there, I have to say first, please don't interpret any of the following as a debate or hardened assertion, I only want to share my thoughts with you and have your feedback if you're willing to give it.
I don't think you and I have interacted much as editors and maybe you're not familiar with the circumstances of this exchange you found and cited. I thought the other editor in this case was being too severe in bluntly threatening to put the article up for AfD, that the post reflected a lack of familiarity with the discussion and background at the main article talk page. Nowhere in my reply do I refer to citations as a nicety (or courtesy or whatever). I too thought the article text as it stood then was utterly dreadful and unacceptable. Within three days I'd wholly replaced it with neutral text fully supported by citations, and the text I wrote for this now relatively high traffic little side article has remained intact since then. I believed it would have been far more appropriate for the editor to add a citation request tag and an inquiry as to where the article was headed. However, the editor seemed to have worded his remarks as a unilateral threat. Knowing these circumstances and background, I don't think my reply was overly terse but if someone weren't familiar with why the article had popped up to begin with, along with the ensuing discussions and agreements, I can certainly see why they might interpret my tone as dismissive, especially during an RFA wherein lots of edit summaries (usually without any reference to the underlying edits or background) are being cited in a negative way, which I've already commented on at length over there.
Thanks for your comments about WP:BLP. I still don't see how the obviously spoofy name Britney Spheres could ever be construed as the true name of a living person (or even as the widely known pop singer), hence I didn't think WP:BLP was much of a worry. As I strongly implied when you made your first comment, following your lead and hints I would now look at such an article (which was not an A7, as stipulated in the example question) as a G3/G10, without regard to the name, subject to thorough and immediate confirmation or swift deletion under WP:BLP. I'd very much like to hear any further thoughts you have on this (I tried to hint at that, over there in my first reply to you but again, we haven't interacted much in the past so I didn't think much of it when you didn't reply straight off). Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hope it's OK if I jump into the conversation here. I didn't look at the previous exchange, but I can't imagine anything someone could say that would justify replying "...before arbitrarily trying to enforce your individual notions of WP policy and readership needs." An editor has a right to do an AfD, and discussing beforehand the intention of possibly doing one is also OK. Trying to enforce Wikipedia policy is also OK, and how else would one do it than according to one's own understanding of it? You might want to think about writing in such a way that if your words are ever taken out of context, they will still always look OK.
- Even if "Britney Spheres" is not a legal name, it doesn't have to be the name of an adult film personality. What if it were the pseudonym of a writer of children's books (like Lemony Snicket, only much less famous), or the pseudonym of a comedian or something? --Coppertwig (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RfA!
 |
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
| Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover you alerted me to your understandable concerns about sourcing. I will take heed and carefully address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
No need to bother!
Deleting the images. They are mine. My copyright. My permission. Where else would they be used but in Wikipedia, another Wiki, or Wikias, anyway? Clarity has been established.
Furthermore, while this is not directed at you in particular, or anyone in particular, I never upload a free-use image without having a professional hex it first. Please be so good as to spread the word around: "Unless it's a fair-use image or file, just try deleting a free-use image uploaded by User:Wilhelmina Will; see what happens." I'm not out to hurt anyone, just to protect my files.
Thank you for notifying me that they needed clarification, at any rate. Wouldn't want others confused. Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well What I mean is I want them to be used as much as pleases everyone, but until the last of them (in line) I didn't think to upload them to Wikimedia Commons. If you'd rather, I could upload them there and then you can delete the files that only exist on Wikipedia, but please wait till they've been uploaded to the Commons!
- Off the topic; you don't believe in hexes? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Thank you.... you have just totally changed my mood : ) I wasnt sure that it would be anything like this.... Talk you for the help i will use that page i was keeping it because they reply together about what they are doing to me and then say something sifferent on the open pages anyhow, you dont want to her that... Thank you for being kind : ) kate 100%freehuman (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An apology, and a request for advice.
I would appreciate it if you would give me and Moonriddengirl some advice. (One reason I thought of asking you is that I saw your name at Wikipedia talk:CSD.) We're soon going to be inviting discussion of proposed new wording of many CSD templates. The question we're pondering is: where to suggest that the discussion take place. Dividing it up among many template talk pages seems unwieldy since there are so many, yet having the discussion of all of them on one page could make the page overcrowded. We're thinking of setting up about 4 pages for the discussion (e.g. one for the General templates, one for Articles, etc.) either in my user space or as subpages of Wikipedia talk:CSD. Would you please let us know what you think about where to suggest that the discussion be?
In case you're interested in any background, discussion of where to have the discussion has been here on my talk page. Previous related discussion has been at Wt:CSD, e.g. my last post there on the topic, and at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
I realized recently that I don't think I ever apologized properly or explained completely about something almost a year ago that you may have forgotten about or may not even have noticed at the time anyway. But here goes: I'm sorry that I seemed to imply that you weren't a "non-involved admin" in my post at a report to AN/I. I knew very well that you were an admin, but seem to have missed registering the existence of your post (or who it was from) when I first read the thread, apparently because I was flustered at the time. As I explained to you later, I later couldn't believe that the time stamp on your post came before mine. At no time did I intend to imply that you weren't a "non-involved admin". I'm sorry I didn't clarify that in that thread before it was archived, and that it took me this long to apologize properly. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your advice, and for your interest in the proposal. The no-include notes are a great idea. I'll probably be setting up the pages for discussion nearly a day from now if Moonriddengirl doesn't get to it first. Meanwhile if you want to follow or participate in the details of setting up the discussion pages, I expect Moonriddengirl and I will be discussing it at User talk:Coppertwig#CSD templates. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very pleased at your expression of interest in the proposed template wordings, Seraphimblade. I've set up the subpages for general, articles, images and other (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals) and discussion can go ahead now. I look forward to receiving your feedback. I haven't put in all the links to the discussion yet -- we're just in the middle of doing that. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by a minor edit to your talk page yesterday. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I put noinclude messages, as you had suggested, on almost all the templates for which we're proposing new wording. I'd like to suggest that you consider adding the messages to the two protected templates, db-meta and db-spam; however, note that a user has expressed an opinion in the discussion against such notices on templates in general. I think they're a good idea, and perhaps more important on the more-often-used protected templates than on the other templates, and I would appreciate it. Moonriddengirl seems uncertain about them. If you decide to put them on, you might want to copy one from e.g. Template:Db-nocontext for db-spam, and have the db-meta one link to the WT:CSD section. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Re editing protected templates: Quire right. I should have thought of that myself and not asked you in the first place. I trusted you to make the right decision, and you've done so yet again. Thank you. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day!
A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Denver
We should work on setting up a Denver Wikimeetup man! Jmlk17 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
 |
The Barnstar of Justice | |
| For carrying out administrative duties with fairness, gentleness and, well, adminliness. |
I hereby award you this barnstar, Seraphimblade. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
School Guideline
Couldn't agree more [16]. Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
St. John's University (New York City)
the article edit war is continuing... just lock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.210.226.2 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I second the opinion expressed above - the article should (at least temporarily) be semi-protected. Also, it was recommended to me that I forward a report submitted to ANI to you, seeing as you were the admin that issued the recent warning regarding reversions to this article. Here is the report (~ Homologeo (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)):
-
A number of anons have been engaged in an off-and-on edit war on the section order in and structure of the article on St. John's University (New York City). This article has been semi-protected in the past, but that doesn't seem to have stopped these individuals from trying to get their way without reaching consensus. Recently, a warning has been issued more than once informing everyone editing this article that further blind reversions (that often remove even non-controversial edits) will not be tolerated. This anon - 71.240.28.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - chose to disregard this warning, and made another blind reversion to the article. Disciplinary action may be necessary to emphasize the need for collaboration when editing an article, and to remind editors that blindly undoing the contributions of others and refusing to seek consensus are not the way the Wikipedia community functions. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Another anon - 38.104.69.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - has just reverted the article again. Please semi-protect this page, or at least block (if only temporarily) these two users. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This user [17] and this user [18] (who are one and the same and was already blocked for using sockpuppets) is the one behind all the edit warring. Uconnstud (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
He also deleted your warnings [19] Uconnstud (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[20] Uconnstud (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have not intentionally sockpuppeted, and have only accidentally used other IP's when i'm logged in at my office compared to my home. This editor is trying very hard to make me look like a vandal, when it is really him who is vandalizing. I am attempting to discuss these issues rationally with him, but instead he has attempted every possible meathod to have my user blocked. See Talk:St. John's University (New York City). I have never represented myself as anything other than TiconderogaCCB, and have even signed as such when I realize I'm not signed in. ---TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, you yourself blocked him last year for edit warring and sockpupettry last year. Uconnstud (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Believe what you will Saraphimblade, but all I have done is try to prevent this crazy kid from posting outlandish, irrelevant, and falacious things to the St. John's page. I have always contributed relevant and good information to articles, and now I am at a disadvantage because I do not know the system like this kid does. Here, look at the version of the article he wanted: [21] and compare to the current article. This is what its all about. For whatever reason he wants the SJU page to be a scandal column, and others do not agree, and now he is doing this. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
To be quite clear here: I do not have a position in the content issue, and don't care one bit who's "right" or "wrong". That's what dispute resolution is there for, not for me to decide. My position, however, is that the edit warring needs to stop as of now. Take a polite, civil discussion to the talk page, seek mediation, or put in a content RfC, but it's time to stop the reverting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As it continues [22] . Uconnstud (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- An editor using 150.210.176.81 IP address posted the following extremely offensive comments on my talk page and user page [23][24]. These comments included, "you are one poor sarcastic sucker! have you ever gotten laid or have you always paid for it you sonnuva bitch!". This IP is part of Baruch College, the same source for IP's used by User:Uconnstud in past comments in which he did not use his user name, see User talk:150.210.176.218 & User talk:150.210.226.6. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That is pretty funny considering that the only thing that any of those IP address and I have in common is that we've edited on the St. John's page. You do know that Baruch College has about 15,000 students. St John's has about 15,000 too. I've always used my username. You on the other hand.. are famous for not using it [25]. Its funny how we now see random IP address who are suddenly coming out of nowhere and agreeing with you. When they have no history of editing at all [26] and [27]. All supporting "option 1." Uconnstud (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Luminary: Rise of the Goonzu
It was tagged for deletion because it was "blatant advertising". It was in no way advertising anything or anyone. I was simply making it because it deserves a spot on wikipedia. I have no connections with ijji but i did include links and resources and it was tagged as under construction. IceCAPPED (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)IceCAPPED
Repeatedly misrepresenting sources or content dispute?
Hi, I put the following issue on ANI but got no apparent admin response.
At least 3 other editors see this as a content dispute, (not an "editor behavior matter" as it appears to me).
My understanding was that the content of a source had to be accurately represented in an article. So when a source says "the US government accuses and alleges" we can not replace that with "he admitted to" or "he did this ..." while citing that source. However I see that many of my fellow editors think otherwise which puzzles me greatly. If you have a simple insight that would illuminate my darkness I would appreciate it. (It should be stated here that a source for "he did this ..." has now been found. And that I suggested to PJ weeks ago that this could be possible and would be totally acceptable to me.)
My continuing concern is that repeatedly misrepresenting sources after discusion on the matter has been successfully defended against by citing WP:WEIGHT and portraying my attempts to ensure accuracy as me argueing over reliability of sources, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, disruptive, POV, unnecessary and flawed in their basic understanding of how WP works.
When reading the David Hicks talk page SHM discusion please be aware that the SMH source lists specific accusations and allegations that are accurately reflected in the article; "learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods.". The ABC source with DEBBIE WHITMONT has no mention of the specific allegations. The ABC source is the "other sources" I am accused of deleting from the article. So - as I see it - PJ switched from misrepresenting one source to misrepresenting another source.
(re-edited from ANI version)
- In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks. (article: US charges David Hicks)
- Prester John has repeatedly edited to present the allegations/accusations as facts/admissions. He has been told that this is not acceptable. This problem has been discussed here on the article talkpage with PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete and also on archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations.
- Misrepresenting edits
- The same edits have also been performed by IP
- PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.(ANI report lodged 02:17, 3 February 2008)
Have been feeling unhappy about this issue - no support from ANI at all, then getting told "its a content dispute" and "just let it go" - if my view is in error please show me where. If I should have done something diffferent I would like to know. At present it seems that a big snow job is an adequate defense for PJ and Skyring/Pete against their disruptive behavior. SmithBlue (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Admin Stifle is suggesting that I do a RfC or mediation cabal. After the spectacular unsuccess of the ANI report I would appreciate any assistance you could offer in doing things beter this time. SmithBlue (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions re mediation or RfC - I can't see how to neutrally frame a RfC over what to my eyes is clearly disruptive editing. (I had no content dispute with either of the two editors promoting disruptive views related to this issue.) If you could re-frame this issue so that I could understand how it is being seen as "a content dispute" I would be grateful. (If you are not open to having diffs posted in reply that show this is not a content dispute please make this clear and I will respect your wishes.) Would a mediation request on whether this is a "content dispute" or "disruptive editing" make any sense? So: If you are willing please suggest to me how to frame this issue for a RfC or mediation request. My ANI was much worse than a waste of time and I'd like to do things effectively. SmithBlue (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Coppertwig has been kind enough to present the details of a view in which this issue can be seen as a "content dispute". But that view ignores WP:VER and WP:BLP and, worse, helps destroy the collaboarative foundations of WP. My discusion with Coppertwig can be fund at my talk page[[28]]. I have made the following request to Coppertwig and repeat it to you; This "content dispute" view needs to be challenged. Please show me how to effectively do so. SmithBlue (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You categorize this issue as a content dispute. Have you read the discusions I have had with PresterJohn and Skyring that I referenced above?here on the article talkpage and archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations You say above that you have a full rationale for everything you do and that if asked will be happy to tell me why you did anything. So I ask: "Please tell me why you categorize this issue as a content dispute" SmithBlue (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that I have no call on your time and energy. That said, your statement, that you will share your rationale when asked, is fairly meaningless if that sharing does not occur in a timely manner. SmithBlue (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Brent A. Stanton
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Ciotech has a new sockpuppet
Take a look at the postings of User:Nofanclubwikis. It's the same obsession with this Morales guy. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Hey, if that picture is really you, you're cute!! Even if you are a deletionist. :D Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Erroneous public domain tags
Hi, thanks for the info. Roygbiv666 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
False long term abuse reports
It wasn't a false long term abuse report because the user has broken all the rules as you can see at the relevant talk pages. But who cares? Do administrators care about this? I don’t personally have a problem with a person’s point of view. Yodaki (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Dear Todd, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A problem with image revertings
Hello Seraphimblade,
I saw your name between the Wikipedians under the Editor assistance article, and I was wondering if you could maybe help me with a problem.
On the Condemned 2: Bloodshot page, there is a cover art for the game titled Condemned 2 Bloodshot.jpg, in fair use and everything. Now, a Wikipedian called Damien Russell keeps reverting that image to another image called Condemned 2 Boxart.jpg, which was recently uploaded. I find this rude and strange since:
- The image that was already used in the article is under fair use, and there is no need to replace it.
- Wikipedia tries to make it's articles by the US copyright rules; the box that was already uploaded was an US version of the game, and the one that the other Wikipedian uploaded was a European version.
- Condemned 2 Bloodshot.jpg has no console based advertising what so ever, so it can avoid platform bias.
- The article is called Condemned 2: Bloodshot, which is the American title. The European title is simply Condemned 2, also written on the cover art the other wikipedian uploaded. In my opinion, the Condemned 2: Bloodshot cover art is preferred, since it describes the full title of the game.
- Why upload another cover art when there is already one?
I could have discussed this with him first, but he threatened to report me to Wikipedia in the history of the article, so I wanted to let an administrator know about this first.
I hope you can help me with this problem, I don't know if you are the right person to who could do anything about this, but help is welcome since I don't really know what to do myself. Jer0en 1988NL (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD of List of Leaders in Panzer General II
Hi. I found this article earlier today when looking for exactly what was in the article, and was quite surprised to find that what I was looking for was on wikipedia. It's not exactly the type of article that belongs on wikipedia, as outlined clearly in WP:GAMECRUFT so I felt that even though the article was helpful that it didn't really belong on wikipedia, and was about to nominate it for deletion when I decided to check out the talk page first and noticed that it had already been nominated, with the result "no consensus". So, I'm not exactly sure in this case if it is proper to re-nominate it or not. If the consensus had been to keep the article, I clearly wouldn't, but since no consensus has been achieved, I'm not sure exactly what to do. I figured the best person to ask would be the administrator that gave the "no consensus" result in the first place, so here I am, asking if there's anything I should do about this. Would it be appropriate for me to nominate it for deletion again? Thanks. Uniqueuponhim (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Help requested
Hi, I noticed you've offered to help editors (fool!) and I'd like some neutral 3rd party assistance with a row that's developing. It started with the article on British Isles where a number of editors argued that the name of the article should be changed. I took part in that debate, arguing for change. The consensus was that the term is the most common one still in use, and therefore change is at best premature. I agree and accept that. As part of my research into the term, I noticed that the term was used in a very confusing sense in a number of articles. The consensus is that the term is only understood to be a geographical term, and not a political or possessive term. I examined the list of articles that use the term, and changed a number of articles where it was being used inaccurately - i.e. not used as a geographical term, or used in a lazy way where Great Britain and Ireland is a more accurate term. Since then, a row has broken out. Check out my talk page. I'd genuinely like your help and advice on this. If you don't want to get involved (I don't blame you) I understand - take note that this subject is a real thorn in wikipedia and there are many passionate editors that get involved. Perhaps email might be a good way to correspond? Bardcom (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Requests for arbitration
This is by way of a heads up. Editors who participated in this fair use discussion have sort of been named as involved parties in this request for arbitration, with the caveat that they "can add themselves as they see fit". I've no idea whether you wish to involve yourself with a case that doesn't look likely to get off the ground, but thought you ought to be informed anyway. --Bragen 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Help/advice needed
Hi, I hope you can help me out with a problem that I am having editting an article that has grown too long (the specific article is Ramesses II), I want to move parts of the article to other articles to which it links. How do I do this and maintain the proper creditation and editor history? I guess I can't do it without pointing back to the original article somehow, do you have any thoughts? Thanks in advance. Markh (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Help/advice needed
We have a problem with a user not repecting majority opinion. We are having an on going disagreement over deletion of mention of irrelevant persons in another person’s biography. In the page for Natalie Gauci one user constantly reinserts the irrelevant mention of other persons that have been deleted. During a period when the page was protected the proposed deletion and the reasons why were discussed at length. The changes were agreed to by all responders, including that rogue user (subject to being told what to do by another user). However, the page became unprotected before the administrators had made the requested deletion.
This is the preferred version: “She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12,”
This is the version with irrelevant comment: "She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. The two finalists who progressed through in her semi-final were Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12, hence the judges chose her and Carl Riseley as the judges choice to be included in the Top 12."
The deletion of the words mentioning Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost does not detract from the point of the paragraph. That Natalie did not get fan support early in the competition, but needed help from the judges to get to the final, is clear from the modified version. The page is about Natalie Gauci, and to mention two other contestants is irrelevant. It would make as much sense to name all 10 of the contestants who got voted through to the final 12. But this would also be irrelevant since the article is about Natalie Gauci, and there is another page on Wikipedia about that Australian Idol contest where the losing contestants could be named more appropriately.
Again, during the period this page was in protection these changes were discussed at length and they were agreed to by all responders. This discussion has continued and all users except the rogue user agree to make the change. That user insists there is no consensus until he/she says so. This user seems to believe that they are the user in charge of this page.
How do we get that user to stop making unwanted and unwarranted changes to the page, and to respect the wishes of the majority? I have suggested this user should be reported to the administrators but I am not sure how to do that. There does not seem to be a way to do that easily, which may be why this rogue user seems to feel that they are in charge, and untouchable. Any suggestions?? DrDownunder (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion
Hi - I posted this question on the Editor assistance request page, but I've had no takers on it. If you have any time to lend your opinion, I'd really appreciate it! Also, one piece of new info for this. The editor seems to be reverting each of my justified edits on at least one page s/he created. This page is what I'm talking about,. Since I think that this editor is beginning to systematically revert any/all edits I make to pages s/he created, I'd really appreciate some help.
Here is the original question I posted on the Editor assistance request page(although I removed the POV tag that accompanies the quote): I'd like to get some input from other people about recent edits made to articles which I have corrected.
I have begun trying to correct many of the articles related to Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp that have a misleading boilerplate photo caption, many of which have been marked with a NPOV tag for the past several months. The caption before my edit reads:
Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held in a trailer the size of a large RV. The captive sat on a plastic garden chair, with his hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor.[1][2] Three chairs were reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed.[3]]]
This caption, as it reads above, contains two errors. The first, and the rather insignificant one, is as follows: "...were held in a trailer the size of a large RV." The reference given explicitly states in the first sentence that these reviews were held in "a double-wide trailer". I fixed this in the captions, but another editor has posted a long explanation of his/her original research to demonstrate that's not the case and then reverted my edits as vandalism.
The second is much more important, in my opinion. In an effort to clean the caption up to remove the NPOV tag, I removed the sentence "The captive sat on a plastic garden chair, with his hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor". The reason I changed this is that the source listed in the caption was about one specific detainee and not the specific subject of any of the articles. In fact, the person described in that source is not named, so we cannot definitively state who was in fact "shackled to the floor". I think that this (and the word "only" in the last sentence) are the grounds for the tag as stating these detainees were treated in a certain way that is not supported by citations is a case of a non-neutral point of view.
The examples of my edits and the other editor's reverts are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Curiously, in this revert, the other editor also replaced a photo of a watch in the article that I had deleted that has absolutely no reason to be in that article.
I would guess that the reverts of the other editor are the result of this contentious AfD on which we are arguing the opposite sides of the case. I believe that the other editor may be trying to start an edit war, so I would very much appreciate the views of other editors. Thank you!BWH76 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a conflict of interest
I used to use the wikipedia page to find links to content on Zune: an API for developing GUI interfaces for a research OS. However, I have noticed that Microsofts Zune Media player has come along and it has the root level page. I do know that that there was talk in the AROS community of original zune API page put a link to the microsoft Zune page. But now the original page has been moved to Zune (GUI toolkit) surely this is unfair if two or more products use the same name for a product surely the best thing for wikipedia to do is to actually take control of the Zune page and create a dictionary of Zune products with links to those products in this way microsofts zune would be either under "microsoft zune" or "zune (media player)" or "zune mp3" this would be the most fair way of dealing with these types of conflicts. As it can't be seen that a major corporation has the right to just bully a small open source project out of the way.
I will leave it up to you and the other editors to resolve this your own way. I will say one last thing I am not 100% certain that the zune API page was just called Zune one wikipedia. I think the (GUI toolkit) was added to show the difference.
Ado 82.1.15.193 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- (Replying here, since the message was anonymous) There's already a hatnote on the Zune article which points to its other use. That is common practice when a term is very common for one thing but may be used sometimes for others. And in terms of the word "Zune," I believe your average person on the street would associate the term with a media player, not an API. It's not in terms of "bullying" (and anyone who knows me will certainly tell you I am a strong supporter of open source and free content of all types), but it is in terms of good editorial style and best serving those who read the encyclopedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Fiction & Notability
Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 as your input would be most welcome and would encourage other editors to contribute to the debate.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE ASSIST Continued vandalism by User:Blist14 on wiki article about Bill Ayers
New user, Blist14, continues to delete biography, references, external links, and categories from Bill Ayers wikipedia page, user has no other wiki history other than deleting items from Bill Ayers article, please assist and advise. It is me i think (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
User Blist14 has been temporarily blocked. It is me i think (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Section header
I need some help please. I am new to Wikipedia and have tried to read all the rules but I have a problem with someone continually adding their negative point of view without substantiating it. I wrote a piece about using anchor weights on the Anchors page. A contributor added words to the effect that the product did not work in heavy weather. I deleted what was added and the same thing has happened each time I have changed the article back to the original. I have been now been accused of vandalism and sock puppetry. My first user name was garhauer and this was changed to anchorbuddy. I realised the article did not have references to back up what I had written, so I re-wrote it with references. This new article has been totally deleted. Can you please tell me the correct way to deal with this? Ruloo (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Advice - stuff being deleted and editor refusing to give rationale
Hi. I've been an extremely rare occasional contributor for years - random stuff where I had something to add - maybe edits to 5 articles total.
Anyway, a couple of us were adding some content to the Latham & Watkins page in the light of their odd (not just my opinion - ref abovethelaw and lawdragon blogs) involvement with the Church of Scientology vs Anonymous stuff thats going on worldwide (L&W in US only on this so far)
It was early days - and the first contribution was highly POV, and a couple of us were editing to make it NPOV over time. Someone came along and rePOV'd it - and then this editor came along and removed the whole section. We queried this on his talk page, he refused to give any substatiable reason, I asked him to engage on the article's discussion page, he then deleted my section on the discussion page, and the comments on his tak page - not only the topic, but any discussion of it was purged.
L&W Diff shows the reasonably NPOV version.
And here's the edit wiping the whole section L&W Diff
Note the OTRS reference given in the reason.
L&W Discuss Diff is the removal of the subject from the article's discussion page.
See L&W section on this history of the users discussion page User's talk Diff and User's talk diff for the removal a few days later.
Note the ending comment: I read it as "I will not enter into a discussion about whether this content van be made valid, and you will not be allowed to re-enter the content" - hence - stuck - seeking opinions/advice.
Perhaps this OTRS stuff really does carry so much weight that it need not be justified? I'm prepared to debate the 'weight' issue - but just because the L&W article doesn't currently discuss huge controversial notable international clients, with a documented track history of illegality, surely doesn't mean that such content is inappropriate for the page [yes those last seven words are POV - and I'm prepared to debate it - find compromise if reqd]
Sorry for the tl;dr - would appreciate whatever - even a pointer to somewhere else. I'm infrequent on here. Jaymax (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Third point of view
Hey, could I get your POV on an edit that I made that may be becoming controversial? diff I also posted some commentary about it on the article talk page. Alan.ca (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
COI, NPV
Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look over my article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Public_School_Employers'_Association) It was tagged a while back with neutrality, POV, and COI issues. I've read the tutorials on how to improve those respective issues and have edited the page based on those articles. However, I'm still unsure if i'm on the right track--this was my first article and i'm still trying to familiarize myself with wiki's policies. I understand the importance of having unbiased and neutral articles and would like some guidance in resolving these issues as quickly as possible. I would also like to know what steps I need to take to remove those tags. Any help would be great! Thanks.
Camrose23 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair Use Photo Question
Hi. You appear to be knowledgeable on this issue. I asked you a question on the non-free content page, but it is updated and changed so much that I don't know if you saw it. So I'm going to ask again here.
I was going to add a picture of a murder victim, but the photo is something that was released by the family to the media. There is no reason to believe that there is, or ever will be a free image, as the victim was a child at the time of death, and a private citizen. The issue of notability has, I believe, already been resolved. The case is notable enough to have an article on WP. I think it is notable enough to have a photo attached. I think it would qualify as fair use, but I do not know how to tag it. Would images released to the media by the family qualify as "promotional"? Especially since the child was initially missing, and the photo was released by the family in hopes of finding her. It seems a little crude to call it "promotional", but in the labyrinth that is copyright law, I don't really know what else to do.
It also seems to fall under fair use in that it is a low-resolution photo that illustrates the subject of the article. But I am confused as to how to tag that as well.nut-meg (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Yes I reverted it back to the original content because I didnt feel that the redirect was correct. I am sorry if you would like me to revert it back then I will for you. Christopher140691 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well I personally think that it should be on that page so that it can describe the actual article. Is there anything on the Lost Tv Series page or not? if there is then I will happily revert it back to the original that you had. Christopher140691 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes something to tell people that it is on the other page. That should be better, I will also revert the article to back to what it was so that you can do the work on it. Christopher140691 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Adult Stars Magazine
Why was Adult Stars Magazine Wiki entree deleted. It followed wiki guidelines and should have not been deleted. Please reconsider
(Baxter789 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)) Baxter789 More Referances for Adult Stars Magazine ainews http://ainews.com/Archives/Story2841.phtml
AVN consumer choice awards http://www.avn.com/video/articles/9241.html
AVN Cartwright http://www.avn.com/video/articles/9192.html
xbiz http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?id=1193&mi=all&q=adult+stars+magazine
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/may/1041111.htm
http://www.ainews.com/Archives/Story4035.phtml (Baxter789 (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC))Baxter789
Dharma Initiative
The page was redirecting to the main page, per a discussion...where is the discussion forum? can you send me a link to that discussion? it seems kinda weird to redirect the entire page, when the dharma initiative information is correct...just confused...thats all...sorry for not leaving an edit summary.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Dharma Initiative
I reverted the page, because it reverted to the main page and I didnt understand why. the edit summary said that it was reverted per a discussion. can u send me a link to the discussion. also, sorry i did not leave an edit summary.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 06:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- that is probably something you should discuss on the message board and get a concensus...not just between yourself and another editor. also, you should tag the page with a notability tag or an in-universe tag so other editors will know that the page needs work and improvement and more refs.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
P-40 fighter plane
I think I got a problem that needs your advice. I´m (an others were) in an argument regarding so-called "overclaiming" and to what degree it should be mentioned in the article. This issue has been discussed in the past(see Talk:Curtiss P-40/Archive 2) and both sides can´t reach an agreement. All this reverting can´t go on. How do we/I proceed? Talk:Curtiss P-40 ThanksMarkus Becker02 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Anencephaly page help - thanks
Thanks for your speedy assistance. I did a little work on the article yesterday as per your suggestions and I'm going to look through some more tutorials before doing a bit more on it and other things I'm watching.
Thanks again for the help. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Todd.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Grawp Sockpuppets
About those sockpuppets I reported to WP:SSP, do you have to be an administrator to tag them? --Boss Big (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Please review Oscar Dahlene
You made an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene, and since that time the article in question has been improved to include significant facts. I ask you to review the page and determine if your have anything to add, remove, or modify.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
my RfA - Ta!
Buddhism NPOV dispute
Please have another look at the Buddhism article. You'll notice we're using better sources now and the problem persists. User Ludwigs2 seems particularly intransigent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasta4470 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Admin buddy
Hello Seraphim. I've just discovered this page where you're listed. I kinda like the idea. I've been more involved in conflicts this past month than in the rest of my stay on Wikipedia, so I think that it might be good to know that someone might just drop by anytime to give advice and tell me what I'm doing wrong. And the other way around too, I guess. :-) So, if you'd like to be admin buddies with me, just say so. Regards, Húsönd 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Fred Kahler
Thanks for the input--Searchingwind (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| 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. Ralbot (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit Warring
Hello Seraphimblade. I am not edit waring. Just because someone says "Stop edit warring" in the edit summary doesn't mean I am edit waring. I have only made 1 revert Nagorno-Karabakh and 1 revert in Sheylanli and those are the only reverts I am aware of in the past week. Just because someone reverts my additions doesn't mean that you should tar me with the same brush. Please refactor your warning to my talk page. Thanks in advance Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Seraphim, only one of those links were revert:
- [29] is not a revert. It's adding new material and accuracy
- [30] is a revert because I was reverted without any discussion in talk.
- [31] is not a revert. I was removing a propaganda site and I was never aware that it had ever been removed before. This is a new edit.
- [32] I am adding tags that have never been added before. Not a revert.
- Each of the above edits were discussed in talk. I hope that this clarifies things and that you can remove my warning. Let me know if you need more information. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Seraphimblade. In addition to any Arbcom issues that are floating around, one of the editors has also violated 3RR in the conventional sense on Nagorno-Karabakh. Would you object if I followed through on that? Since the editor I have in mind is warring to put harsh POV language into the article, it is not hard to tell which side needs more scrutiny. I recognize that P.'s method of counting reverts needs improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Edjohnston, respectfully I disagree with your comment that my method for counting reverts needs improvement. As per the 3RR reports, a revert reverts to a prior version. Only one of my edits were reverting to a prior version of the article. If the standard of what constitutes a revert that is being applied to me was applied to all edits than every edit in wikipedia that was just a straight addition of information would be considered a revert. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Seraphimblade, the first and third edits are not reverts either. The first edit was a rewrite and improvement on the paragraph where additional information was added. It is not a revert, I was not reverting to a prior version. The third edit was not a revert either. I was removing a source that was a propaganda site and I am allowed to do this per WP:RS. There was no prior version of the article that I am aware of that I reverted to. If you require more information please let me know, otherwise please remove my warning. Thanks in advance Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
You may wish to comment on my appeal Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yogi scam
Hi Seraphimblade-
Thank you so much for responding to my concern on editor assistance Harbhajan Singh Yogi. This man was a genius of self promotion and spiritual fabrication. The closest thing I can compare it to is Joseph Smith, he just constructed this whole cosmology out of his imagination and put himself in the center as a Guru and people are still promoting him even though he's been dead for a few years. There are many tragic casualties from all of this and young people are still joining this organization. A listing on Wikipedia is a serious endorsement of a charade in my opinion. As this involves religious beliefs, there are almost no neutral parties but I feel what the law enforcement authorities had to say from their investigations bears the most credibility and should at least be referred to in his bio. Hue Hue many (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This site contains a host of material concerning lawsuits and alleged criminal activity. I'm assuming it was constructed by former cult members. I also reviewed the section under notability and it says when someone is in a specialized field that reviews from others in a similar field are encouraged. In this case, high ranking members of the traditional Sikh community are mostly appalled by Bhajan's history and excessive claims of religious authority. Experts in the history and philosophy of yoga have been very skeptical of his claims. Experts on the fields of cults are pretty much unanimous that this is a cult. Hue many (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Hue http://yogibhajan.tripod.com/id23.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hue many (talk • contribs)
OK well damn near everything on the Harbhajan site is material from the cult itself that they published. The Beads of Truth was their magazine. "The Man called The Siri Singh Sahib" was their book. These reference number on their page are all from their own publications 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40. I didn't check the others.Hue many (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Hue
Can you please offer some advice?
Hi, I haven't contacted you before but in a way that's good because I need some neutral advice so I picked you at random from the admins editing WP:ANI/3RR. I am having some major issues with User:Kaiwhakahaere, and I have no idea what to do about this guy. From my perspective he is in breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL; a small problem regarding references at Miss Universe 2008 has escalated into a larger pattern of derogatory comments towards me. Before I blow a gasket (which I have been known to do), I just wanted to run this by an independent person to see if anything can be done. A bit of background: Kaiwhakahaere (talk · contribs) used to be an editor I respected as one of the few who seemed to have any real understanding of Wikipedia's policies in the craziness that has been going on at Miss Universe 2008. I myself have devoted a lot of time to tidying this article and I've being stubborn at keeping non-reliable sources out of the article because there have been accuracy issues in the past. Until the past week, I always thought Kaiwhakahaere was an excellent editor... then the mess began. What I'm talking about: his comments in this whole discussion, this unnecessary comment, certain of his edit summaries for "Miss Universe 2008" [33], and this discussion. Could you possibly look this over and advise if anything can be done? He clearly seems to be violating AGF & CIVIL but I have no idea what to do next. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ding!
I sent you email. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite of section 4
Things have evolved quite a bit since you last voted. Could you please update your votes on all four boxes since they are not representative of the current situation anymore? We nearly have consensus on most of everything and you are one of the few remaining people with an opposition vote for the purple box. If you don't want to get involved anymore, just say so, and we'll disregard your old votes.
