User talk:Seicer/Archive 8
Children's rights
Hello Seicer, and thank you for getting involved in the children's rights article. I asked for assistance regarding this situation at editor assistance, but to no avail thus far, so let me ask you: Edits made by S-MorrisVP, and, as acknowledged by the user, those made before a user account was created, are clearly being done to prove a point, and have clearly been POV, to say the least. Is there anyway out of this morass? How would you suggest I conduct myself with this user? Any advice is appreciated. • Freechild'sup? 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Seicer. Since you appear to be familiar with the issue, you are welcome to join the discussion there and give your own opinion. The COI finding appears strong, but the question (for me) is whether admins are empowered to place any needed restrictions. The editors involved seem to be quite far from understanding each other, and a compromise between them seems too much to hope for. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply
With regard to your warning [1], I decided not to edit Alexander Litvinenko article for a while. But edit warring there continues, and it is worth noticing that User:Krawndawg just came back from a block for RR waring. I have no idea if that requires your action, but I do appreciate your critical comment about me. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Consensus
I agree with consensus, which is why I reverted a contested edit that wasn't made with consensus. It's hard to gain consensus when there's one or two tendentious editors who will not agree with anything that doesn't fit their biased point of view. Please note the hypocrisy of what Biophy is saying above, when he is the main culprit in all this edit warring (which is not limited to that one article) and has been warned many times on his talk page about edit warring, wikistalking and tendentious editing. Krawndawg (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
RFC
WP:AN#Cabals, part 2. There's an RFC in the making. Just notifying you in case you don't check AN, as I'd like to have the entire community (or at least a lot of opinions) in this. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to pipe in my two cents tomorrow after work. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Protection of an IP's talk page?
See here. IP started on it after it realized it couldn't edit the rest of the website. Enigmaman (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the mediation on cold fusion ?
Seicer, could you update us on what you see as the next steps for the mediation on cold fusion ? Please respond here. Thanks in advance. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Comedian
I noticed a different IP address changed the template to comedian. He is not explaining why comedian would be better in his edit summaries and he hasn't posted on talk pages. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then we keep reverting him. Maddox is not a comedian. He doesn't perform on stage or in front of a camera (basically he doesn't perform to an audience). He's a writer and satirist/ humorist at the most. Also, Seicer are you sure you want to remove the protection thing off of that article? There's always a lot of vandals that congregate around it. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering what the first comment was about... now I know :P I only removed the icon; protection expired earlier. If there is heavily vandalism over the next 24h, I'll reprotect. seicer | talk | contribs 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, thanks. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering what the first comment was about... now I know :P I only removed the icon; protection expired earlier. If there is heavily vandalism over the next 24h, I'll reprotect. seicer | talk | contribs 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
User_talk:Community_service#Unblock (again)
Quick update - CS has emailed me to indicate he has finished the assigned tasks. I'll give you all a chance to review things before I take any action (unblock or decline - right now I'm kinda neutral on it) Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks. I'm going to bed happy. :) -- Swerdnaneb 06:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's a pain in the ass to revert all of those links. Have a good night :) seicer | talk | contribs 06:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. ^_^ Celarnor Talk to me 12:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
WHY
seicer, my old account (zoidberg.9208) was blocked INDEFINITLY by you because of ONE comment on your talk page, this seems a bit harsh, and I feel that you are abusing the power to block people--Zc1 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me out to a new account. Blocked indef. seicer | talk | contribs 05:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
User:SandymcT
It appears that this user has not only repeated his disruptive edit but fake-relocked the page.[[2]] PhGustaf (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you authorise sandy to revert the page into her/his version and then lock the page untill the 10th?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. And per my word left on the user's talk page, I've blocked the account for 24h for disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Strom Thurmond
Hi.
Everything I wrote in the Strom Thurmond article under "Views Regarding Race" was taken from and properly referenced to a newspaper article from the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest and oldest Canadian newspaper. You chose to delete it all, but left a bunch of uncited remarks that are heavily biased towards Thurmond. Care to elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.8.75 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- The quotation, "...Thurmond was a notorious racist even in his own day..." was strictly POV. I do agree, however, that it needs to be added, but can it be worded in a way so that it can represent an equal viewpoint in that Thurmond began endorsing racial integration? The counterbalance is still uncited, but if you can find a cite on that, it would be great. seicer | talk | contribs 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What does that mean?
Your post here confused my caveman brain. What were you saying, exactly? That all of the IPs are the same person? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it was already admitted they are the one and the same, so yes. But if the IP addresses are being used to evade possible blocking because of disruptive editing, 3RR, etc., then it is fair to say that we can play whack-a-mole in the future. I haven't looked over the case fully yet. seicer | talk | contribs 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- So, in your opinion, would an SSP report be appropriate, or just a call for the anon to pick an account and stick with it? In fairness, they might be using a dynamic IP, so creating an account might be far easier for tracking purposes. The matter is trifling, but correcting a small problem before it becomes a larger problem would seem a case of 'an ounce of prevention equalling a pound of cure'. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note - one person, me, has claimed those IP's. No one believes that there is more than a single editor. Indeed I find it a little odd to keep pointing out that I am one. There is no "pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer." There is also NO evidence of the specific charges: "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks".75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- So, in your opinion, would an SSP report be appropriate, or just a call for the anon to pick an account and stick with it? In fairness, they might be using a dynamic IP, so creating an account might be far easier for tracking purposes. The matter is trifling, but correcting a small problem before it becomes a larger problem would seem a case of 'an ounce of prevention equalling a pound of cure'. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I don't have the authority to check the IP address of the user (leaving that to the RFCU clerk). I only tagged as being from the same IP address. If you suspect that they are a sock, then you can open up a SSP report. But I would wait for RFCU to come back first. seicer | talk | contribs 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh. Okay. Will do. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Pyrope just suggested that i contact you in regards to the addition of Kapowow after th filing. I did not add the account-holding user until after I had filed the RfCU, noticing similarities between the editing styles them and the anons.Does this complicate matters? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have the authority to check the IP address of the user (leaving that to the RFCU clerk). I only tagged as being from the same IP address. If you suspect that they are a sock, then you can open up a SSP report. But I would wait for RFCU to come back first. seicer | talk | contribs 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
♠Does the attempt to ban me also require that the attacker cite evidence, as per the formal accusation, of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks"?75.57.165.180 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Are you Kapowow? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
♠I think the most interesting thing about this is Arcaynes ability to tie up so many resources and manpower over something he has NEVER supported. NO diffs. Nothing. Is it not reasonable that when one accuses another of a crime - that a crime exist? Having spent numerous hours in multiple forums having to stand up and shout "It's me!" "I'm one!" while Arcayne ignores the written words on the screen is wasteful for us all. The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. Arcayne has failed to support his allegations of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks" and has abused the system in an attempt to harass and ban a public editor.
-
- What becomes of me is no issue - it's your Wiki, it will become whatever your community chooses it to be. 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Seicer
I am extremely sorry for vandalizing your talk page multiple times and for using multiple sockpuppets I will no longer be using any user account other than this one. I am also sorry for insulting you, this will never happen again, nor will I edit war without discussion of the topic. Thanks -Cbennett0811 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem :) I hope you enjoy your future editing at WP. seicer | talk | contribs 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
ERR!
UNBLOCK KIRBYLEVEL4 ME(ROBOT666) and shoqmanx think kirbylevel4 is unfairly blocked... please unblock him,, i know how to unblock him but somehow I can't!! unblock kirbylevel4 NOW!!!!--Robot666 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Regarding the page Image:Gym Wall.jpg, which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of it is a non-free image or media file, which claims fair use but has no fair use rationale, and which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because it has not been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days. If you still want the page to be deleted, please re-tag it under a CSD criterion that applies, consider redirecting the article, or use the proposed deletion or the articles for deletion processes. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My userpage..
Hey, thanks for the great inspiration! Hope that you do not mind I stole the idea a little bit. :D Tiptoety talk 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate It
Thanks for pointing those out. I'm sure you've taken a look at the other user's contributions and reversions as well, and in doing such took the appropriate action. Anyways, back to smokin' the Hookah. --InvisibleDiplomat666 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
U.S. Highways are state routes, not federal routes
The only federally maintained roads are roads in national parks and military bases. All U.S. highways and Interstate highways are state highways. The U.S. in U.S. highway merely refers to the national coordination of the numbering while Interstate highways receive some federal funding and in turn must be built to specific federal standards. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- You do realise I was parodying Carl Rogers? The guy's nuttier than most of the vandals we have on here. seicer | talk | contribs 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
???
Hello Seicer
Forgive me I don't know what your talk page is.
However you impeded me from editing for a reason unbeknownst to me.
Please explain as I make very valuable contributions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N1r4v (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you are a sock, I really have no clue as to what you are talking about. seicer | talk | contribs 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
gotta question
long time, no talk. sorry to bug you, but do you know where i can locate the userbox stating how many mainspace edits a user has made. it's not for me, it's for another user that has a habit of messaging others to let them know how many edits he's made. i told him this userbox on his page would solve the problem and he's agreed to add it. i see you have the contributions userbox on your page, as do i, but i can't find the blasted mainspace userbox. thanks if you can help. cheers. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Anastasis Michael
Hi. This is the first time I am doing this. I don't think the speedy deletion (A7) of Anastasis Michael was a valid one. He was one of the of the candidates for the Cypriot presidantship. The article should be nonimated for Afd and have a discussion about it. I can't see, for example, how he is less important that tenths of football players. That he received 117 votes doesn't make him non-notable. Moreover, the article had several link to it, it wasn't orphan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Reminder: Hey, maybe to forgot to answer this one! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I did :) I'll restore it and then you or someone else can nominate it for AfD if you wish. seicer | talk | contribs 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's better if a discussion is held first. I think, I had concerns if this article should exist as well, but since is not orphan and some people contributed, let's give it a try. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Waiting your response
I responded to you in my talk page and have yet to hear back from you. Sethie (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Willirennen
I have reblocked this user indefinitely. There is a pile of evidence suggesting that he is the sockmaster. One is the fact that many of the socks have racing-related names (Lara Dalle = Dallara Automobili, a racing car manufacturer, Moosato Cowabata = Masato Kawabata, a drifting driver, etc.) and two is the fact that I can't find a single instance of the accounts editing at the same time. There are clear "streaks" of edits, indicative of account-swapping. I find it spectacularly unlikely that if there were truly two computers being used by two people, that not once would they have been editing Wikipedia at the exact same time, especially given how many edits were made. FCYTravis (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, a second pair of eyes always help. Plus, there seemed to be consensus towards a reblock, so it's all fine by me. seicer | talk | contribs 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
User: Nevilledad
Seicer, User:Nevilledad is making up stuff again on the Corridor G page. He's now readded stuff that I reverted to delete and refuses to provide any real cites. Can this page be protected or he be blocked from editing it? Brian Powell (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm giving him a final warning. He's edited elsewhere and has done the same. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- He struck again. I reverted, yet again. Brian Powell (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Request to Unblock TechOnline Wikipedia Page
Hi Seicer -
I was wondering if it would be possible to unblock the TechOnline wikipedia page. My sincere apologies if this violated your Terms of Service --- I will gladly re-read any material you have on quality posts before re-attempting.
Best Regards, Tshannon tol (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Tim
User:CarlosRodriguez
Follow up to User_talk:CarlosRodriguez#When_you_return..., User:CarlosRodriguez is back to being disruptive in the Jeremiah Wright article space. I think this talk page edit, in which he changes an existing heading to add "--Wright a Muslim?" really sums it up. His other contributions over the last hour and a half are more of the same. TheslB (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
deletion Review
You might want to take a look at the Deletion review for Susan Hubbard, [3] -- DGG (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
used
fezmar9 and nouse4aname i believe are sock puppets, they make the smae edits, alwasy undo what i edit and never let me change anything, they both make huge changes without disscussion and then tell me i cant make any edits without talking baout it, they violent 3 revert rules more then i do, please give them the sock puppet warning becasue it is clear they are sock puppets, USEDfan (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
User:S@bre
This editors appears, if I read the history correctly, to have been caught up in an autoblock applied by you. Do you have any objection to his being unblocked? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The Used discography
This is getting ridiculous now. This user refuses to engage in meaningful discussion and simply reverts any attempt at compromise. It is unfortunate that it seems nothing is being done to encourage this person to contribute productively. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just saw you blocked him. So how can we go about reaching a solution that we can all agree on. To me it seems that they will not be happy unless they are changing something about it...Nouse4aname (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, can you explain why the page has been fixed to a version that is in dispute, rather than reverting to a more neutral format such as this [4], which upon looking back at the history, seems the most common form over the past few months Nouse4aname (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- A page protection is not an endorsement of one version over another. It is designed to encourage users to discuss their edits on the talk page, and in the event that a critical edit is needed, you can request so using {{editprotected}}. seicer | talk | contribs 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that. It just seems a little unjust that the page is now frozen in a disputed version. The fact that the page is protected at all is also a little confusing considering the only user refusing to discuss things is User:USEDfan. He has disrupted every version of the page for with no clear explanation. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- A page protection is not an endorsement of one version over another. It is designed to encourage users to discuss their edits on the talk page, and in the event that a critical edit is needed, you can request so using {{editprotected}}. seicer | talk | contribs 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, can you explain why the page has been fixed to a version that is in dispute, rather than reverting to a more neutral format such as this [4], which upon looking back at the history, seems the most common form over the past few months Nouse4aname (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
FatMackemBuddha
[5] Only locked for 48 hours. HalfShadow (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ku Klux Klan
The edit war for which this article was protected has since ceased, and consensus has been found on the article's talkpage. Can it please be unprotected so that we may get on with improving it? Thankyou. --God Save the South (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seicer, before you remove the protection, I would like to see my query about Save the South's edits answered on the article talk page. Perhaps you could elicit a response from him. Baegis (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Were on the same side!
Just a little note about the whole Griffin & Scarborough content dispute between Kek15 and everybody else. Kek15 is a newbie who is showing potencial. I am completly neutral on the issue with that term and links being used in the articles. I was (and still am) only interested in the consensus. At the moment the consensus is that this term does break wikipedias policy. So i welcome the term not being included in the articles. I was concerned that users (not just you) were assuming bad faith on the part of Kek15, thats why i defended him. I hope we can now put this behind us, as i am meant to be on a wiki-break. I will still try and help mediate the issue, if it comes up again. But i want you to know; We are on the same side! The side of policy, consensus and, most importantly, Wikipedia! Cheers and have a nice day! :-) TheProf - T / C 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Any user who decides that going the route of filing an "abuse" complaint against a long-standing and respected administrator at Administrators' Noticeboard instead of seeking consensus through discussion is a negative in my book. While the user may be new, the insertions of potentially libelous statements in violation of policy is always a concern -- and it's always best to play it safe by removing the said comment -- even if it may be so sourced with what is a rather disputed source. Consensus or not, if it is in violation of policy, then it needs to be removed. In addition, I can't find said consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you want evidence that we are on the same side, you'll see that at User_talk:72.92.4.157 (Kek15's IP), I also tried to make him see the BLP violation. Until, what i saw as a consensus, seemed to favour him. Now its pretty clear that the term violates alot of wikipedia policy, and, as i stated above, is rightfully excluded from the articles. As for the AN report, it was more of a comment on Johns lack of willingness to join the discussion. If you'll check me and my contribs, you'll see im one of the good guys, like yourself! Thanks TheProf - T / C 14:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
Hi. If you're not too busy at the time you get this message, can you chime in with your opinion on this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my. I've dealt with these editors before (the "pro-science"/"anti-science" crowd) and it's never a pretty sight. I'll try to chime in later today seicer | talk | contribs 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
TheProf07 (talk · contribs)
Hi there. Can you please provide me with diffs demonstrating TheProf07 (talk · contribs) was involved in disruptive editing? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found enough. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- [6] [7] If his last parting thoughts include vandalism... See WP:AN#John Reaves #2. seicer | talk | contribs 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Iit's probably not a good idea, generally speaking, to block someone you are in dispute with (although I did see what TheProf put on your userpage, it is not acceptable). He is requesting an unblock, he is retiring/scrambling his password. Instead of this all getting blown up way out of proportion, what do you think about an unblock? He blasted your userpage (twice I think, once for sure), but other than that, I don't see the "disruption". Am I missing it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine with me, but his continued tirades against various administrators is a little tiring and disruptive to say the least. Continuing to blast various editors or administrators for what he sees as infractions is disruptive, and I am not engaged in a dispute with TheProf. The only commentary I had, was in regards to administrator John Reaves (talk · contribs) at the thread at AN, so I don't see a real conflict of interest. seicer | talk | contribs 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Iit's probably not a good idea, generally speaking, to block someone you are in dispute with (although I did see what TheProf put on your userpage, it is not acceptable). He is requesting an unblock, he is retiring/scrambling his password. Instead of this all getting blown up way out of proportion, what do you think about an unblock? He blasted your userpage (twice I think, once for sure), but other than that, I don't see the "disruption". Am I missing it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Ryanborgz
I see you added the tag to his talk page, but he isn't blocked yet. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since you're not around any more right now, I've blocked him. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Doh, thanks for that. I feel incredibly stupid now. seicer | talk | contribs 14:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey guys - thanks for this. I'm so slammed with the Tribeca Film Festival I just haven't had the chance to do anything about it. But this user arguably has the worst history of contributions. The legal threat aside, he uploaded a photograph of "Teenage Pubic Hair" (which, you know, is illegal and can open the site if not to problems, at least to criticism), then argued I wanted to keep my own privates on Pubic hair (they aren't mine), and what few contributions that aren't self-obsessed ramblings about his own likes and dislikes, best friends, etc. that he has on his User page, his actual articlespace edits consist of things like paging blanking the Fart page and writing poorly written and misspelled stupidity. I encourage the blocking admin to not lift the block until the User's behavior improves beyond the legal threats. He's a classic case of "It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but not anyone should edit..." Frankly, this guy just doesn't belong here - look at his contributions. Thanks for the help. Dave --David Shankbone 14:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Doh, thanks for that. I feel incredibly stupid now. seicer | talk | contribs 14:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Turemetalfan
Hi there. I noticed you were the admin who blocked the above user indefinitely. You also identified and blocked the sock 98.224.211.86. Despite the blocks, the user is still editing on wikipedia through this sock, removing information (s)he disagrees with despite the presence of reliable sources as references. The user has also left some abusive comments on my talk page here, calling me a dickhead among other things. Just wondering whether you can do something about it. --Bardin (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Darren Sukenik
You speedy deleted as "no notability except sales" but a persona can be a notable salesman. As notability in real estate sales was clearly asserted, it doesn't fit under speedy--please undelete and send to AfD. It just might hold there, but even if it does not, I think it makes a difference to follow the procedures and to interpret speedy narrowly and exactly.DGG (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- A figure is not a major criteria for notability. A general query provides no tangible results, sans his own personal web-site which makes a rather outlandish claim that he is the "#1" in downtown sales. Many of the corresponding web-sites are either related to his web-site, or some derivative of, and a general news query (not on NewsBank) provides little to no contextual clues towards his notability. I did restore the page, and it's at AfD; procedure was followed per CSD, as no major notability was established (sales is a very, very weak case at best, and is a term that can be misleading). seicer | talk | contribs 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
WV 235
Can you help me start a page about WV 235. I put information about the route but cannot seem to get the page right.Please Reply.--Jdlddw (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)jdlddw
User:BudgieMikeInAmerica
Dear Seicer please can you lift the ban for BudgieMikeInAmerica because this user is recent and made mistakes when editing EnglandRules1966 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, no. And if this is the only reason you are here, based upon your edit history... seicer | talk | contribs 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Block of Grsz11
Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has contacted me by email and expressed a willingness to stay away from the Barack Obama-related articles he's been edit warring on for a few weeks (specifically Trinity United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy and William Ayers. (He actually said he'd be OK with a "topic ban", but I don't think we need anything that formal.) I've told him that if he says this on-wiki, and if you agree, I'd be willing to reduce his block to 31 hours. Grsz11 has been a good contributor in the past, and I just think he's let his political passions get a bit out of hand in this election season. Given his offer to stay away from these trigger articles, would you be OK with a reduction in his ban duration? I don't want to wheel war, so I won't do anything unless you agree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, let me do it in a few minutes. It's a shame that he didn't contact me regarding the matter, or this issue would have been resolved much sooner. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I actually was thinking of 31 hours from the time of the initial block (that is, a block ending at 09:10 UTC May 1), and that's what I'd said to him in my email. But I suppose I wasn't clear above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the considerations...now what am I expected to avoid in return? Grsztalk 04:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can't remember anymore. But please just be more careful to not edit war and it'll be fine :) I don't have any qualms about you editing regarding Obama/politics/Jeremiah Wright, but if there is a major sore issue, just take it to the talk page. I've watchlisted it for a while now and have monitored it for any disturbances, and can provide some relief if you let me know what's up. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Situation on One Bid
I'm in the process of trying to defuse an edit war on One Bid. Since I'm not the most experienced in this sort of thing, feel free to kibitz and jump in if you think I'm doing it wrong. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- hmmm...., looks like you got yourself an edit war-er. I'll take a look at it tomorrow, but it seems that you did the right thing. There seems to be consensus not to merge the game into the main article, and that slamming the page with needless tags to try to gain consensus for a merge or possible delete is just petty trolling. (Not directed at TPIRFanSteve.) seicer | talk | contribs 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yay, another sock of Hdayejr. seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the block of the Hdayejr sock, I had filed a checkuser request but I guess it was obvious enough. As far as I can tell, he was also running some anon IPs yesterday, judging from the attacks on my page and TPIRFanSteve. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I knocked out his newest IP address and his older sets are no longer active. Let me know if any more pop up and I'll get em'. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think this probably qualifies. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I knocked out his newest IP address and his older sets are no longer active. Let me know if any more pop up and I'll get em'. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the block of the Hdayejr sock, I had filed a checkuser request but I guess it was obvious enough. As far as I can tell, he was also running some anon IPs yesterday, judging from the attacks on my page and TPIRFanSteve. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yay, another sock of Hdayejr. seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Parapsychology
Hi Seicer,
I totally agree with your edits to Parapsychology, and thanks (: However, if I don't say something about your having edited the article while protected, I would be totally inconsistent when I complain about such page-protected edits in cases where I don't like them. I think in the interests of consistency and policy and fair play (and also making sure I've got grounds to complain when I don't like such edits), that you should probably revert until the page is unprotected. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for unlocking the article. Were there anymore items needing sourcing? --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
AE thread
I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. Please note my closing comments. I am informing you because you posted in the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)
On rule for one anoher rule for another
What is going on with "keratoconus" some people are allowed to do anything they want to ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.120.240 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 May 2008
Speedy deletions
Thank you for monitoring recent changes and tagging inappropriate articles for deletion. I wanted to mention, though, that csd-a7 should not be used for schools such as Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Tennessee). Sometimes an article which does not assert notability very clearly can be cleaned up to the point where its subject is clearly notable. --Eastmain (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, I should have noted the following: "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." seicer | talk | contribs 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
User talk:76.102.193.102
Hi, this is just to inform you that I have granted that IP's unblock request because the user that had been using it, Akhamenehpour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), is not currently blocked. Feel free to revert me if I have somehow not grasped the situation. Sandstein (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)