Archives |
---|
|
Contents
Please read before posting
- Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.
- If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond, it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
- If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
- If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
- If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
- While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
- I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.
The Signpost: 24 April 2016
- Special report: Update on EranBot, our new copyright violation detection bot
- Featured content: The double-sized edition
- Traffic report: Two for the price of one
- Arbitration report: Amendments made to the Race and intelligence case
"Ariane de Rothschild Fellowship": 26 April 2016
Dear Seraphimblade,
I just wanted to apologize for the Ariane_de_Rothschild_Fellowship page you deleted, as its style was indeed not respecting the Wikipedia guidelines. As this operation was not focused on advertising, but rather on completing the Wikipedia pages on the Rothschild family, I'll submit a most appropriate version of this article in a few weeks.
I will make all the efforts to respect the Wikipedia guidelines, and will stay available if you want to make any inquiry about the article.
Best Regards,
Youzn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youzn (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:AE - Threaded discussion
Hi Seraphimblade, Apologies for the interruption. W.r.t the threaded discussion in the appeal at WP:AE, I would personally have preferred to comment in a separate section, but felt obliged to follow the instructions implicit in the section header. I am happy to refactor my comments into a separate section now, if that is your preference.
I have also opened a new section[1] on the Talk page, to discuss if we should change the format for future appeals. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ryk72: That was my mistake, which was why I removed my comment. I thought your comments were in MarkBernstein's section, but they were in the discussion section. Sorry for the confusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2016
- In the media: Wikipedia Zero piracy in Bangladesh; bureaucracy; chilling effects; too few cooks; translation gaps
- Traffic report: Purple
- Featured content: The best... from the past two weeks
Tom McGrath
I don't understand the rapid deletion, or the somewhat glib comment about "fluff." All the changes I made were carefully researched and footnoted and the matters in question are all without doubt factually correct so it's not an issue of innacuracy. I don't see how updating the url for mcgrath's current company is fluff, or updating his employer for that matter as he has not been with Key brand for almost 4 years from what I learned. STX Entertainment is a major announcement in the entertainment business - I was at their presentation at Cinemacon in Las Vegas which is what brought it to mind and their presentation is a game changing event and he was in on the formation. I also don't see how adding research footnotes to otherwise unchanged text is fluff, or fixing broken links, or clarifying cross references to eliminate disambiguation notices, or updating references to include the STX investor group. I understood the comment on the mcgrath's theater credits to be one of research, not fluffiness. I checked many other theater producers in Wikipedia to see if such lists were common and they are, particularly when the credits go beyond those on the broadway database. I note that similar objections as those made to mcgrath were made on his former partner's page, John Gore, but his virtually identical credits are still there (including London) and have never been deleted or commented on. I also checked the other STX executives who have similar and even more extensive descriptions of STX in their pages, but their company descriptions were not deleted as being fluffy. One such executive has virtually no credentials beyond being at STX, but her page is unchallenged. I don't understand this process or the selective nature of the deletion, so I am writing to you to learn more. I will be in China most of the next week but will check here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.87.35 (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Far too much irrelevant detail. Articles aren't meant to be a CV or puff piece. If there are some pieces out of date or factual inaccuracies, that's one thing, but it's not appropriate to have lists of investors in companies he has something to do with, editorial fluff like "...a well-known Hollywood film producer and entrepreneur...", "...Tony Award-winning producer...", "...aims to identify properties from the Fox film library suitable for stage adaptation, and then shepherd those projects through creative development, reading and workshop phases...". The article should be primarily about him, not go into a bunch of detail about his projects. If those projects are notable in their own right and sufficient reference material is available, we could use stuff like that, but still not with marketese like "shepherd". The article should not read like a CV, it should read like a biography. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I note that this article has been a significant area of interest for you. While you may not have known, please keep in mind that if you are being paid or compensated for work on this article, disclosure of that fact is required. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's been an item of interest for a couple of days - maybe four or five hours total effort. I own movie theaters in the Scandinavian and N. European countries which brought me to Las Vegas a few weeks ago. I looked up the principals of this company and noticed that this bio was incomplete and heavily redacted, mostly by yourself. I found the background, including live theater, music and movies, particularly interesting as I have seen numerous of the shows he or his companies produced either in NY or London. A seven-time tony award winner is unusual so I read other biographies of theatre producers and saw that these kinds of things are in all the other articles. I think the deal to develop theatrical productions with Fox was a major transaction, at least based on Variety and Backstage coverage and any announcement of a new show written by Harvey Fierstein and Alan Menken is major news as they are two of the very most important theatre composers and writers. The language about STX was borrowed from the company descriptions for STX contained in the other executives' biographies and the main STX article itself where it was left untouched. This is a far shorter version and much more "just the facts." Every article about the company mentions the investors so it seemed normal. Why would it not be redacted from all the articles including the other STX executives? Finally, the listing of credits is in almost every major theatre producer's Wikipedia bio - most notably his former partner - so why not here? I still don't understand why the technical corrections were all deleted, it seems a bit heavy handed but I won't change anything if you are objecting. This is the first time I tried this so I don't understand all these rules of the road or why things are just automatically deleted.Thorshammer1 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Article deleted
Dear Seraphimblade,
I've created a new article for Malaysian Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association to be published by Wiki, but unfortunately has been deleted by you for reason as below:- A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
-The organization is a reputable search & rescue NGO in Malaysia and it serve as a backup for the Malaysia Fire & Services Department. The organisation represents Malaysia to serve in the international disaster operation. There is no promotion or advertising as such. All statement is backup by reference and citation. I humbly request your guidance to direct me to edit the article so that it fulfills wiki publishing criteria.
Thank you.
Mvfra (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Mvfra: Firstly, please review our guidelines on conflict of interest and paid editing, as your username makes it appear you may be affiliated with the organization in question. As to the reason for deletion, it was because the article read essentially like a glossy brochure or the organization's own marketing material on their web page. Being referenced is not enough; all Wikipedia content must also be strictly neutral. Long lists of awards, regurgitations of "mission" and "vision" statements, and the like, are not appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. By way of comparison for a reasonably decent article about such an organization, see New York Fire Department. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Seraphimblade,
Thank you for the reply. The article created was based on the Fire and Rescue Department of Malaysia, Disaster Preparedness and Response Team wiki page format. If the article that was created doesn't meet the criteria of wiki, then likewise that page should be deleted as well. Choice of username shouldn't even be a consideration factor in this course.
Mvfra (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Doncram
Hi Todd, I've proposed a motion in response to the Doncram amendment request which removes the topic ban you placed. I'm normally very hesitant to override the enforcement decisions of admins where there hasn't been an appeal to AE/AN. I've done it this time as it's part of a wider set of provisions. Before voting on it though, I'd appreciate any more information/evidence you can present supporting your previous statement that we shouldn't change Doncram's restrictions. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, I've responded there. I don't really have any objection, but there was one part of the motion that was unclear to me that I detailed at ARCA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Result concerning Jonniefood
I'm flattered that you see me everywhere, but that wasn't me, it was KrakatoaKatie. Bishonen | talk 22:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC).
- Reading too many diffs tends to get them crossed in your head. Sorry about that, I'll edit to correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)