Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often refered to as "Novels".
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter.
The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For continuously deleting the Milton High School article.
Thanks; I left a note on his talk page. PullToOpen 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV (September 2006)[edit]
The September 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006[edit]
The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
As you are a signed up member of the project could you add our Userbox {{User WikiProject Novels}} to you usepage somewhere which will automatically add you to our "Participants category". Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006[edit]
The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Welcome, PullToOpen, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.
Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.
In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.
If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator generalNatalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!
Hi, PullToOpen! I noticed that you've created and/or worked on lots of pages for episodes of House. (Good work, by the way!) I wanted to make you aware of the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), that says that if the name of a TV episode isn't taken by anything else, there's no need to put a disambiguating phrase after it. So, since House vs God can refer only to the episode, that's where the episode should be. I've moved most of the ones I've found, but wanted to make sure you knew why I was doing it, and that you put future episode pages under the right titles. Best, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for telling me about the policy on episode names! I wasn't aware of it before. I will keep it in mind for articles in the future. PullToOpəntalk 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you have marked a talk page for deletion under speedy deletion? It is the talk page of a current article so there is no reason why it should be deleted (and the template you used: {{db-nonsense}}) is for Articles, not talk pages. If you think the talk page has no meaningfull content, (which I agree with) just go ahead and blank it. I severely doubt any damin will delete it. ViridaeTalk 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As it is a usless talk page, either leave it or blank it - there is no need to delete it. Articles use the different speedy deletion templates and talk pages that remain after the article has been deleted have {{db-talk}}. ViridaeTalk 00:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
You can help reference articles.
Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.
A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.
If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.
If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.
Welcome to Wikipedia!!! (is this a bit full-on or stalkerish or what?)[edit]
Hello PullToOpen! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! JDtalk 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006[edit]
The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I reverted some of the vandalism by 165.234.100.2 too and I've left a VW template on his talk page telling him about the vandalism and the anti vandal bot has also warned him, thanks for your ant-vandalism help!
No worries! No one is perfect, and a self-revert one minute later shows that it just slipped out and was not really intended. Best, Dar-Ape 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006[edit]
The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
It may sound communist, but Bush already said it. I encourage you to reconsider your vote. MPS 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't being WP:COOL, was I? I guess I took it personally when you put (what I saw as) a perfectly good article up for AFD. Someday I am going to write a wikipedia essay on how demoralizing it is to new article creators when people are trigger happy with AFDing and CSDing stubs. You know and I know that this article is going to happen eventually. I would suggest that your time on wikipedia would be better spent eliminating actual propaganda than articles needing cleanup. IMHO, in the "old days" of wikipedia, people were more patient in letting articles gravitate towards goodness rather than nipping them in the stub. Peace, MPS 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if it is okay for me to use the House template you have in my signature, or would you not want that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs)
Ah, you learn something new every day! Thanks again! Kris Classic 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the message you left on Forthsider's talk page about this. I was actually going to Afd it, as a regional branch of a political party isn't inhenertly notable, and the article didn't sway me from that opinion. However after some investigation you may have been incorrect in saying it was a copyvio. allexperts.com is also known as about.com, and is a listed Wikipedia mirror [1]. It doesn't seem to be a fully up-to-date mirror, it seems to mirror from somewhere around August 2006 or before. I had to go back to August 11 to find the corresponding spelling mistake ("bor") in the first sentence of this article [2], which is mirrored here [3]. As the page was actually a recreation [4] it's likely it was mirrored around August, so it wasn't a copyvio I don't think. Regards. One Night In Hackney 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I was going to Afd it anyway, just didn't get round to it yesterday and I saw it had already been purged. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add this to your js and the below to your css file. Obviously this code is not designed to create a single tab, and thus is slow, and unwieldy. It provides an excellent base for expansion though. Prodegotalk 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I forgot to include the warn tab for diffs! You need this version instead. Sorry about that! Prodegotalk 01:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In remembance of a great man, let's spend some of our free time serving the common good by working on a great resource of free learning, Wikipedia. Today, give more time than you normally would, helping do the work that needs to be done to keep this project on track. Drop by the project page Wikipedia:Martin Luther King Day of Service and do what you can. ike9898 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I use a JavaScript based monobook tool for reverting and warning vandals (see this post for more details on it). As far as the editor review, I'm doing it for both reasons mostly. I was encouraged to submit an editor review by Nina, if you look at the post on my talk page. First and foremost an editor review would be good anyways considering that the community has often given me good advice in several cases. Also, Administrator Husond and a few other users have been interested in nominating me for adminship and I have agreed to oblidge a nomination by February. I truly appreciate your interest to submit detailed editor review for me :), please have at me! Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 01:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to write up my editor review and getting to it so promptly! I appreciate the advice and will definitely take it to heart :). Well, I'll see what others have to say, see ya around.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 06:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks your finding and putting in all those dates. Keep up the good work, and we'll be a featured list in no time! Blindmanshady 01:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for leaving comments on my editor review. I agree it seems like I am ignoring advice but I am not. If you take a look at zimzalabim's old talk pages you will see I thanked him for giving me advice. Also I think it is fine to cut-and-paste things when it is just a introduction. I agree that you need to personaly talk to each person. Also I have been trying to get into editing articles on religion. I really can not do anything major but I am trying to do small edits. The reason for me "shooting down" J Di was because he was a little bit nasty by saying that he would block me if I kept on doing it. I accept advice if it is in a friendly manner. If you find any other areas where I can improve then tell me on my talk page. Peace. James, La gloria è a dio 00:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming in to offer a third opinion here, I hope it helps resolve it, I really hate the edit->revert endless cycle. Russeasby 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting Mkill is banned from ever touching marciano page, I am requesting ((you tell him) NEVER to leave any messages on my talk page, I do not want to listen to him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cbrown1023#Problem_replyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cbrown1023&diff=prev&oldid=102725043
There is most of the explanation, you can go on my talk page. Mkill had problems with many users before, some time ago somebody contacted me to watch over marciano page, so I am doing that, to mkil, everything is vandalism, I simply do not have any more time to reply to his every argument, he has time so he can put things together and it looks good, but it's not right, my current boxingwear version should be ok. There is no redundant info, if there is, he simply kills everything else, i wonder if mkil goes for marciano killer, he also uses 58.8 ip to get his point across, when he has no point, switches off and logs on thru his ip, the guy is totally out of line. Boxingwear
Why did you make up your decision to block me for 3 days, when I was not even aware there was poll, how can you make decision without WAITINF FOR A reply, come on now man... I simply want to keep things nice and well, i mean, he provoked me towards this edit war, but i did not start it. Do you know rules, you must wait for other party to reply?!
And just so you know, I will be gone tomorrow, for few days at least. But I am sure I did a good job. And then some.
He was pulled into war edit, excuse me, be neutral here, will you?
With so many edits, I thought you are an administrator, i mean, you are what's the word synops, that's same?
User_talk: BoxingWear
Hey there, fast replies, how do you do that, but go back to my talk page, you did not answer much...
How come some are check users, some not?
User_talk: BoxingWear
Sorry for reverting you here: [5] - I've reverted back to your version. It looks like you were right! My bad. --HappyCamper 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider reformatting your page to fit within a 1024x768 screen -- with room left over for the sidebar. That is the resolution I am currently stuck with. Your page doesn't fit. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's not good. I don't know anything about user page formatting, so there isn't a whole lot I can do about it. I tried to tweak it a bit by changing around the biggest number values, but that didn't work. I'm sorry. PTO 16:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd help you out, but your page is beyond my skills. However, today I did just happen to notice that User:Transhumanist runs his own user page school. You might ask him what can be done. In the meantime, I would suggesting changing the table with your user boxes to show only 3 columns. That is how many I can see. Will (Talk - contribs) 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For catching Antandrus's detective work on ANI and following up with a RFCU. You have saved me an amazing amount of work! Kurutalk 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally the first barnstar I've awarded in my year here (ok, I gave out one margarita), but it's worth it. And a belated thank you for your recent vote and comments in my RFA - I'll work diligently on those category talk edits... :) Kurutalk 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least, you could open my talk page, there are many people who are leaving me messages and want to talk to me. I also asked for user check id for mkil, i believe he used that against me, did you check on that. You know, i do not care if i am banned or not, just because i tried to help the banned person (see my talk page) does not mean i am him, can you try, to bring back my account, i only want to fix few things, then i will be gone from wiki. I can easily create new account, go on another ip, etc, etc, today I was told how to, i could simply edit from my new account, new ip, new articles I never touched, IMPOSSIBLE TO CATCH ME. I will not do that, if i am not welcomed on wiki, so be it, i will be gone and you loose good contributors, i contributed dozens of stories to eastsideboxing and to other sites. I am more than welcomed over there. Think what you want, if you think i am some other dude, fine, but remember, you passed your judgment on me really fast. And all of you should be ashamed. The funny thing is, one administrator blocked all the local ip's which serve about 10 000 people or more, now they can not edit this pathetic wiki, you know, that really MADE MY DAY, because when you blocked me, you blocked 1000's of others, LOL! Check my contrubutions, there are few people who thanked me for adding little known things.And I never ever vandalized pages with wrong information. Goes to show why administrators are bad, from the very beginning i was told not to trust them! BoxingWear --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.201.183.18 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Great, now you are reporting me more, guess what ASSHOLE, i have another account i have been using for 2 years now, all on boxing and sport, if you think i am who i am, fine, whatever, does not change a thing, but you will never find out my another account which is in good standings and you will not be forgotten for being a jerk too, ok, have a nice life!Not. Boxingwear
I told you before: I am not an administrator. Go complain to somebody else. PTO 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007[edit]
The February 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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.
Delivered by grafikbot 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.
...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a recent Wikipedia change, your monobook.js, if it uses the warn script I use, will need to have this change done to it. Prodegotalk 02:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message, but now I use a script that better suits the way that I go on RC patrol. Cheers, PTO 02:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there (:O) ... we have an ongoing debate over here on the status of an article. Now the thing I wanted to bring up was the editing and removal and well forceful rhetoric stating the result of the debate before it has even been decided. The one causing all this is User:Ideogram. I have tried so hard to be loving and understanding during this debate, but now I dont know if what the user is doing is right or wrong. I dont know who to go to, so I figure I may ask someone who is very familiar with the wikipedia world and how this should be dealt with maybe? Not sure. Please help. (:O) ---nima baghaei (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on the user's talk page. PTO 05:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you give that Mung bean vandal a warning when I already gave him a *final* warning for vandalizing the same article? It's clearly blocking time. Badagnani 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I warned the vandal to reiterate a point, and proceeded to report him/her to WP:AIV. However, there was already a listing there. I imagine that the "mung bean" vandal has been blocked by now. PTO 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I make a personal attack? 76.19.13.202 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here. I thought that the sarcasm was rude. Cheers, PTO 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be rude, but it's not a personal attack. However, in the same thread you have a guy repeatedly telling people saying things he doesn't like to 'shut up'. Double standard, much? 76.19.13.202 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to keep this whole mess under control. I'm sorry if I missed a guy. Just please try to make your comments just a little nicer, OK? Cheers, PTO 01:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to be nice. I'm not calling him a jerkface or an assbutt. I'm just suggesting that my credentials (PHD in Badass from Awesometown U, if you forgot. GO AWESOMETOWN PIRATES! WOO WOO ARR!) are as reliable as anyone else's on Wikipedia! So, hey be cool in the future, dogg. (While we're on the subject of vandalism? Consider that Essjay specifically requests that no one remove comments from his discussion page. So the only vandalism is from the people who are removing comments. 76.19.13.202 01:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I didn't remove your comment. I just warned you for it. Just don't do it again, please? PTO 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A personal attack? Hogwash and humbug. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloveoil (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I had just logged back on to apologize and saw your message :-\
No worries, it's me who should be apologizing for being so brash and rude. I only hope you don't take it personally, I was just (unfairly) annoyed because I was editing and you were "in the way" (from my overcritical POV at the time) so I kind of snapped. I can get high-strung in these sorts of high-drama situation and my comments usually come off as more of an insult than I intend them to, so sorry! And don't worry, I won't go over three reverts. In fact, I'm done reverting on that article for the night.
Besides, I can't blame you for not AGFing, I was editing in a way that made me not approachable so I probably deserved it. Milto LOL pia 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ever do that again. Thanks. - David Gerard 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your section wasn't helping at all. We're trying to get somewhere with this RFC. PTO 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That depends what one regards as "helping." It's utterly unrelated to conventional RFC format; it is in fact a lynching party. That my comment didn't help that was rather the point - David Gerard 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that your point was that the comment didn't help is precisely the reason you should distance yourself from this. There are quite a few people who want this RFC to be more than a piñata party. PTO 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I thought I was fairly clear on what content of his I was criticizing. Calling him shit for brains was an afterthought. Kade 05:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it was a personal attack nonetheless. Please, don't do that again. Cheers, PTO 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007[edit]
The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please:
In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
What you did was mostly bad and pointless. Citing Kyle Farnsworth was good, but why delete the image? It helps the article. No one would benefit from its deletion. Also, why delete the student traditions section. That section is good. It adds information about the school. There's nothing wrong with that. Just leave it like it is. Also- leave John Dewberry in the famous alumni section.
Randomfrenchie 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about you having to do this. I certainly didn't do this on purpose, I just need to learn to read. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. After all, thats what us clerks are here for :). Cheers, PTO 03:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for the intervention. Its been a long day for me today here..... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm sorry you had to deal with that guy and the anon linkspammer today... Just give me a shout if you need anything done! Cheers, PTO 03:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the Procedures on WP:RFCU. It clearly states "Do not specify more than one summary letter." As a clerk, I had to move American Brit's case to the non-compliant section.--Ed¿Cómo estás? 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2. Even though this dispute is only a few hours old, I feel his responses, both on the RFC page and on the talk page, demonstrate that he lacks the judgement needed to be an administrator, at least regarding topics related to Czech nationalism and ethnicity. I have filed a request for arbitration; you may wish to comment there. Thatcher131 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, but I don't think that I'll leave any comments until/unless the case gets accepted. There isn't a whole lot I can add to this, anyway. However, if it is accepted, I'll be sure to help out at the Workshop and Evidence pages. Cheers, PTO 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfA opening sentence made me realise that I used the exact same opening sentence for both my RfA and RfB. Yours was similar to mine... but mine were identical! That's odd. Good luck, by the way :-) --Deskana(talk) 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm actually laughing pretty hard right now. I changed it at the last minute from "I'm going off the deep end", too... Cheers, PTO 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thanks for blocking [User:Han Rachel] on Simple English Wikipedia. I browsed through the IP block list and some vandal (possibly a "Kate McAuliffe" vandal) impersonated both me and my sister. I knew that it was not my sister because I checked the contributions of this user and found an edit that no one in my family would do. Amos HanTalk 00:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. We've had a long term vandal there who was obsessed with a girl named "Kate McAuliffe", so the name stuck. PTO 00:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I know who that long term vandal is. He is one of my classmates at my school. He is such a crazy person. I do agree that he is extremely obsessed with Kate McAuliffe. All I hear him say is "Sean McAuliffe has a beautiful sister" and "Wikipedia has a crush on Kate McAuliffe" and things like that. Hopefully he will stop doing that, now that I am extremely tired of hearing that. Amos HanTalk 01:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.
You asked me to choose one single code letter in 2 RCU I made [6], [7]. I fulfilled your request, please do the check. Thanks.--MariusM 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One has been declined, and the other completed. PTO 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. PTO 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You guys are on 3 reverts im on two. You guys broke the rules go die! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmTheCoinMan (talk • contribs)
You have done three reverts. If you revert again, you will be blocked for violating the three revert rule. PTO 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, you left comments at ANI about a Checkuser case and I asked him/her if he could explain it further and you left comments saying nad indicating you thought I was violating WP:BITE and said that he may have thought he was being kicked around at Admin noticeboards, I hope you did not get the wrong end of the stick with my comment and could you explain if you were talking to me? Please reply on my talk page as well, cheers - Tellyaddict 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't talking about you when I pointed to WP:BITE. I was talking about the multiple people who accused this guy of disruption for filing a downright strange checkuser request. However, it seems this guy has been here before, so my point is moot. Sorry. PTO 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, I didnt wish to sound uncivil or anything, Happy editing and Kindest Regards! 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I've promoted you do adminship. Make sure you are familiar with all the relavant policies before using your shiny new buttons, and congratulations. Raul654 01:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on becoming an administrator on this Wikipedia, and also congratulations on your very first block. May it be the first of many in your career as an admin. Oh wait, that's not such a good thing to wish for after all, because in order for you to block someone, they have to vandalise multiple times, and that's bad for Wikipedia. Well, you get the idea. Again, congrats! --Kyoko 15:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! May the vandals feel the wrath of my, uh, buttons. Cheers, PTO 15:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey PullToOpen, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support and I do intend to run again eventually. I hope you've been enjoying your new admin tools; it was a pleasure to support your RfA. Majorly(o rly?) 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame; I think that you'll make a great 'crat. PTO 04:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i pissed and craped my self(not for real)! whats the difference between a block and a ban? And what will triger a ban?--Tatshro Satou 16:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are a technical way to stop users from editing. They can range in duration depending on the severity of the offense. However, blocks are never punitive, but preventative. Bans are formal declarations of a user's inability to edit. Bans can only be issued by Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, and the community as a whole (via Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard). If you want to know more about these, you can read WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for more information. PTO 16:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:C.m.jones/Essjay -- and your decision at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:C.m.jones/Essjay - "The result of the debate was Delete. This "work in progress" hadn't been edited since March 8 when it was nominated for MFD." Simply untrue. You should double check the page history. The editor in question had made several changes to the article, including labelling it as a work in progress, and correcting typographical and content errors. If this was your primary reason for deleting the article, you simply made a mistake. And you should consider correcting it. Plus, WP:POVFORK specifically states userspace should be used in this manner - One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy ...New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace.... Do you disagree? Jenolenspeak it! 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured, that was not my only reason. I should have been more clear with that sentence; what I meant was that the article wasn't edited between the March 8 and the time it was nominated for MFD (April 2), which shows that this article wasn't a work in progress. This lack of editing shows that C.m.jones wasn't using this as a draft page, but instead a personal POV fork. This kind of point of view fork is avoided by the community, as it is a way to avoid keeping a neutral point of view. Quasi-articles like these show up in search engines too, so they still have to be written in a neutral point of view. I have since clarified my statement. //PTO 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made expansions to it, and a clear, bold disclaimer at the top;. Keep in mind that some of us around here who are middle-aged professionals have very responsible and high-demand jobs, growing families, and competing volunteer endeavors in real life. Four weeks to those without them is more like four days to others. Several people in various places ahave expressed that the version I am working one is already a much superior version of the current article. Given more time, clearer heads, and inline cites to the version (although this is NOT required inWP policy), it stands to gain momentum. In point of fact, those crying "Delete" above -- with one exception, perhaps -- are the Essjay pageguards who are using MfD as a tactic to remove a place (my user space) where competition can emerge. That is a far cry from the WP way that specifically says, "One technique sometimes used to reach consensus on difficult articles is to create a temporary copy ...New drafts should be written in the "user:" or "talk:" namespace and not in the main namespace." Responding Admin: please don't give in to the sort of nonsense and abuse going on here. C.m.jones 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC) -- I assume you read and considered this? I'm really curious -- is there some kind of time limit on user space projects? In this case, it was clearly labelled as a work in progress; and WP policy, again, seems to ENCOURAGE this kind of use of user space. It's just disappointing to see all alternative thought stamped out. Essjay, and the reverberations from his deception, aren't going away... Jenolenspeak it! 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the problem. The reason why people wanted it deleted is that they believed that C.m.jones was creating a POV fork in the guise of a draft for the article. For example, here's a !vote from Ned Scott: "Delete per nom and above. Bad fork.. will likely never contribute to the actual article". And another, from Leflyman: "Temporary sub-pages are perfectly fine for in-progress work, but this content/POV fork of the article is not in-progress-- it is DOA version, authored solely by the user". If you want to keep your own POV fork of the Essjay Controversy, do so in a text file on your computer. Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. //PTO 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have overtly abused your admin privledges[edit]
Take it to WP:ANI if you really think I did. Or file an WP:RFC. I have the right to have almost whatever I want in my userspace. // PTO 04:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to abusing your admin rights again, eh? Why don't you deal with my substantive comments rather than making wild and unsubstantiated charges to try to avoid them? You cannot make potentially libelous claims in userspace. — C.m.jones 04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if you think I abused my admin rights, go to WP:ANI or WP:RFC. Don't edit war over a simple template. // PTO 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re your post on Jimbo's talk page - please message me as soon as you get this! We need to stop this little knobbler and quick. I just hope its not the same wally - Christel banned him/her last night. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on user's talk page per request. // PTO 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar, Sean! Appreciate it :) How are your new tools suiting you? – Rianaऋ 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They've been suiting me very well so far...although I was introduced to image backlogs the other day, which was something I later regretted. :). Cheers, // Sean William (PTO) 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they're a pain... but it's kinda fulfilling when you go back to the main page and see one less number on the backlogs :) I think at least 70% of my logs must be deleted images! – Rianaऋ 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your linking to said article on Jimbo's talk page, SqueakBox 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As soon as something like that happens, Brandt always advertises his "wise" actions at WR. // Sean William (PTO) 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, SqueakBox is an active participant in the discussion here, on a proposed guideline. I've linked your edit as a reference case for the participants in the discussion - I hope you don't mind, and if you do, I'll remove my comment there. JavaTenor 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all. Good luck getting the guideline to work. // Sean William (PTO) 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Since I seen you wrote on Darkness of Meta's userpage about that dodgy emai. It turns out hundreds of Wiki-users has recieved it, and one of the users has created a userpage section about it, where you can comment, [8]. Plus, this user has became a big, big problem after violating several policies and has been using open proxies to create hundreds and hundreds of sockpuppets. Just to inform you, the debate is here. [9]. Retiono Virginian 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on the ANI thread above. Thanks for informing me. // Sean William 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey PTO. I see you've got your name changed :). Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWizParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's unfortunate that your RFA failed again. I'll be sure to support you whenever you run again in the future. // Sean William 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to some "transclusion confusion" I apparently went and deleted some pages under U1 that User:Andrew Hampe did not want deleted. Sorry about that -- the CSD backlog was large at the moment and the U1's are usually the easiest ones to knock of. Well, I thought so anyway. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Dina 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Andrew Hampe explained his situation to me over IRC. Cheers, // Sean William 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two people with usernames that start with 'Sean W', both having recently got username-changed to them? A serious coincidence :) Please respond on my talk. —Sean Whitton / 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responded on user's talk page per request. // Sean William 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sean, thanks so much for the heads up and your thoughtful suggestion. In fact, my friend Tdxiang, who's also a Simple Wiki admin, alerted me about this circumstance a few days ago, so I was aware of this unpleasant impersonation event. However, I'm not sure what to do at this point - should I do something to get that account deleted somehow, or can it be usurped in order to register myself there? I'll follow your advice on this matter. I registered my name on de.wiki, es.wiki and fr. wiki, but I completely missed the Simple English one :( Again, thanks so much for your help, dear Sean! Cheers, Phaedriel - 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
I'll do just that then :) Thank you, dear Sean, and let me know if you ever need my help over here at en.wiki, k? Hugs! Phaedriel - 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks a lot, dear Sean - I'll wait then ;) Cheers! Phaedriel - 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can state categorically (but subjectively) that no edit from that IP classifies as Wikipedia:Vandalism in that it's not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".
But even falling back to the other two lesser legal standards of "wilful", namely recklessness and negligence, I'm not sure what is objectionable about any past edits. How are they even misguided or unhelpful, much less harmful?
My latest big project has been to add accurate SMILES formulae (preferably the canonical "unique SMILES" form usable for database lookup) to the simple molecules in Category:Biochemistry. It's been a bit of a learning experience, as the chirality annotations are a bit subtle to figure out, but http://cactus.nci.nih.gov/services/translate/ has been very helpful.
It's not like switching IPs or waiting out the block is difficult, but as someone who wishes to contribute positively, the possibility that I'm doing harm without meaning to is alarming. I remember being disagreed with over Endianness, but at least that comment said something about why the reverter disagreed.
The one word "vandalism"—describing an offense for which I know the mens rea is absent—leaves me bewildered. Can someone please explain in considerably more detail?
Ah, reviewing your contributions more closely, I've found that the block was in error. Now, the reason why you were blocked in the first place was due to a report on WP:AIV by a bot named "User:MartinBot". This bot works as an anti-vandalism bot, reverting edits that it deems to be "nonsense". Your edits were reverted immediately by this bot, due to the somewhat random nature of the SMILES formulae. MartinBot automatically reports editors who have vandalized more than four times to the bot section of the Administrator Intervention against Vandalism page. Administrators rarely check the contributions of a user when it has been reported by MartinBot because the bot very rarely makes mistakes. I hope you accept my humblest apologies for this block; it was a general misunderstanding between the parties. Cheers, Sean William 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, that makes sense. Yes, I've reverted a moderate amount of "line noise" (although usually I think charitably that someone just leaned on a keyboard and hit "Enter" with the edit page open; I only call it vandalism when there's some obviously hostile text), and the SMILES formulae do resemble that. Um... I'll have to figure out how to get the edits past the bot's un-doing. I wonder why it only started complaining today? Oh! I know! Earlier, I had to add "|- | SMILES = <formula>" to infoboxes. The most recent ones already had (blank) "| SMILES =" entries that I just filled in. Thus, the addition was "purer" line noise.71.41.210.146 03:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to notify the bot's creator about this, in hopes of getting it fixed. Sean William 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think it's quite an exceptional case, so maybe it doesn't need a totally transparent solution, but a solution of some sort would be helpful. I could always make some pointless edits, like a large human-readable <!--comment--> and then remove it in a separate edit, if I expect it'll trigger the bot. In case it helps, though, a basic validation of SMILES formulae can be done by checking for properly nested parens, with possibly one innermost level of square brackets. (Oh yes, and my recent edits have included many more chirality @ signs, which might trigger e-mail address detectors.) 71.41.210.146 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, in the meantime, I notice that the block is still active. Is that likely to be fixed, or should I just wait for it to time out? 71.41.210.146 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have lifted the block. Sean William 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the odds that I should drop by your userpage about 5 minutes after you've blatantly ripped off adapted my old userpage design? :) Spooky! By the way, Springeragh is actually responsible for most of that design - just making sure your credit goes to the right place :) Take care! – Rianaऋ 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! I'm found out! I guess I got tired of the "large user page" thing, so I decided to go with a simple page. I hope you don't mind :). Sean William 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Course not! I got tired of the big flashy thing too, but then got tired of the small simple thing... and now I'm tired of the big flashy thing again. You know, I'm just going to end up redirecting to my talkpage one of these days :) See ya round, – Rianaऋ 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you don't realise that semi-protection would force the anonymous user to discuss his problems with article (he so far refuses). Or if he decided he has nothing substantial to say, he will go away. I've only been here short time, and I can see than for Wikipedia openess=anarchy (mostly). What is gained by letting one anonymous user rip up the version of an article several users accepted, without discussion or justifying himself even?--Methodius 16:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I didn't semi-protect the article is because it would only block the IPs from editing, and not established users. If pages are protected in a content dispute, the page must be completely protected from editing so that all parties must discuss on the talk page. As I said before, if an edit war erupts, ask for full protection and begin discussion. Of course, it would be much easier to begin discussion now, but as you said, the IP doesn't seem to want to engage in discussion. Sean William 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"it would only block the IPs" - it is dispute between one IP and several registered users. All except one IP are wanting to discuss. So only the one IP needs "coercion" to discuss, everyone else is already ready for discussion, so there is no purpose to "coerce" them also. So I do not see point of what you say. All is needed is blocking IPs from editing for week or two. Either he will discuss or he will go away.--Methodius 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the protection policy. We don't semi-protect pages for content disputes that have to do with IPs with the intention of locking them out. Sean William 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I hope he decides to discuss then.--Methodius 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can you please protect page? Same person is now harrasing me, putting sockpuppet template on my page again and again, insinuating Serbian newspapers are not reliable because they are Serbian, and making a mess of articles. You can see contributions.--Methodius 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely protected the page, and semi-protected your user page. Sean William 18:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this - [10]. The editor did not violate his parole on just one article. He did it on several articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on that thread. Thanks for letting me know. Sean William 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Your message concerning Certified.Gangsta[edit]
All my edits are motivated by upholding Wikipedia policy and enriching the project. I don't know why on earth you think I am baiting Certified.Gangsta. Baiting requires a degree of intention, which I do not possess at all. Frankly, he does not need any baiting to get himself blocked every second day.
I assure you that baiting Certified.Gangsta was not in my mind and was no part of my intention. If you block me for my good faith edits, believe you me I will appeal it to the highest level to vindicate my good intentions.
I am surprised and shocked by your failure to assume good faith on my part. That has in no small measure influenced my reaction to your message and the tone of this message. If any part of this offends you, I apologise. Nevertheless, I feel I must express my indignation with an appropriate reaction. --Sumple (Talk) 00:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In making unprovoked edits to Certified.Gangsta's userspace, you're encouraging him to edit war, violate his parole, and get blocked. Pending the ArbCom's clarification, I won't be blocking Certified.Gangsta for userspace violations. However, you're making him violate the spirit of the sanction. I remember the discussion about spoofed new messages bars, and I'm pretty sure consensus was NOT achieved. Sean William 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued failure to assumed good faith appals me. Your imputation of User:LionheartX's behaviour and intentions to me shocks me.
Please clarify your accusation. Are you accusing me of baiting on the basis of your perception of my intentions? On what basis do you make that conclusion? I ask because I see none.
Your argument seems to be that, because Certified.Gangsta is subject to a revert parole, I am somehow restrained from reverting him under the threat of blocking.
If your argument stood, that would place me on a revert parole with respect to any page edited by Certified.Gangsta.
That makes no sense to me. ArbCom imposed a sanction on him, not on me. If somehow a sanction on Certified.Gangsta requires me to stop good faith editing, then there is something seriously wrong with then ArbCom procedures.
I am editing in the same way I have always done, and I will always continue to do so. I refused to be restrained by some kind of secondary constraint on me resulting from an ArbCom case in which I was not a party and my behaviour was not impugned by the Arbitration Committee. A fortiori the Arbitration Committee did not at any point say that other users are to stop reverting Certified.Gangsta's bad edits.
In this particular case, may I remind you that it was not "unprovoked". Certified.Gangsta added a UI spoofing banner to his user page, which, on my interpretation and on the interpretation of many users now and in the past, is against community consensus. --Sumple (Talk) 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(here is the straw poll, from which you derived "consensus": [11])Okay. I don't think we're on the same page here. The reason I mentioned LionheartX was because I was showing that Certified.Gangsta has been baited before. If you were really "good faith editing" to Certified.Gangsta's userpage, then I will excuse myself from this issue and not deal with him again. I'm sorry, but sometimes you've just got to call a spade a spade. Please, don't revert his userpage again. As long as you leave him alone, I'll leave you alone. Sean William 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers sean for your words, but I just had a tantrum and acted like a dick - had a stressfull day at work, next time I'll stay off the laptop when I'm in a bad mood! Thanks again - Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Everybody has days like that every so often :). Cheers, Sean William 01:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean William. The reason I am here is to ask you about Wikipedia IRC Channels. I usually hear the words "Wikipedia IRC channels" by diffent wikipedians. In my opinion, Wiki IRC Channel is similar to Wikimedia, or Wikimedia commons. Is it right? I hope you can understand my questions, respond in my talk page. Daniel5127 02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, how much do you know about IRC? Sean William 02:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just like chatting rooms for wikipedians to discuss the many problems in Wikipedia. Daniel5127 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you know it's a chat medium. Wikipedia chat (generally referred to as #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en, but it consists of many different channels) is a place where Wikipedians can chat about Wikipedia. However, as conversations are wont to do, they sometimes get off topic. So, a better definition of "Wikipedia IRC" is "a place where Wikipedians can just let their hair down and chat casually with their peers". A few of the channels are used for coordination (#wikipedia-en-admins, #wikipedia-en-spam, etc.), but most are just social channels. To connect to an IRC channel, you need an IRC client (A good article comparing the clients is Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients). My personal favorite is Chatzilla, which is pretty simple and easy to use. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me. Sean William 03:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled across this page somehow - this, and I was just wondering...what does Mazal tov mean?
Apologies if this seems a little random, I like learning new things and somehow I couldn't understand the phrase, so I thought I'd annoy you for a little while :)
Hi there, as a member of the first aid project, i would value your opinion. I strongly believe that abdominal thrusts does not need it's own article, and should be redirected to choking, where we can have one coherent article on the subject. I think this should be the case because:
Abdominal thrusts are only used for choking, and therefore logically sit in that article
With how-tos removed from abdominal thrusts, the article is very short, verging on being a stub
It avoids people looking either term up having to flick between pages to find the information they require
It follows the logic of some other similar changes on the project such as the creation of Emergency bleeding control from the stubs of tourniquet, pressure point etc.
It provides a single place of reference on Wikipedia for the information, rather than two 'competing' pages who repeat a lot of the same information
I would very much appreciate any input you might have to support or oppose my view (hey, i'm not right all the time) on the talk page Talk:Abdominal thrusts
Sorry to bother you again, and i know you commented, but i'm having a few issues with another user reverting the edit, without very much reasoned basis - if you are able to help, the talk page is still at Talk:Abdominal thrusts. Thanks Owain.davies 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for my brother vandalism he thinks it wasn't but it was so I'm deeply sorry for thatArnon ChaffinGot a message? 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be consensus with the relevant editors that the genre should be Alternative Rock, could you change this as the page is protected? ≈ Maurauth(09F9) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, dear sean - we've managed to turn a potential vandal into a newbie Wikipedian! :) Happy day indeed! Love you, and I hope you're doing great, Phaedriel - 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Good luck in helping that person become a constructive contributor. Cheers, Sean William 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're just too quick - good work protecting the User talk:Boogiedowndj page! Just wondering, shouldn't the special protected template be added to the page? The one stating that the page is protected to prevent disruption from the blocked user? :)
Re: User talk:Boogiedowndj. When you protect talkpages to stop abuse by blocked editors, could you set an expiry time for the protection? In pratice a few days is usually fine. The other week I had to go through unprotecting nearly a hundred old talkpage protections, some of which had been protected since early 2006. It save maintenace work later if the pages are indefinitely protected... Thanks, WjBscribe 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't know that. I'll go ahead and change it, if you haven't done so already. Sean William 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"no, he's indefblocked. No need to add a template."[edit]
Billy Ego was banned by the arbitration committee for one year. That ban was eventually extended to indefinite. The only way that Billy Ego will be unbanned is by a direct appeal to the ArbCom, which can only be done by e-mail. The only thing on the talk page right now is a notice of the ArbCom's decision, showing why this guy was blocked (the main userpage says it too). {{pp-usertalk}} says "This template page has been protected from editing to prevent (name) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the {{unblock}} template." Billy Ego is banned, and isn't allowed to edit. Period. There isn't any policy that I can cite to defend myself. I just think that adding protection templates on indefprotected pages of banned users is superfluous at best. Cheers, Sean William 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There also is not a policy one can cite to defend their use of a myriad of other such templates, but we tend to them anyways. It would certainly be useful for categorization and, in my mind, would do no harm, but if you are unwilling to transclude the template, I, as a registered account, can do nothing more. Thank you for your time, Iamunknown 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean. I would like to ask you to protect 7th Muslim Brigade article again, because there are few users which do not want to accept sourced information. They don't want to discuss, they just make funny of me and keep reverting. They are deleting the previous version without reasonable explanation. For instance, I provided all reliable sources per WP:RS (courte decisions), and they just keep repeating as robots:
User:Nikola Smolenski:Even this International Courte's whitewashing doesn't show what you say: no effective control, but they were still formally a part of it. The "cause of Arab arival" being mass rapes and death camps is hopelesly out of touch with reality: no such things happened.
They are just denying the facts proven by international courtes. Thanks in advance. 85.158.34.219 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If problems persist, bring up the issue at WP:ANI. Sean William 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sean, thanks so much for your wonderful gift and your kind words! :) I always find it very hard to find the words to thank beautiful gestures like this one you've gifted me; I prefer to enjoy the happiness that you give me without more ado. So just let me tell you, it's my pleasure to work alongside you, and I'm so happy our paths have crossed. Here's to a long and warm friendship, dear Sean! Love, Phaedriel - 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like another edit war could be starting on HIM (band) over whether all the listed genres from the debated part of the article should be put into the infobox or just a concise umbrella genre. ≈ Maurauth(nemesis) 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked each of the IPs for 24 hours for breaching 3RR. I'll keep an eye on the page to make sure the discussion stay civil after the blocks expire. Thanks for letting me know. Sean William 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sean. I am wondering if I can copy Wikipedia-en articles and modify them on simpler words on simple-en? I will respond here. Real96 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we allow (and encourage) doing that. Cheers, Sean William 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Real96 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't vandalized since January. We only block vandals who are active now. Blocks are to be preventative, not punative. Sean William 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I gave you the wrong page! (Too much cutting and pasting.) The vandal in question is 64.140.181.126. He was given a level 3 warning yesterday, and vandalized the same page today, which is when I reported him. And it does not appear to be a shared IP. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no wonder :). That IP's last warning was on May 22, and was only a level 3 warning. The IP vandalized twice today, but stopped about an hour and a half ago. As I said above, we try to block vandals only who are currently active and vandalizing. Cheers, Sean William 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the advice.
excuse the error: the "nonsense" was not intended as an insult.
This site is not as elegant as advertised.
Organisations are required to collaborate with errors before attacking them.
Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfd101 (talk • contribs)
No matter what happens, you can't vandalize other people's user pages. Sean William 21:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 21:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no it's not worth a revert war. BLP trumps process. Sean William 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there were no BLP issues. You really gotta get on the ball. Between petitioning for unjustified blocks and a complete lack of understanding of wiki policy, you're not doing well. --badlydrawnjefftalk 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, i'm sorry. Have I petitioned for unjustified blocks and showed a lack of understanding of wiki policy? --badlydrawnjefftalk 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've shown a lack of common sense. Are you here to debate the closures, or to complain about your block? Sean William 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any quote you can give me would be taken out of context. Such is the nature of IRC. I know what my intentions were on that day. I shared those intentions with you shortly after the incident. We've been perfectly open with you. Is this what I get for apologizing? Assumptions of bad-faith cabalism, compounded with conspiracy theories? You're a nice person when you want to be, Jeff. We're just on opposite sides of a debate. One side's taking it personally, while the other side isn't. And because I'm on the opposite side of a debate, you immediately assume that I dislike you and and want you blocked just for proposing an opposing viewpoint? Sean William 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nicely expanding the stub article I started, Goss v. Lopez! Do you work in Supreme Court :-)? WooyiTalk to me? 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but Supreme Court case law is one of my hobbies. Cheers, Sean William 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the privilege. But please, fix Wikipedia:Recent additions page. Previous entries are repeated there, intead of the new ones being added on top. --Poeticbent talk 19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure how that page works, as this is my first time updating DYK. I only did so because it was behind schedule. I'm going to leave that one to the regulars. Cheers, Sean William@ 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, congratulations on doing your first update. I trust it was not too painful? Assuming that the next update is ready to go, the process should be simply (!): check the articles are OK, protect the image, copy the update to the main page template and save a second copy to the archive, update the time template, and post the notification templates on the relevant talk pages. Always good to have someone else who can take a turn, if need be. -- ALoan(Talk) 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll help out where I can. Cheers, Sean William@ 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Timeline of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq[edit]
You deleted the article based on WP:SYN. However, that states:
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
As I clearly pointed out, a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
Your invocation of the "original synthesis" argument is therefore invalid.
Am I incorrect?
Furthermore, I fail to see that a consensus had been reached on the article. --User At Work 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I deleted this article based on the AFD. If you disagree with my closure, take it to WP:DRV. Sean William@ 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Sean William@ 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing the block, you should view the following: here. Hopefully you make a wide decision along the lines of the actions Fred Bauder is taking lately. XavierVE 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... thanks for updating DYK! Smee 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No problem. I'm not done yet, though; I still have to serve out all of the DYK thank-yous. If DYK ever gets that badly backlogged, drop me a line and I'll update it. Sean William@ 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had no idea. I'm kind of like Wikipedia's spy on 4chan, really; I have my fun there, but vandalizing the only thing I go to for information kind of irks me, so I report it when I can. Thanks for locking ACK and setting the record straight. ^_^ CernenXanthineKatrena 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean. When you blocked TeckWiz, you left autoblock on. This didn't affect me because though I don't have a rotating IP, static ones still change sometimes and it appears that mine has changed since I was TeckWiz. Anyway, you probably want to unblock and reblock with autoblock disabled. --RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, that was stupid. I should have remembered that. Anyway, thanks for pointing that out. Sean William@ 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And even if you didn't remember, you should've set it to anon only. After all, if I was still using that IP, I would've been affected by it also! :) --RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, the reason why I did that is that blocking an IP and blocking an account have different options. The default block for an IP is a soft block, anon only, while the default block for an account enables the autoblocker. It's not hard to mix up the two. Sean William@ 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but when blocking a user, I believe you see the IP block settings, which affect the autoblock caused by the user block :). --RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me on the DYK for this article that I had authored. However, I do not seem to find this article in the DYK archive here. Any idea why, has it been missed out?, Thanks -- Amarrg 03:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that batch of DYKs didn't make it to the archive page. I have corrected the problem. Cheers, Sean William@ 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 4 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goss v. Lopez, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Can I be honest? (H) 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't funny. I can't find the humor in "party boys in drag". Sean William@ 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anywhere you're not following me today, H? --badlydrawnjefftalk 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only came here to thank Sean for beating me to the block button(the laughing slowed me down), when I got distracted by your question. (H) 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that by selectively deleting out certain edits, if the article is retained, you will need to restore them, as otherwise you will have violated GFDL, right? Neil╦ 17:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, it appears that you silently, unilaterally deleted my editing history as regards article Allison Stokke. My own edits no longer appear in my own User Contributions. I will give you one chance to explain your reasons for this censorship, and restore my editing history. I hope I do not have to take this matter any further. Thanks. Bete Noir 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
i ve been told from the help desk to send you an email for a problem that i have on the Greek wiki.
That is the email that i send to the help desk
Dear sir,
We are running an organisation for the protection of pedestrians' rights in Greece. We have created a movement called "streetpanthers" and we would like to have our organisation in the Greek version of Wikipedia. However, the moderator has erased our entry without having any specific reason. In addition, ther are similar entries into the english version such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass.
We would like to know why our movement has been erased from the Greek wiki, with the reasoning that "an encyclopedia shall not deal with such issues", while it contains say...low quality pop artists bio and other stuff which is not also so educational as our topic.
Our argument is that we have a social organisation that contributes on the improvement of the quality of living for pedestria and people with special needs. Our activities do not harm anyone and we have gained publicity on many mainstream media and the TV. Many wiki users tried to post an entry for our organisation but all entries were erased from the adminstrator, without having any specific reason.
P.S. i know that the Greek wiki is none of your business, but i decided to apply on the central wikipedia in order to get some proper answers.
I can't read Greek, but you can find out why the administrators deleted your page by reading the deletion log. You could also e-mail the latest deleting admin directly, if you have an account. If you do, then you can click here to send an e-mail. Otherwise, the English Wikipedia will not be of much help to you. Sean William@ 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Wikipedia condone the actions of those who arrogantly wish to vandalise the English language? I quote:
Led Zeppelin !-- Note: This article is written in UK English, which treats collective nouns as plurals. (i.e. Led Zeppelin WERE a band.) -- were !-- Don't waste your time changing this to "was", it will be reverted back quickly.-- an Englishrock band who formed in 1968. Led Zeppelin consisted of Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Bonham, and John Paul Jones.
Complete rubbish - not something that should be immune from correction.
I'm not sure what your complaint is. Sean William@ 04:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I won't object to deletion (see my comment when I created the page). However, I do object to a merge. I split off the page because it proved to be impossible keeping the trivia cruft down to a manageable size while it was in the main article. I mean, look at the length of this list now! I guarantee, for each of these items someone will contend that their stuff is as notable as the next one. If you are going to argue with those people about notability and relevance, and if you promise you can keep the cultural references section of the main subject free of flash animations, hornymanatee.com, and garage band references... Femto 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want it merged either, but I'm sure somebody out there does, and that's why I said it. I have a problem with "popular culture" lists, and a whole article dedicated to manatees in popular culture is just way over the top for me. I'll gladly argue against the notability for each of these events. Sean William@ 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me, maybe you should mention the prod at Talk:Manatee. Femto 10:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the unblock, Sean.
That stupid autoblock was horribly getting at my nerves and my temper...
I hope I won't trip any more of those mines in that "dynamic IP as open proxy" minefield. CharonX/talk 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If you need an administrator for whatever reason, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Sean William@ 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, who's to say what I said was offensive... Me seeing a black person for the first time isn't offensive. I didn't mean to be offensive. Who's to say it was a bad thing I saw one for the first time? One could not be sure of what I meant. Xihix 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was contacted by a person who was offended by the caption, due to the fact that you look somewhat angry in the picture that the caption described. Sean William@ 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was, in fact, quite happy. I was visiting Canada for the first time, the mother land. The person just has some beef with me, because I really hate him for some stupid edits he's done to an article we both edit, and he just wanted spite or to make me angry. It's not offensive, trust me. Xihix 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think it is quite offensive as well. If somebody thinks that your userpage is offensive, then maybe you should change it instead of affirm that it is "not offensive". Sean William@ 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fair. It's not offensive at all. It's simply not fair that because a few people think it's offensive that everyone does. I want to add it back, it's not offensive! Xihix 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it's offensive and borderline trolling. Take the hint here ... - Alison☺ 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't dude me. You can't say it's borderline trolling or offensive. You don't even know what my intentions were to it. Man, I thought Wikipedia user pages was the only place where I could freely express myself... Now I can't even do that. This is pure bullshit. Xihix 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - don't "man" me either. I'm perfectly entitled to give my opinion on the matter and, quite frankly, your caption is entirely out-of-line. I don't need to know what your intentions were, I only need to see the effect and its implication. Please read the userpage guidelines to understand what's wrong here. - Alison☺ 22:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The man was directed toward myself. And this is still unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xihix (talk • contribs)
Life's not fair. Get over it. Sean William@ 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To this day, Sean, you were my favorite Admin. Have fun at the bottom of the list, now.Xihix 23:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am honored that I kept that position for so long. Sean William@ 23:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be, 'cause you lost it. Xihix 00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough. As the great philosopher Mick Jagger once said, you can't always get what you want. Sean William@ 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:USER, you don't own your userpage, anything you have there can only be there by the consent of the community. (H) 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to pick on you, individually, but I've become increasingly concerned about closing of AfD's, and it happens to have boiled over with this one.
My concern is that this "AfD is not a vote" mentality has gone way too far. If an admin comes to the page while it's still open, the admin, like any user, decides which side's arguments are stronger, and writes Keep or Delete. If, on the other hand, the minimum time has expired and the admin feels like closing it, then s/he does the same thing, except that his or her "keep" or "delete" isn't a comment, or a vote, or a !vote -- it's the result. Everyone else is there just to present arguments for the admin's consideration; the numbers don't matter.
Treating it as vote instead of !vote, I counted 23 Delete and 19 Keep. It's pretty clear to me there was no consensus to delete.
So, let me give you a hypothetical AfD closing: The nom and four others said "Delete", and gave reasons. Five editors said "Keep", and gave reasons. Thirty more editors participated, each saying only "Delete per ___" or "Keep per ___" (naming a previous commenter). I ask you to close this nomination, and I give you the article (with talk page and history), the nomination, the four supporting comments, the five opposing comments, and the information that 30 others chimed in. I don't tell you what the breakdown among the 30 others was between "Keep" and "Delete". Would you feel that you could close this AfD? I haven't deprived you of any arguments or reasoning, just the "vote" tally. If AfD is not a vote and the closing admin is supposed to do whatever the stronger arguments dictate, then it seems that those 30 comments can be completely ignored. The AfD might be closed in a way that reflects the views of five editors and goes against the views of 35, and that would be perfectly OK.
Your closing of Seth Finkelstein seems to be a sterling example of this approach. You carefully and thoughtfully explained your decision, but it's an explanation that would be more appropriate as an explanation of why you were adding your name to the list of Delete commenters, rather than as a closing. You appear to have given little or no weight to the near-equal division of opinion within the community. Given the way AfD's have been going, you arguably can't be faulted for that, because community opinion (as reflected in numerical tallies of votes, !votes, comments, or whatever) seems to be of decreasing importance these days -- which, as I said above, is my concern.
I've been thinking about putting aside my distaste for Wikipolitics to raise a policy issue on this score. If you're willing to devote any more time to the Finkelstein article, I'd be interested in your thoughts about the role of the 19 vs. 23 in the closing. JamesMLanetc 17:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you not taking this directly to DRV. I read the arguments on each side carefully before I made my decision.
To respond to your hypothetical situation: I do not have enough information to make a decision. If we simply counted votes, we'd be digressing back into the mess that was Votes for Deletion. This is a discussion. In a discussion, numbers do matter, but not as much as the point that you raise. For example, if the keep !voters gave reasons for keeping the article such as "I really like the third paragraph" or "The picture on the left side is pretty", I would disregard numbers completely and ignore the keeps. Why? Because it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the pictures are pretty; should this article be in our encyclopedia? The same applies for delete !votes. "I don't like it" is not an appropriate rationale for deletion, and I would ignore it. This scenario has little to do with how I closed the Finkelstein AfD.
Now, I read through the arguments on the Finkelstein AfD, and I was quite sure it would end in "No Consensus". I'm sure everybody who participated in the discussion knew that already. One of our most important policies, WP:BLP, states that "When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted." Seth Finkelstein has openly stated that he wants his biography deleted, and I put a somewhat strong weight on the subject's wishes. I gave my rationale as to why I put such a strong weight on his wishes in the second paragraph of my close.
I put a strong weight on the clash of notability beliefs in this discussion. If I hadn't, I would have just given a one word closure, be it "keep" or "delete". I did not look at numbers, because numbers are irrelevant. Without the addition of BLP, this would be no consensus, no doubt about it. I decided to close this as "delete" due to BLP. The reason why I devoted so much of my closing paragraph to explaining it is because BLP closures always create a stir. I was not imposing my whims on this article. Sean William@ 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still see the talk page. Can the talk page be deleted too. I could open a MFD to sort this out. I'm not sure about the policy for talk pages. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If anybody needs anything from the talk page, drop me a line and I'll undelete it. (I'm hesitant to delete the talk archive[1], though. A second opinion would be nice. Sean William@ 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I recommend to delete the archive as well. I cannot imagine any reason for it to remain when there is no article. A reader will not end up there to read it. You can always undelete the archive if a good reason is given. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. On the discussion page for the Brandt AfD, I referred to the Finkelstein closing in suggesting that the policy we are actually applying (whether or not it's written) is as follows:
The previous policy, stating that an absence of consensus defaults to "keep", is hereby modified, to state that in a BLP case the subject's wishes govern unless there is a clear consensus against the subject's wishes.
Is that what you think the policy is or ought to be? Part of my bias as a lawyer is that if that really is the policy -- and it seems to be what's been applied here and in the Brandt case -- then it should say so.
As to my not taking it to DRV: If someone else DRV's it, I'll vote or non-vote or whatever to overturn. I haven't done it myself because I just don't feel like putting in that much effort. Your resolution of the matter was at least supported by the majority of those commenting, which wasn't the case in the AfD on Daniel Brandt, and yet that result seems likely to be upheld. I won't DRV this one because it would probably lose and because I have better things to do. Don't give me credit for civility or restraint or anything; it's just laziness. JamesMLanetc 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I believe that a change like that would be excellent. I shouldn't be the only one being asked, because my view matters as much as anybody else, but I would support something like that. Sean William@ 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful for someone to present the community with a straight up-or-down choice: rescind the foolishness about the subject's wishes entirely, or make explicit the extent to which we're deferring to such wishes. Obviously, I'd favor rescinding, but even making a policy explicit, in terms such as I suggested above, would be better than the current amorphous situation in which, in some ill-defined circumstance (borderline notability), the closing admin can give some unspecified weight to the subject's wishes. I realize that you're not the only person to be asked, but it's informative to know that at least one person would favor a change like that. JamesMLanetc 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to say that a subject's wishes should be "considered". I didn't realize that you intended to draw a strict line with your proposal above. It is very important to allow administrative discretion when dealing with AfDs of barely-notable individuals. I understand your point about why a strict line would be helpful; However, giving ability an administrator to make judgment calls is something that we're going to need to have. Otherwise, judging AfDs could just be done by a vote-counting robot. If you add "considered" instead of "govern the deletion of the article", then it would match the current BLP policy. I'm not the lawyer type, so I don't immediately search each sentence for it's innermost meaning, which is why I missed your intention the first time. Sean William@ 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's some value in according a closing admin scope for the exercise of discretion. There's also some value in having controversial decisions made according to a rule of general applicability that's known to everyone in advance. I'm concerned that we're tilting too far toward the former. People on both sides put a huge amount of effort into the Brandt AfD, and then the decision effectively hinged on which admin happened to grab it first. The latter point is also true of the Finkelstein article -- there are quite a few admins who would have closed it as a keep. I don't like playing Admin Roulette with such matters. JamesMLanetc 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The burden falls upon the admin to act in a way that reflects consensus as much as possible, while taking into account all of the factors (BLP, etc.). If the community feels that the closing admin did a poor job of doing so, then they go to DRV. We handle such things on a case by case basis. The closing admin is expected to defend their decision; if he or she cannot do so, then it is a sign that some factors may have been weighted more strongly than they should have been, or that the admin didn't think the closure through before doing it. Either one can be harmful, and either one may be reviewed at a DRV. Sean William@ 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Please reverse your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd). The weight of numbers was not nearly enough to constitute a consensus for deletion. As for the weight of arguments, the only arguments made were doubt of notaility, and the subject's request. Even the latest drafts of WP:BLP (which IMO are very poor policy and do not yet have consensus themselves) do not make a subject's request a reason for deletion, merely a factor to be considerd in otherwise close cases. I submit that this case simply was not close. It was not anywhere near close in numbers, and in the argument over notability the policy-based arguments were all on the side of keeping, the opposing argumetns being basically versions of Idon'tLikeIt. I don't think that AfD closers have, or ought to have, the degree of discrition you excersiuzed in this case. I would prefer not to go through DREV on this, but I will if need be. DES(talk) 02:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not reverse my close of that AfD. I explained my rationale already. Off to DRV we go, I suppose. Sean William@ 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Seth Finkelstein. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)
The article was not a repost of previously deleted material. I indicated why the subject has notablity (and it has a lot) and I cited sources. Please restore the page Love Equals Death that you deleted. Randomfrenchie 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the article was a re-creation of deleted content: WP:CSD#G4. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Equals Death. The closer explains that this band is not notable: "Note that the guideline WP:MUSIC (yes, yes, I know) expects two releases, and as the keepers accurately observe, this band does not have even that." If you want to prove the band's notability, I'll restore your version of the article and put it in a user subpage of yours so that you can edit it. You may ask for a deletion review later on if you believe that you have proven this band's notability. Sean William@ 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the band is notable. They have released an album on a notable label and have been mentioned in notable publications. They have a page on iTunes. If you absolutely do not want to restore it, then putting it as a user subpage of mine would be good. Randomfrenchie 22:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they've had three releases: two EPs and one full album.
An article should be deleted "provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version" (from WP:CSD#G4). The article I wrote was not identical to the previously deleted one. Randomfrenchie 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can prove the group's notability, then by all means do so. I've restored the article, go ahead and do what you can/want with it. Sean William@ 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the one who speedy-tagged it this time around, I'll keep it on my watchlist. Thanks. --Finngalltalk 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have un-courtesy-blanked the Brandt AFD. I've never seen that done to an AFD before; they're intended to stay as live archives of community consensus and issue discussions. I opened a section in its talk page mentioning this, and if you really want to do it again I urge you to discuss there first and lay out your reasoning....
All you have to do to access the debate is hit the "history" tab. It hides the revisions from Google, while allowing the community to still see it. Win-win. Sean William@ 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that, but there's never been any historical AFD we "hid from Google" that way (or anyone else)... I think it's reasonable to put a burden of proof on you to argue why we should, have to, and reasonably can within our community expectations of how we leave community discussions in their "closed" states. I don't think it impossible to make a case, but I don't see one in front of me now that I'd agree with. If you want to make the case, go for it... Georgewilliamherbert 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't, so I'm not going to bother. (I don't have one, anyway.) Sean William@ 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should remain blanked, and I'm interested if you will explain your reason for unblanking on the AFD talk page, George. "IDONTKNOWIT" isn't a valid reason, as courtesy blanking is part of the deletion policy, which you should be familiar with prior to entering the forays of deletion discussions. Looking forward to hear from you, Iamunknown 06:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Nvm, I'm not interested. --07:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for protecting Atassi. I am one of the family historians and genealogists. I have contributed several historical articles about famous people and politicians from that area of the world. This article is one that I had worked hard on.
A certain person (who refuses to identify himself) keeps undoing any additions or changes to the article. He also insists on including slanderous statements, such as "criminals in the family" (according to him, see section "Others" in his version) and undoes any historical facts that he doesn't agree with. His twisted facts and additions are of no benefit to anyone and are vandalism to Wikipedia. Unless I comply with all his wishes and agree with his version of the article, he will continue to defame my family (to twist my arm) and take out any historical additions I make. I prefer this page is protected for good, or he gets prevented from editing it. I don't think his remarks agree with Wikipedia's policy (slander). I tried to reason with him, but to no avail. At this point I am not willing to talk to him unless he identifies himself, at least to me, and promises to stop his slander and hateful remarks against my family (to which he does not belong). Thanks again.
Uh, no problem, I suppose. Sean William@ 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be advised that an arbitration matter on which you commented has been accepted as a review case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta/Review. You may present evidence on the case page or additional comments on the talkpage. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you may like to know there currently is a Request for Comment regarding Xihix here. You may, or may not, care to endorse the debate, as per the above conversation. Thanks for reading over, regardless! Best wishes, NSR77(Talk) 01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be watching it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Sean William@ 01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason for deleting Allison Stokke's entry? Could you cite other examples of people who have been the subject of front-page stories in the Washington Post who do not have a Wikipedia entry?
I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz]16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I don't use IE. Cheers, Sean William@ 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person who wanted this recreated doesn't seem to have done anything with it, and the only other edit was an anon IP adding a link to the band's website. I say re-delete it, but I'd like your opinion. Thanks. --Finngalltalk 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello hello, its TREYWiki from IRC =). I'm having a bit of trouble with Miranda (imagine that). She is going around refactoring all my comments of RfA's and what-not saying they are personal attacks against her (which they are certainly not). On my talk page, I said that with all the bitterness between us, I thought she was trolling; and I used the wrong faith assumption, and she took that off and put <--removed personal attack-->[12]
Then, I comment of an RfA (which she totally whacked out on trashing the kid and other users) saying that I feel sorry for him, she does the same <--remove... thing and threatens me on my talk page. Talk to her or something? I tried to resolve this, you know. --trey 04:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to just stay away from Miranda. I'll tell her the same thing. If disengaging doesn't work, then we'll move to the next step of dispute resolution. Sean William@ 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to stay away from her. She is following me around (thru contibs) and has filed a report at WP:AN/I--trey 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore her. That's the best advice that I have. Sean William@ 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your complaint was that it was a 'biography of a non-notable person'. I think I've addresed our issues with it by restrucuring it into a documentation of a notable event. I hope you will reconsider in light of the new structure. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I needed help and was very pissed off. Maybe you can help? Im calm now. Also note I actually (dead serious, I am a reformed vandal you know. Reformed) had a bit of a psychiatric fit at that time. I just need help knowing what to do in wikiland. I want to be here, but I dont know what to do in wikiland. I just dont know. thanks mate. *BloodSpiller*Wassup 06:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've got a huge amount of wikiprojects that would love to have you help them. Just look through the directory and pick one that sounds interesting to you. WP:MAINT always has a lot to do. If you don't want to join a Wikiproject, just pick an article on a topic you like and spend time improving it. Go at your own pace; Wikipedia has no deadline. Sean William@ 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help by the way do you Wiki adopt???if do can you adopt me. *BloodSpiller*Wassup 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "adoption" is the correct word, but I'd be glad to help you along the way and answer any questions that you may have about Wikipedia's internal processes and policies. Just drop me a line here whenever you need something or want to ask me a question. Sean William‹‹‹ 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs on ANI. Here is the relevant text from WP:AN
Report all incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks) on the subpage Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I). If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you may do so there.
I will restore the text on WP:ANI on this basis. patsw 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, Jayjg's actions don't actually violate the section of the policy that you quoted on the evidence page. No personally identifiable information was revealed. However, it does violate the preceding section of the policy, which states:
The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute.
So I believe the issue here is that he didn't actually violate the foundation privacy policy, which some people are claiming, but the overall checkuser policy... this might not actually be relevant, I've never participated in an arbitration case before and I'm not sure if you're allowed to comment/reply to evidence people have presented. Kamryn Matika 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is kind of a gray area in the Privacy/Checkuser policy about revealing the ISP of the checkee. Normally, such a revelation would not be an issue, but the bombshell factor of revealing that a good-faith user uses TOR is not appropriate. Jayjg made a huge judgment error here. Feel free to present your own evidence if you see fit: Just replace the {your name here} with KamrynMatika, and write the evidence that you have. Ultimately, it's up to the arbitrators to decide if the release of information breached the privacy/checkuser policy. Sean William@ 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course :) One other thing - is it appropriate to mention who the checkuser was that blocked Charlotte's IPs? From the wording of the evidence so far it comes across as if it might have been Jayjg that did the blockings. Charlotte has already confirmed it fairly publicly and I think it'd help to make things clear but I don't want to piss anybody off or imply that the blocking admin was acting in bad faith. Kamryn Matika 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I think I'll do it anyway. Better to make it clear who it was rather than have some shadowy unnamed checkuser ambiguously referred to and have the doubt and suspicion cast over checkusers as a whole. Kamryn Matika 15:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My signature complies with Wikipedia standards, so it is vandalism. Tcrow777 23:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:SIG: "When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind: A distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. Some editors find it disruptive to discourse on talk pages, or when working in the edit window. Very long signatures that contain a lot of code ("markup") make it difficult for some editors to read talk pages while editing." Your signature is distracting. If you would be so kind, please change your signature. Also, in the future, be careful about calling good faith edits vandalism. Especially in content disputes, calling a specific edit vandalism almost always escalates the situation and makes the parties more angry at each other. Sean William@ 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Your signature takes up three lines in my text editor. Q.E.D. Sean William@ 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But no more, right? Tcrow777 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rules lawyering will get you absolutely nowhere on this wiki, so I suggest that you stop. Please, please change your signature. It's annoying, distracting, and downright atrocious. Please? Sean William@ 01:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No! You can't just push people around, just because you are an admin. Tcrow777 01:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely not what I am trying to do. I asked you nicely; no "pushing around" was done. You're only setting yourself up for other users to give you grief about your signature later. Sean William@ 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My signature is based on 2 other persons' signatures. Why don't you take this up with them also. Tcrow777 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would, except it is almost midnight in my time zone. Now, please stop reverting me on my own talk page. Sean William@ 03:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was patrolling RC last night, and I came across this. Not sure if it is the same Sean William or not. User talk:Swabbie333 is full of warnings. I just thought I'd let you know.--trey 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, that's funny. It's probably just a vandal that I blocked in the past. Sean William@ 16:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, vandals can be quite funny ^_^--trey 18:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please protect User talk:Writeitin? He is vandalising it after being blocked. I believe he should have gotten an indefinite block instead of a 24 hour block for vandalising userpages and making a non notable article. Momusufan 02:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have upped the block to indefinite. If he continues to hand out personal attacks, then I will protect his talk page. Sean William@ 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ombudsman commission is that way."[13] can be interpreted as either directing people to use the Ombudsman, or as a statement that the Ombudsman is the way stated in preceding comments, such as being involved in "abuse of checkuser privileges" or "accusations of checkuser abuse". The implications of the possible meanings are significantly different. (SEWilco 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'll take this as an opportunity to clarify myself. I intended for this to mean "This is not the proper venue for such disputes. Allegations of checkuser abuse and privacy policy violations should be directed towards the Ombudsman Commission." I had hoped that this case would be declined, but now I inadvertently put my name on top of one of the more controversial arbitration cases. Sean William@ 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You've removed my checkuser request ([14]). However it exists actually and is here. Could you help with listing it at WP:RCU? Alæxis¿question? 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula// talk // ☯ // 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tis a shame that you failed. Sean William@ 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be stretched that G8 Doesnt apply, because it contains UNdeletion discussion that does not appear elsewhere. ViridaeTalk 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No BLP violations, so keep. This is firstly a talk page of a protected deleted article. As such there is no better place to discuss developments in the story that may potentially lead to the article being written again. The arbcom case reffered to in the nom did not and does not have any impact on the existance of the QZ article (see the rulings) or the talk page in which to discuss a potential QZ article. There is no BLP vio in this at all. It is 1. The article talk space, a space appropriate for talking about the subject. There is no negative material there at all, the sources have been provided (copied the ones N dug up over to the talk page) and the issue of wether QZ is a private person is extremely subjective, and in my opinion rather moot considering the widespread media coverage he has recieved. Summing up my opinion: No BLP violation and there is yet to be any assertion why there is one, and a useful place to discuss the potential for a new article should the new information turn out to be correct. ViridaeTalk 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please consider re-opening to let the discussion continue ViridaeTalk 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not re-open the discussion. This article is absolutely dead, with prejudice against re-creation. After a lot of pain (and an ArbCom case), we determined that this individual was not notable and did not deserve an article. If somebody wants the text of the talk page, then I'll post it in a subpage. Other than that, there is no reason for this lone talk page to exist. Sean William@ 01:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an editorial decision, not one for the closing admin (wether you believe the article should exist is immaterial to your closure). The articles existance was never resolved, least of all by the arbcom case. Multiple speedily-out-of-process closed DRVs and afd do not make it dead. Regardless of that, the talk page existed because of the possobility of new information, potentially giving more validity to the article. There was/is nowhere else central to discuss that new information except that talk page. If you are happy to copy the talkpage for further discussion, then you must agree that the BLP arguments in the mfd are invalid. That just leaves the G8 reason, under which you deleted the talk page and nothing in our deletion policy forbids recreation of an article with significant nw information. The talk page was discussing significant new information, since the article itself is protected. On those grounds I ask you to let the community have its discussion. ViridaeTalk 02:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that the BLP argument was at least a little erroneous (I assumed that we were still editing out QZ's name), and will edit it out as soon as I get the chance. However, the CSD G8 deletion still stands: an orphaned talk page is grounds for speedy deletion. The news stories about QZ being offered film roles are nothing better than rumors, and should not be covered until a reputable movie database like IMDB covers them, or various other reliable sources. As that does not exist yet, there is no decision altering "significant new information" that would change the status of the article. Sean William@ 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of trying to get to the bottom of that, and when I had done so if I concluded what you have concluded (that it is only repetition of rumour not anything solid) then I would have explained to badagini that what he was providing was not enough and either blanked or speedied it until such time as there was enough, if that point came. The rapid close of the discussion however stopped me making my case on several points,1 the irritating Its a BLP violation !votes without any rational as to why, 2. the needed ability to have someone to rationally discuss a protected deleted page without having the rug yanked from under out feet. I don't believe a speedy was necessary - untill the mfd the sources badagini was referring to had not been provided, so the talking through of them was essentially just starting. ViridaeTalk 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly OK with you reverting my decision. (I only just realized that with the precedent set by the Badlydrawnjeff RFAR, you can't undelete content deleted under BLP.) Although I still believe that the G8 was valid, it has been contested, and I'd really like to avoid a DRV. I'll be reversing my actions in favor of a discussion shortly, I suppose... Sean William@ 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the undeletion, I have now had a chance to look at the sources, and agree they are rumour. However can you modify your close rational to allow recreation of the talk page to discuss a potential article should solid evidence come to light that the signup has occured, rather than leave it as is, to be speedied again as recreated deleted material. ViridaeTalk 04:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-closed it, with no prejudice against recreation providing that new information comes to light. Before the article is created, however, a DRV might be in order. Sean William@ 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problems with that one. Thanks for your understanding. ViridaeTalk 14:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I further looked into it, although I make straight A's anyhow, but technically neither are incorrect so I shall just leave that part alone. If for some reason you have anything to say, please do so on my talk page. Thanks. Wwefan980 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of execution, hanged is correct. Sean William@ 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Pine* your userpage is beautiful... but I think if I copied it it would not be great due to our similar names. Yet more confusion.
Feel like redesigning mine using your idea BUT with different colours sometime if bored? :) —Sean Whitton / 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to. Just tell me the colors and I'll get to work! Sean William@ 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Thanks for what you have done so far; I am very impressed. I'm viewing it in IE right now and I'm really happy with the way it gracefully degrades. However, the navigation bar apparently doesn't do this and collides with 'From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'. Can you fix this? Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 07:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can make it smaller, either by folding it in half or reducing the amount of text in it. Sean William@ 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness for the improved edit conflict system when you did that! I've made some changes to the colours to suit what I want, or so I think. Somehow they don't look quite right but I'll leave that for now. There are a few issues remaining; I'm very pleased with the rest of it:
The whole page overflows to the right; this doesn't happen with yours. Any idea why?
I'd appreciate the addition of your user page disclaimer to the bottom of the left column. Done
I'd quite like to add some (or all, as the font is smaller) of my quotes page to the right hand column. I was tossing up between my nice sky image and the POTD, but I'll leave it as POTD for now I think. In order to balance this I'd like another section in the left hand bar saying "personal information" or some such that I can write something in to make the left slightly longer than the right. Done, except 3 quotes were omitted to balance the columns.
I need a wrap-around template with the purple heading for subpages, and my talk page header needs redoing.
I've investigated further and it appears that the POTD causes the sideways scrollbar to appear. Any ideas? —Sean Whitton / 15:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed the {{POTD}} template and replaced it with {{lorem ipsum}}. I'm trying to remove as many variables as possible so I can pinpoint the problem that's making the page overflow to the right. Also, in regards to your talk page, would you like to have an open <div> tag like I do? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "wrap-around" template. Is there an example I can look at? Cheers, Sean William@ 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I have been here on wikipedia for over a month, I did not appear out of the blue as you stated on the RFCU. Francisco Tevez 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appeared out of the blue on Qst's talk page, which is what I'm referring to. Sean William@ 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. I have known him for nearlly a month, he is my adoptee... and that name got on Ft weatherman's page because I was copying the multiple account symbol to use and I forgot to change it by accident. I got involved because I seen the vulgar edit summaries. Francisco Tevez 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser should give us a definitive answer. Sean William@ 19:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never filed an RFA before, and this one is to fix a mess created by someone else; at any rate, when am I/you/the candidate suppose to put the rfa out on the parent rfa page? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once the candidate accepts the nomination (which he/she does by signing their name in the appropriate place), then they will put the request on the main page. Before then, the nomination should be kept off of the main page. Sean William@ 04:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Thanks for the information. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Drop me a line if you have any more questions. Sean William@ 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm pretty happy with what I have now, so thanks for your patience with ironing out all the bugs. I never seem to get it quite right when I do it. I've also transferred it to meta, if you're interested. —Sean Whitton / 22:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm glad you like it. Sean William@ 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An issue has now arisen: it seems that the picture of the day today is too long and causes the column to go downwards (at least it does that on IE which I am using on this machine). Also, if you have a <pre> block i.e. that is one with spaces at the beginning, the template on the talk page breaks. Any ideas? Look on a previous revision on meta to see the latter problem. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 07:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing that you can do about the first issue. My userpage has the same problem (the DYK column). The column will move up and down depending on the size of the POTD, and will never stay in the same place.
There isn't a whole lot you can do about the second problem, either. Excess text in <pre> tags will extend a page beyond it's normal borders, even without the talk page template. The only solution to this is putting a line break of something similar to shorten the text and allow it to stay within the normal boundaries. Sean William@ 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed. I still plan to continue to edit however. Hope to see you around. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—treyjay–jay 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.
The Hero of the Wiki, is Sean William!
I TREYWiki, award you the hero of the wiki award. You work hard slapping vandals with a sword. Although on IRC, you make my ignored, at least its not on the notice board. So I give you this award, and I think you drive a honda ACCORD! (treywiki is not good at poems) —treyjay–jay 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, shucks, I don't deserve this... Thanks, though. Sean William@ 05:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your good work seems to go mostly un-awarded. You need more! :P —treyjay–jay 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I tried to set up an account at Simple English Wikipedia, but my IP is blocked, according to the disclaimer, because of vandalism using the same IP, as in a school. I'm an editor in good standing at WP, with about 6,500 edits under my belt since March 2005, and had a decent Editor Review. Is there any way I can set up an account with Simple WP? Thanks. Nightscream 07:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you e-mail another admin so they can create an account for you. I am beginning a somewhat long break (editing from a BlackBerry, no less), so I can't help. Sean William@ 05:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to tell you I've copied the design from your userpage and if you dont mind I'm just going to steal the talk page design....**evil laughs!**.... :).
Kindest Regards Rlest 10:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What might this question be, then? Sean William@ 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drop it Defender. The issue is resolved. ViridaeTalk 00:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore this, Sean; the user has been indefinitely blocked for trolling, disruption ... the list goes on. Just my thoughts ~ Anthøny 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fantastic you're back Sean. You had your own reasons for leaving, and it's none of my (or anybody else's) business what they were ... regardless, just to let you know I really hope they are resolved, and I'm glad to see you've returned.
Best wishes, Anthøny 22:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with just an editor redacting (or an admin firmly asking the original poster to redact). I'll live with it in the edit history. I've already tried redacting, and the admin just reinserted it and accused me of bad faith. THF 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Why did you close the discussion when I asked for a time extension. I was writing another response. Granted, the notability claim was almost nonexistent to the general public, but much less so in the radiation oncology community, I believe. Notability is not the same as popularity, and using a search engine to establish notability, per se, is dangerous, I think. There were two other references to the same conference paper that specifically mentioned Spheroprobability that I didn't get a chance to post. Yes, the author did coin the term, he even said so. However, there seemed to be sufficient references listed by the author, some peer reviewed journals (even if we can't read them) to establish medical notability, and to successfully argue against COI or OR. The only real issue was notability, I believe. The article may well have been deleted anyway, but it seemed too soon to cut off discussion, IMHO. (I wish I had discovered the discussion several days ago.) Actually my complaints about the article didn't include those raised, but that it was very technical and more suited for a learned journal, rather than an encyclopedia. But that could have been fixed. This is not a DRV request, BTW, just looking for further information. Thanks for reading this. Ciao. — Becksguy 04:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see this message, and will be writing up a response when I have ready access to a computer. Sean William@ 04:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. Respond when you have sufficient time and energy, it's not time critical. I'm really just looking for enlightenment at this point. — Becksguy 04:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the discussion and prepared to close it, I evaluated the arguments raised by both sides. I'll try to show my thought process here:
The article was originally created by Scarbrtj, which is quite clearly T.J. Scarbrough, the coiner of this phrase. This indicates that the author used at least a limited degree of original research at best to describe his term.
A quick run through Google shows that there are absolutely no online sources, and only one offline source. (Scarbrough TS, Ting J, Wang S, Fuller CD, Thomas CR (2006) Simulated and Measured Analyses of Spheroprobability and Three Dimensional Setup Error, Radiological Society of North America Annual Meeting (Abstract SSA18-06) [15] being the only one I could find) The issue here is not that this term is "not notable". Since "notability" is a relative term, judging the "worthiness" of a topic can be done much more easily by counting the number of sources available on the topic. Looking at the page, I count 6 sources, but none of them directly mention the term "Spheroprobability" by itself, which suggests that Spheroprobability would fail the neologism test.
You suggested that Spheroprobability has been published in peer reviewed journals. If that is the case, then that would make a more than acceptable source. You also said that the writer of this article was among an eight member team, so there was no conflict of interest. However, the fact that he was involved with the concept of Spheroprobability suggests that he would still have a conflict of interest.
If you believe that you can prove this term's notability, and make it pass guidelines such as WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE, then I will gladly reopen the discussion for another 5 days. Just tell me if you would like to do that here, and I'll relist the debate. Sean William@ 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the time and trouble in responding. No, I don't think re-listing will change anything, it will almost surely result in deletion anyway. But thanks for offering. I'm not challenging your decision, understand (I agree with it), just discussing the process at this point. There was very little new information, and I think the only shot I had to show usage was to get at the oncology and radiation journals that are behind subscription walls, rather than just the abstracts, which didn't use the term. I saw the same conference paper you and the nominator did, and it does appear to be the only available primary reference via google, although I did find two other references to it by using meta and other engines. Even the author, Dr. Scarbrough, referred to the article subject as "obscure" and said he would revisit when there were more Google hits. After you closed the debate, I was still working on this, but by the end of the night (morning?) had just about given up on it—I just could not line up my ducks—so even an extra day, would have made no difference in the end. So I've moved on. I'm more interested in the process of deletion discussions and decisions in general. And in that, your explanation did help me to understand the process better. One question, however: Is there a forum where back and forth discussion of the deletion and/or editing consensus building process takes place? Thanks again. — Becksguy 12:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion process is documented at Wikipedia:Deletion process. If you would like to discuss the deletion process, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process would be a logical first stop. However, it is possible that nobody will respond, due to the relative obscurity of the page. WT:AFD might be a better place to start a discussion. Sean William@ 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't all WP pages set to nofollow by default? And if not, shouldn't we add that to every RfA (there's probably something special about that one, come to think of it...). Sorry about all the questions, and thanks for answering :) GiggyTalk 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the status of all Wikipedia pages, and I'm quite sure my nofollow trick didn't work. :). You could propose something like that at WT:RFA if you like. Sean William@ 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't worry about it; with Squeakbox changing his vote to neutral, and his discussion on my talk page, I think this is an optimal solution. Thanks for you help, though. --Haemo 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, I checked the source code, and only external links (such as links to diffs) have nofollow values attached. So I see how your edit could have helped (even if it didn't, apparently). GiggyTalk 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sean! Kinda strange talking to you over here but...I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to delete my user page and recreate it with just the newest version. I've just removed a bit of personal information and would like to erase any history of it as well. Thank you! :-) · Tygartl1·talk· 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No! Please don't leave! You're needed and a valuable member of the community. Please reconsider. Maybe just take a break? Give up the admin tools? You're an asset, and I'm sure plenty of people would like you to stay. Care to discuss on IRC? --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's time I break the habit. Sean William@ 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my question. It wasn't below NSLE/Chacor's belt however to unprotect the DB article and edit it with a sockpuppet, so in my opinion he should think twice before opposing an RfA on a hunch like that. —AldeBaer 12:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If you would like your personal information put onto the net without your knowledge when you're 16 for no reason except you reverted one single edit on some online encyclopedia, go right ahead. I'm going to ignore the attack. Cheers for your comment, btw, Sean. –Chacor 12:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. Personal information? 16? Attack? —AldeBaer 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Chacor did what he did under duress from another individual. Bringing up his desysopping was most unwise, AldeBaer. Sean William@ 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Most unwise"? Awkward choice of words, if I may say so. Did I harm the project? Did I harm Chacor beyond upsetting him? I struck the question immediately after you commented on it. "Most unwise" makes it sound a bit like the Cosa Nostra kiss of death. —AldeBaer 10:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sean, please disregard my earlier comments. I admit I was still somewhat unsettled by the idea that my comment on the RfA was somehow a personal attack, so I thoroughly re-read WP:NPA and now realise it can indeed be seen as an ad hominem and I shouldn't have made that particular comment. It took me some time to figure this out, but—well, finally I did. So thanks for your input, it seems you were right all along. —AldeBaer 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Good luck, Sean William (formerly PullToOpen). And though the two of us never met, at least you get the chance to know me briefly. Good luck, man. --ARArgon 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't lobby if you're convinced you should leave, but you should know that I, too, regret your departure and will miss you. (I'd been looking forward to working with you on some of the ArbCom clerking, among other things.)
I think that R's comments above put it well. In any case, best regards and good wishes for whatever you do next. Newyorkbrad 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 17:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Was just wondering whether I could possibly steal the design for your talk page and use it on my own. Cheers! PurseyTalk | Contribs 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you create an account for me on Simple English Wikipedia. I would appreciate an e-mail with the password link here for email. Thanks Alexfusco5 02:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry forgot to give you a username would like Alexfusco5 Alexfusco5 02:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I haven't been active over there and have no intention of returning. (Or here, for that matter. The only reason I noticed this was to vote for the ArbCom). Ask someone who's active. Sean William@ 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello; perhaps you can semi-protect this page too. Would be very nice. Best regards, —αἰτίας•discussion• 00:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although it seems you already requested its unprotection. Sean William@ 02:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) Hello, thanks again! :) By the way: I haven't, as you can see here... Just seems like it was a mistake. Best regards, —αἰτίας•discussion• 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. BTW, I just noticed you have been an admin for exactly 1 year less than I have, which is interesting :D. Especially since I just added that template to my userpage today. Prodegotalk 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a complement. Miranda 10:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, thank you. Sean William@ 11:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm retargeting because the old pages have been deleted per the right to vanish and prior precedence and courtesy and changing a username and a need to regain privacy for personal reasons that are quite important. Is it causing you problems at related changes? I've been trying to limit them to short bursts every now and then HidingT 12:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind me then. I was not aware you were vanishing. There have been issues in the past with rapid redirect-bypassing. Don't worry about those, though; If you're vanishing, just carry on. Sean William@ 12:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much that I'm vanishing as I'm attempting to make the old name vanish as best I can in search engines, because it's starting to cause me issues in real life. What are the redirect-bypassing issues, do I need to be aware of them? HidingT 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't worry about them at all. They arose because someone was changing the links without any purpose at all. (The ANI thread is here, if you care). But you have a purpose, which I endorse, so you'll be fine. Sean William@ 12:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey... just wondering. you deleted the actual article for "Browne at Midnight," but why did you delete the "talk" page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browneatmidnight (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked the user but didn't leave an explanation on their talk page; just wondering why not, as I thought that was something that must be done. Cheers, Master of PuppetsCare to share? 19:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't leave user talk messages for people I've blocked for username violations, as the template I use is very specific. You are free to leave one if you'd prefer. Sean William@ 19:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to go around doing admin duties because I was afraid that would be seen as too WP:BOLD. But I think I will, just in case the user had good intentions. Cheers, Master of PuppetsCare to share? 23:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm very pleased with the idea of an off-wiki, public place for discussion without a mailing list. Sean William@ 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your continuing support in my latest, and finally successful, RfA. :) It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR[edit]
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.
But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.
I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.
But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.
Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.
Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.
I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.
Larry Pieniazek
NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you a very happy birthday and an awesome upcoming year! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake! 
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If problems persist, bring up the issue at WP:ANI. Sean William 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Done
