User talk:Seresin/Archive 9

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

Archives

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

Wikibreak

Just to let you know I'm going to be away for the next week without much internet access. Other bureaucrats will need to take care of renames etc. - its a pretty busy time, so I'm sure they'll appreciate all the help you and the other clerks can give them. If you have time, keep an eye on the archiving- the bot still has a habit of adding {{not done}} requests to the archives without removing them from the main pages, which can lead to duplicates. WjBscribe 06:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:LA usurption help

Thank you for your help...have a nice day! - LA @ 22:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. If you need anything else, feel free to ask. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling LA's problem, and for pointing out my inconsistency. I didn't realize the user had refused to allow his account to be usurped -- I thought it had been a bureaucrat's decision. Of course that one should be turned down too. — Dan | talk 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The usurpations page can get a bit hectic sometimes. seresin ( ¡? ) 19:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sherry

Restoring the older version is up to you. I did notice that it was created in 2005 and the "...up and coming British rock group Bad Beat Revue." is still a red link. I would say that the original was non notable as well as falling under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I'll leave it up to you to decide if it's best to undelete. Cheeers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Thanks for the notice though. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD vs RfD

Could you explain the differences to me? I didn't see a method by which to delete the redirect; I would have likely used that, had I known. I think I am more concerned with JHunterJ tossing the kitchen sink at a problem he cannot get traction on (namely, the inclusion of Harry Potter to the HP dab). I mean, he's an admin; if he cannot be persuaded to act civilly or keep to the rules, what alternatives are available to us? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; this was my first time processing one, and I had followed the cue of another editor who added it to the HP dab page. I have since found out he was wrong toadd it, and I was wrong to select the miscellany for deletion. I apologize if my mistake harshed your calm. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you dead?

Man, you haven't been on msn for like 2 years. Please get on sometime, we have heaps to talk about. :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you read my userpage! Anyway, I'll get my new laptop on Wednesday. I've sent you some emails, which you have yet to respond to. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HP dab

Er, what consensus are you speaking of? And in what instance does consensus override policy? It isn't notable, and have been proven as such. Repeatedly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that notability doesn't apply to dab pages. You are among the very small minority that believes that policy forbids this addition. The consensus is that policy does not forbid the entry. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask you to point where this consensus seems to exist? With respect, I don't consider myself in the - what was it? Oh yes "very small minority" - of folk that notability determines disambiguation. If it were, why would folk keep looking for Google searches for dab terms? So of course, notability counts. In all of the citations presented, none - I repeat, none present HP as a suitable repalcement for Harry Potter outside of a fan forum.

On a side note, are you of the opinion that this sort of comment renders you either polite or neutral? Comparing me to a anon vandal is pretty uncalled for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of your arguments. And as the editor who just reverted you pointed out, the consensus is obvious to disinterested parties. As for the comment to Jhunter, it was something I found humorous, since you insist HP is only used for Harry Potter in fan sites, and Wikipedia is not a fansite. Yet there is a use of HP for Harry Potter here on Wikipedia. I was not comparing you to Grawp. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 17:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow...

...is when Meta Knight and King Dedede become unprotected. I just thought I would remind you ;-) --68.220.146.229, That same person who kept reverting the articles a month ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.146.229 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for dealing with those Grawp puppets and cleaning up the Wiki afterwards. Oxymoron⁸³ 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message

No problem. Just one kind tip: Looks like you moved the page back twice (the second move moved the redirect); also sometimes he moves a page twice or trice in a row (I almost tapped in this trap here), so one should avoid to use the auto-delete function (also you don't know if another user reverted the move in the meantime) and one should delete the page-move targets directly after reverting the move, so it's easier to see which one has been reverted. Better one check too much as another wrong page move that will make the situation more unclear. Keep up the good work! --Oxymoron⁸³ 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I woke up to find my watchlist had turned red and was full of nonsense. I see you've already fixed it, nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For fixing my user page and protecting it...such a lovely name he choose for me. Bored person that guy must be... Collectonian (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kandi

Hi - I have restored this article, which you deleted under CSD:A7. Please remember to check the history of articles before deleting them - this was a perfectly decent stub until it was replaced with nonsense fifteen minutes before you deleted it. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. seresin ( ¡? ) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Whitebread

What was your reason for deleting Wendy Whitebread? The notability of the book is so great that I thought it unnecessary to point it out. Nevertheless, I will explain it, the book is generallty recognized as a byword for smut, in the way that it is not just erotic, but totally over the top pornographic. As such it made a mark in the mind of any student of comic books, especially the US or "adult" ones.

The book is a cult fav and as such it deserves an article, perhaps not the article I wrote, but an article certainly. The book is a byword for sexual exploitation of ladies in comic books, not something I am in as such, so if you are better in porn, please do so.

The point is that Wendy Whitebread is no longer just a comic book, it is the comic book title indicating a point where normal people wouldn't go.

As such I cannot consider the attemmpt to delete the article, rather than to IMPROVE it an un-Wikipedian vandalism. Of course, if you're not into comics it's not your fault.

ThW5 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for deleting my picture. :-) Have a nice day! Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You too. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little River Band (album)

I could be inclined to agree with you. What's your view on the rest of the articles on the band's albums? Most consist of little more text than that one. Should they all be redirected? TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the other articles. I happened to come across that one specifically while doing NP patrol. If the other ones also lack notability and verification, they should be redirected as well. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I'll take a look at them and perhaps redirect some. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let me know if you need help. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Googled them and found all except the very first one. I'm not sure whether that gives them notability though. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the google results are significant coverage by reliable sources, then they are notable. But the sources should be added, as well. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be significant coversge, but most of it is from the band's official site, or from sites like Yahoo Music and Amazon. I'm not sure what I should do here. Can you help? TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Well, the official site, and vendor entries do not grant notability. What do you need? seresin ( ¡? ) 21:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what to do with them. I think I might propose a merger with Little River Band TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I've now done that and posted a note on each of the talk pages. I'll keep an eye on them for a few days and see what happens. Thanks for your help and advice. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories -- what is the purpose

Seresin - Why remove the Parliamentary Procedure Category? Categories, I suppose, can be used for many purposes. This is from Help: Category -- A category is a software feature of MediaWiki. Categories provide automatic indexes that are useful as tables of contents. Together with links and templates they structure a project.

In that vein, the reason it was removed from this article Nuclear Option was that in reviewing the project structure of Wikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure this may not be an article that the project wants under their purview - at least at this time. If you want to link this article to the Parliamentary procedure page or project, there are other ways of doing that - and it may be quite appropriate for the editors of this article to do that.

I guess it depends on how one looks at categories. Are they a software feature that help structure a project? - if one leans that way, then perhaps inclusion/removal in a category should be coordinated with the editors of the project that the category is under. I meant no harm or disrespect in removing it from this article. Since you put it back right away, I'm not going to war over it and remove it again, but I would appreciate hearing your views. ~ Parlirules 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seresin, thanks for responding so quickly.

"As for the page, categories do not exist solely to support Wikiprojects. While Wikiprojects do use them, categories primarily exist to group articles that have a similar theme together.** This article relates to parlimentary procedure — hence the category. Whether the Wikiproject wants it under their purview or not is not particularly relevant to its inclusion in the category. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)"

**"Would you point me toward the wiki documentation that includes "categories primarily exist to group articles that have a similar theme together."? Thanks! ~ Parlirules 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had earlier seen that reference that you put in your lastest reply: "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. ..... Doesn't match exactly what I said, but the gist is the same.", but there is a more discussion about categories and their use than just that phrase. I don't take that one quoted phrase to mean that the accepted wiki-behavior is that anyone should feel free to add a category to a page without trying to coordinate/discuss it with the editors of the affected project - as the "not particularly relevant" part of your earlier reply seems to imply. I don't believe you meant it that strongly but it comes across that way. I do have a suggestion. The category parliamentary procedure, before recent editing, had hundreds of articles in its main category, which made browsing inefficient. As the project continues to evolve, there will be more subcategories created. It may be more appropriate for your article to be in one of the subcategories, and I believe that current wiki guidelines encourage it to be a community decision, as opposed to a unilateral decision by someone not involved or not coordinating with the project goals. ~ Parlirules (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Should Nothing444's first RfA be added to the category as well? Enigma ^message Review 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, it looks like it was never transcluded, and thus doesn't count as an RfA. Enigma ^message Review 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree what that assessment; it's why I didn't add it. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, regarding my closure, I knew it would be controversial to SNOW-close an RfA that quickly, but it is my opinion that an RFA from the user in question would be a bloodbath. I've followed his history here pretty closely, and there are many reasons why I think that not only would the RFA have not "a snowball's chance in hell" of being successful, but also why I think it would have been detrimental to the project at large had it been allowed to continue. Enigma ^message Review 00:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on your talk page, I completely agree. It was an appropriate closure, just missed a few details ;) seresin ( ¡? ) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable edit

I'll bet that header got your attention..but I'm just alluding to your deletion of Unbelievable (disambiguation). I assume you deleted it because another editor speedied it, but, for future reference, (disambiguation) pages should not be deleted when the dab is moved to the plain title. Such redirects are useful for intentionally linking to a dab page, because they let disambiguators know which incoming links don't need to be fixed. Cheers--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? I don't understand what you are saying. There were no pages that linked to it, so I didn't see any reason for it. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that, even if nothing links to it now, it is a potentially useful redirect to the dab page, so there's no point in deleting it. It can be used to make intentional links to dab pages—most incoming links to dab pages are ambiguous and unintentional—so that when editors are cleaning up the "What links here" links to the dab page, they know that links to the (disambiguation) redirect were made on purpose and don't need to be disambiguated.--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure I understand, but that's fine. Feel free to recreate if you think it's best. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shore

I noticed you deleted the article, saying it failed to assert notability. Would you be able to help me get it up to standards? I was previously uninvolved with the article, but after I noticed it was deleted, I asked an admin to put the content in my sandbox. I then moved it to a new page and then started working on it. Enigma ^message Review 04:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have at least one independent (as far as I can tell) source in your sandbox. That would probably be enough for me to deny a speedy. You can probably recreate the article with those sources, but that's just my opinion. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just added it. I'll look for more sources. Enigma ^message 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns

Hello Seresin,

I am nearly only active on the german wiktionary and do really not intend to edit on the english wikipedia. I only ursurped user:I so that nobody else does it. Until now I made already more than thousend edits on the german wiktionary, the SUL account will become mine, as soon as it is possible. Many people have said SUL is a bad thing because of problems like this. But SUL has already started for Admins and will come for all accounts sooner or later. We can only make the best of it.

If you have ideas how i can point out the situation clearer on my user page and user talk page: Let me hear them. --I (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real social dynamics

I'm sorry. I had no knowledge that you were an admin; you should have informed me, at least in your warning at my talk page. Had I known I of course would not have reverted as admins have the right to decline speedy tags. See also this and this where I also responded. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query about an edit

Why did you blank this redirect? [1]. There are many incoming links to the page, which now do not redirect to the new location. DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just moved to the non-talk page, so I figured it would be obvious. Feel free to revert if you think it will cause confusion. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else has done it already. DuncanHill (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user deletions

This page CC Poindexter was deleted as a result of user Miranda placing a false ban notice on the page (db-banned). One of them was on a userpage and not an article. RobertOgleFan in fact has not been banned and has cleared checkuser. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000. It was stated that Technically Unrelated and no geographic relationship to MKF's usual stomping grounds. Thatcher 11:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) In fact she placed about 5 of them up at the same time in an attempt to have several articles deleted which she did not agree with. They included Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Alpha Phi Alpha and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. You were the only admin to actually take a look at this and reverted List of African American Greek & Fraternal Organizations. Can you please look into the deletion of this article? Do you have any suggestions? RobertOgleFan (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have asked Anthony.bradbury to reconsider his deletion, as checkuser has cleared you. However, checkuser is not all-powerful. In addition, as best I can tell, the editor you are accused of being has not been formally banned, so the criterion doesn't apply. Was the Poindexter article the only one deleted? seresin ( ¡? ) 08:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Star

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For working quickly to fix the grawp vandalism :) Chris 06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have a penchant for seeing those, apparently. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand protection

Thanks, you did the right thing. 02:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If only people would also do the right thing, and stop edit warring :D seresin ( ¡? ) 02:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I think this edit war is stupid, but I'm dealing with people who keep censoring the article and just ignore (or delete) what I consider to be irrefutable arguments against this censorship. I've looked at the history of this page, and it's not encouraging. The people who try to fix things get viciously attacked and driven off Wikipedia, often on the flimsiest of excuses and with the complicity of certain admins. I've already been accused of being the sock puppet of a banned user, against all evidence. Edward's been run off and Bert's been accused of at least two different counts of sock puppetry that I noticed. This article is a cesspool and it's surrounded by corruption and violence. Nonetheless, I'm going to stick around until they get an admin to remove me, on whatever basis they can manufacture, because I think the truth is bigger than anything a True Fan can understand. 07:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Please revert to semi-protection

Seresin, there has been no sustained edit-warring between registered users on the Ayn Rand page, only one good faith reversion of spelling and one removal of uncited claims (without a subsequent revert). Full protection is impeding the development of the article at a time when we finally have a group of ideologically diverse, communicative editors discussing improvements to the page. Please reconsider your escalation: full protection is only supposed to be used in the most serious of cases. Regards, Skomorokh 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How utterly transparent. I have lost all respect for you. - Bert 21:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

CC Poindexter

I have restored the article. It is clearly the case that the author, user:RobertOgleFan, is a sock of user:Mykungfu. But perhaps not an abusive one. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seresin, Mykungfu is forum shopping to find an admin to re-insert his sock-made POV edits on topics related to Alpha Phi Alpha--edits which are based on faulty cites, as was explained with consensus reached here. As far as whether, Mykungfu is making recent abusive edits specifically with [user:RobertOgleFan], I would note that his/her MO has been to use several socks at one time, in good guy/bad guy fashion, which is why reports on Mykungfu (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th)) contains so many socks. Even so, he still used user:RobertOgleFan to create a Mediation Cabal involving all of the editors that were responsible for reporting him earlier, even though some had no interaction with him in the current cases. Additionally, Wikipolicy states, "Community bans may arise from consensus at the administrators' noticeboards (WP:AN, WP:ANI), the former community sanctions noticeboard (WP:CN), or elsewhere. As per the blocking and banning policies, users who alienate and offend the community enough may eventually be blocked long-term (most often indefinitely) by an administrator--with no administrator willing to unblock them. (see here) In such extreme cases, the user is considered to have been banned by the general community." Am I wrong in my understanding that miranda is simply following WikiPolicy related to editors Banned by the Wikipedia community? Sorry for the long post, but you left me with some questions related to this sock.-RoBoTam^ice 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mykungfu

Please talk to user:Miranda about this user. She says he is banned, you say he is not, and I will happily wait for the two of you to achieve consensus. Please. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mykungfu

~Sigh~ Mykungfu has been banned since October 2006. Under BAN, If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned. See this as well as his socks. miranda 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's a dif. and there's a dif. discussing his disruption. Both are nearly two years old. this dif. is good, too. miranda 21:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this and this. miranda 06:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]