This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Seicer. Can I ask you to look in on the UDR page again. Tag teaming seems to be taking place in an effort to force edits through without discussion. If you feel it's appropriate I'd welcome another block on edits to protect the article. The 16:43 version is intact. The Thunderer ( talk) 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A claim that a "moderator" "apologized" for deleting this article at the AfD (I think) has been made on my Talk page. I'm trying to figure out who that "moderator" is. Was that you, perhaps? -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have started a work page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Thunderer/Ulster_Defence_Regiment and also posted a set of objectives on the talk page. I've invited BigDunc and others to participate in an editing and discussion session to see if we can agree something which might resolve the issues which seem to exist. I would very much appreciate your examining the objectives and perhaps commenting or correcting anything which you think is inappropriate. The Thunderer ( talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hehehe - did you mean "ill will"? -- NE2 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I updated the links to AN/I reports in your summary at this RfC, as those discussions have now been archived. I expect that this is one of the exceptions to modifying another's comments, but I feel that I should notify you anyway. Regards. - Eldereft ( cont.) 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response here, but please check the case. I answered you there. It's not a joke and the fate of a user is decided. Kostan1 ( talk) 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Jewish Internet Defense Force. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was brilliant. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You know, my civility problems on Commons is doooone. I haven't been making anymore slurs or other insults. i've gotten better, and Scott said it's not impossible I will ever become an admin, it will just take several years possibly, just keep up the good work and don't be a jerk.-- Freewayguy What's up? 02:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
This is why you are rapidly becoming one of my favorite admins. Tan ǀ 39 05:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
The next time you see that I've obviously edit conflicted with someone, could you be so kind as to merge my comments in, rather than just reverting? ANI isn't exactly the easiest place to edit when it's busy, and there's no way I'm going to catch things like that in my watchlist. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
FIRST: You can help move this along by using your administrative tools to restore what Caspian blue has deleted. When complaints were posted on my talk page, I moved them to this page so that the thread would be in one place. At first, I thought that I'd done something systematically incorrect or insufficient. I didn't realize that there'd been more than three reverts at first -- didn't really understand the game being played until the WP:AN/I posting. Okay, now I get it.
Please fix this part of the complicated record which will prove my innocent involvement in a contrived situation.-- Tenmei ( talk) 13:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this a joke, or serious? EJF ( talk) 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a few hours away after the events from earlier this afternoon with
User:Peter Damian and I must say that I am still disappointed with how you handled this. You assumed that my listing was in bad faith and endorsed his removal of the AFD template, despite that that is not the correct way to challenge an AFD, where his actions were edit warring and arguably tantamount to vandalism, and you endorsed a series of personal attacks. Whether or not the deletion nomination was in error, there's a right and a wrong way to deal with it, and I think that both you and he chose the latter.
Stifle (
talk)
16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
86.153.130.184 is a pro pakistani vandalizing articles. another user claimed he is a sock of a user called Nangparbat. please see [1] and [2]. help please. he is inserting pakistani argument everywhere n remove indian ones. he write administered near kashmir (india) n removes for pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.31.145 ( talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
When I readded the F-URs to that image page, it was because the image was (at that time) still being used on 20+ pages and "consensus" was, I thought, trying to be established. So, telling me "Don't revert war on this" would not be assuming good faith. If you have a problem with any of my edits, please come to me first and I will be happy to explain. Take Care... NeutralHomer • Talk 13:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks familiar, no? –– Lid( Talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
it was an error as it was already sourced below.-- Otterathome ( talk) 00:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that you remove the protection on the TBN logo. No one has said anything about revert warring on that logo page but you. I looked, you are the only one who actually keeps saying "revert warring". Dragon695 suggested everything be reverted back and further discussion take place (discussion that never happened to begin with). Protecting a page in, one of which you are dicussing, to a version you have deemed "correct", may be looked at as misuse of your admin tools. Please rethink your protection of this page. Thank you... NeutralHomer • Talk 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Please consider amending your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemic theory of miracles. I assure you my nomination was made in good faith and in error, no more. Stifle ( talk) 14:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Smashville BONK! 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So I am looking at the AFDs thinking to myself, 'oh boy, Seicer is going to get an ear full'. I come here, and no one has jumped on you for your quick deletion and close. Now I don't disagree with the results but I think we might want to let them go for the whole 5 days. Politics and religion are such heated debates that someone is going to claim foul and want them restored and re-listed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God falls into the same group. Cheers Gtstricky Talk or C 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1. I don't understand why this is called Spamming. The term spamming is being used in two fashions in this case. One is that you have been copying and pasting the same discussions, or similar discussions, to various user talk pages without considering that perhaps one or more have already answered your questions. Posting around to many users may seem like you are forum shopping until you can find one user who may agree with your viewpoints or ideas.
It may also be applied to the articles in question, given that they are recreations of deleted materials under different titles. Recreating articles after they were deleted is generally frowned upon.
2. What is the five day deletion policy? Typically, articles for deletion are given five days for consensus to develop, whether the outcome is to keep, delete or merge the article. There are exceptions, especially if the tally is so strong that there is a very slim to none chance of any consensus forming in opposition to the given rationale. In this case, outside of your opposing comments, there was little to no support towards keeping any of the three articles.
3. How did all of the diverse information on the four articles, which was growing with a very large number of independent edits all get deleted? Per the AfD process as noted above. Any user can nominate an article for deletion, or speedy deletion if it warrants it, and I am noting that at least one article was speedy deleted before it was sent to AfD. Independent edits is not indicative of an article's quality.
4. Were the sources , sourced as requested by the Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Monthly, New Jersey Times of Trenton, etc., inadequate? What is a major news source It still did not assert notability. If I wrote an article on my Grandmother's house for Wikipedia, which was referenced in a newspaper as being the prettiest house on the street, it would not make the house notable. Likewise, an otherwise unknown pastor for a very small church in a very small community in a very isolated part of the state is not notable. Please read over the notability guidelines for a clearer picture on that. Sources are not akways indicative of a notability.
Hope this helps, seicer | talk | contribs 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted my Rant. I had a change of heart and mind after studying Wikipedia and pages and histories of editors and others for a while, so I deleted my "rant". Day before yesterday was my first day. I am very green to this, and I assume from the above comment that you deleted the four Palin church and pastor articles. I did not even know I had a discussion page or how it worked until late in the deletion debate.
I deleted another emotional post of mine made in ignorance of Wiki policies and editor motivation. EricDiesel ( talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia. Please let me know what you are referring to with some specifics. I understand Spamming to mean having a computer generate a number of messages. EricDiesel ( talk) 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have recieved a large number of suggestions for improving the articles, and in general reponded with individual messages to each, unless exactly the same point was made by both. I do not understand what Spamming means on Wikipedia. Did you read the messages from those I was responding to, and my responses?
1. I don't understand why this is called Spamming.
2. What is the five day deletion policy?
3. How did all of the diverse information on the four articles, which was growing with a very large number of independent edits all get deleted?
4. Were the sources , sourced as requested by the Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Monthly, New Jersey Times of Trenton, etc., inadequate? What is a major news source
If you have time, you can respond on my talk page. Thanks. EricDiesel ( talk) 02:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you be willing to re-open the AfD for Wasilla Bible Church. I am somewhat puzzled that the AfD was closed so quickly, and I have not seen the article to evaluate whether it was a POV fork. Thanks, Dems on the move ( talk) 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am now responding to tens or hundreds of comments on my four deleted pages, so I only now had time to figure out what your post with "ANI Notice" meant.
Thanks EricDiesel ( talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I didn't slow down because I did not understand how talk pages work (I did not even know I could put comments on the deletion discussion page, or know about my own talk page, and I thuoght Wikipedia worked like the net, where there is a race to delete information that is not flattering, so I was posting on people's talk pages incorrectly and assuming bias where there was none.
1. I don't know how to tell that someonw is an administrator or just someone like me. For example, I thought you and Elan26 (or whatever his name was) had the same status.
One thing I noticed on all four articles was that they were EVOLVING into independent articles, and doing so very quickly, due to the huge interest in each seperate topic. For example, I would think a videotape of llspeaking in toungues]] would be very interesting to see, and compare how it is ddone in each small church, but on a page for each church, not on Palin's page which would be unfair (unless is is a video of Palin). I have never seen this, but heard it is pretty eye opening strange. Is white house public prayer in the presence of other world leaders going to include what is done in one or the other church? What are the conventions of the small Independent churche, Wasilla Bible Church? These questions are likely to have answeres sourcable on the web, and other contributors can find and add it to the pages.
Similarly, Palin's pastors other than the two with articles do not seem to be notable. even though a third pastor is MORE frequently quoted in major media, but he has no notability on his own. The two, Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins, on the other hand, are involved in different quotation controversies relevant to public policy, the former with two notable persons and his creating the situation whereby they met, and the latter for making controversial statements that parallel public policy reasoning of the Governor of Alaska, and for which all 100 US voters voted, that being that God wanted certain earmarks, and a pipelin. It seems biased to put this on Palin's pages, because it might just be a coincidence, but it sure is generating a lot of press.
The Israeli press is now covering Kroon, but not Kalnins, since they are notable for different reasons. The Israli press likely cover Kalnins entirely differently than Kroon, since they are notable for different things, in addition to just being two of the many of Palin's pastors. Kalnins is notable for his relation not only to Palnin, but to David Bricker (?), or whatever the name of the anti Semite he had making the remarks covered in the press was. (Having a Larry Kroon page to look up the anti Semite's name easily again would be useful.)
2. Is it possible to set up all four deleted pages (two notable churches, two notable pastors, with none of the other churches or pastors included unless they are in the press for other than talking about Palin) and watch how the information in them independently EVOLVES over five days?
3. I have to go read what a sandbox is before I respond to your offer. Thanks for your generous time to an admitted ranter. EricDiesel ( talk) 22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This was on the Wasilla Assembly of God deletion discussion page, but refers to Wasilla Bible Church. Since there is so much talk there, I thought I would pick it out to show you, since others have written that there is too much talk and the admin will be swamped. Again, being new, I am assuming you are the person who deleted Wasilla Bible Church, or directede it to Sarah Palin.
"Comment -- Wasilla Bible Church: This discussion seems to ahve become a WP:DelRev discussion of that article, which seems to have been the subject of a BAD FAITH AFD closure, perhaps for US party political reasons. That article should be restored and the AFD allowed to run its course. However the mechanism for that is to request a deltion review. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think the closing admin would object to reopening although no one has asked. see User talk:Seicer GtstrickyTalk or C 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)"
I argue that Wasilla Assembly of God should have its own page since most news stories refer to its internationally notorious anti Semite speaker, David Brickner, especially in the various international and Isreali press stories, so it could either be directed to Palin. It is unfair to associate Palin with Brickner like this. EricDiesel ( talk) 08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it be Spamming or impolite under Wikipedia etiquette to send this question to the handful of people who posted helpful suggestions on my talk page? I wanted to clear it here before sending the same identical question to more than a couple of people.
Question re: Notability is not contagious Thanks for your comment on my discussion page.
Thanks. EricDiesel ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, I tumbled onto these Palin-related deletions by accident, after I ran a Wiki-search for "Ed Kalnins". Without addressing the issue of notability -- which is very much in flux -- I'm nonetheless astonished that it never occurred to you (or anybody else, for that matter) that for the time being, at least, some of those pages should certainly exist as redirect pages to Sarah Palin -- locked down, of course, so nobody can change them back into articles (until and unless that is considered appropriate). Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned by the redirect. We are redirecting a vicar's name to a nearly-unrelated article about a member of his congregation. Maybe it would be best to delete it (and salt) as the AfD seems to indicate, and just let Special:Search lead people to Palin if that's what they are after? Cheers, Ian¹³ /t 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain your deletion of Image:OSU.svg? This was tagged as pd-ineligible. --- RockMFR 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Will do. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, can you take a look at [User:Scjessey]'s Block [6]. He was quickly blocked and looking at the evidence does not point to edit warring. Here is the link to the 3RR report: [7]. As you can see he was removing inappropriate information and in general keeping the vandalism down. Thanks for taking a look. Brothejr ( talk) 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I caused offence. None was intended, though it is true that I suspected wrong motives. Your assurance that there were none closes the case as far as I am concerned. Others involved have certainly gone over the top on POV issues. The removal of articles on the two pastors was appropriate, but they should have been redirected to articles on their churches (if surviving) or to Wasilla, Alaska, not to Sarah Palin. Following the undeletion of Wasilla Bible Church, I merged some of its content to the town article. I have done the same with that for Wasilla Assembly of God. As some one who regualrly commeent on AFDs listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity, I believe the best solution for NN churches such as these is to merge them with the town where they are, usually removing unnecessary detail. That is effectively what I have done. I am in England and have little interest in the partisan issues, which are necessarily hotly debated. However, I considered that the basis on which the matter was handled was incorrect. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Seicer. I'm sorry for not checking up on every single username that I posted regarding the Vanceburg, Kentucky article edits. I just grabbed all the usernames which referenced the city in some way. I'll try to be less lazy about that in the future. -- plushpuffin ( talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is in regards to an article you recently speedy deleted as a Test Page because the contents were a single sentence saying a racing driver sucked. However, just as a heads up, I think it'd be helpful to inform you that I believe you made an error in deleting the article because I think you might have missed the history section, as there was actually a legitimate article two edits prior. The article had merely been vandalized and not reverted, so someone nominated it for Speedy. No harm, it has been fixed, but just wanted to point it out so that you might not miss something similar again. The359 ( talk) 18:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Cutie ST. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 01:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leon_Ousby - I'll let you do the honours. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
and again :) I reverted your second close this time since I think wiki hiccuped. TravellingCari 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
great edit summary. Thanks for the laugh TravellingCari 01:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts at maintaining the AfD process. I see that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (Online series), which I started, and that you deleted The Suburbs (Online series) (thank you). The AfD also included the related articles List of The Suburbs episodes and List of The Suburbs cast members which you did not delete -- can I assume that this was merely an oversight? -- Orlady ( talk) 03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of P. S. I Loathe You. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I wish you had read the hangon. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 03:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice - you had earlier given a warning to orangejumpsuit ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for comments made on Sarah Palin. I just reported some ongoing edits to AN/I, here. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 07:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What YOU call "consensus" is what I call Tyranny of the majority but if we came up with a consensus that the Earth is flat, by golly, the online Encyclopedia Wikipeida would declare the Earth flat if enough Flat Earth editors had the consensus here... Your logic is flawed Orangejumpsuit ( talk) 07:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Damn! I was too late :( seicer | talk | contribs 12:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is gonna seem like I'm jumping down your throat, but I'm really not trying to. I have a few questions about that close. Hmmm. I've written and rewritten the first questions a few times and I can't seem to come up with anything that suits me, so here goes. I don't think that should have been closed as keep, but I can see where you could have thought so. I'm curious, then, to see what would have made you close that debate as delete, given the large number of keep voices in it? Was it your opinion that sources exists, and so notability was satisfied? Or was it your opinion that the vast majority of editors probably can't be wrong about sourcing existing? I should point out that you are under no...um...obligation to answer those questions. I'm not trying to press you or act as though I can demand an explanation. Lastly, do you think a DRV would be an appropriate route for this close, or do you think that would be fruitless? Thanks for your time.
Protonk (
talk)
14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to delete Adam's Case Files too. It was part of the AfD for "Adam's Case Files Mixtape," and was virtually identical to the forst file. I added it to the AfD discussion when the original author created the article without "mixtape" in a futile attempt to convince us it wasn't a mixtape. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Seicer. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we're in the business of extending blocks because people request unblocking. I'd kindly ask that you reconsider your extension of the block on Prometh3an – it seems an unnecessary escalation. — Werdna • talk 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Why have you closed these AfDs before the 5-day period is out. The Matt Henny one is less than 48-hours old. Unless you close as a speedy keep, they need to stay open longer.
Can you please revert your close? Nfitz ( talk) 16:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:CORP, states, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. WP:MUSIC states, A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. WP:RS, states, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Music charts were submitted. Mass Record Pool, who are located in Boston Mass. They have no affiliation with the label. Illinois Record Pool is an world reknowed record pool servicing the entire world. The label has no affiliation with them. • Gene93k said without warrant, or obviously never verifying anything that the label published those charts theirselves. Those charts came straight from these entities web site and can be easily searched online and anyone who takes this initiative can easily determine that HHN is not affiliated with them in any way. And according to WP:RS. • Gene93k should have explained why those references were rejected. • HHNRecordsPR ( talk) 21: 40:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Protonk ( talk) 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Seicer, you closed a number of SNOW AfD's and deleted the according articles. I think however that you forgot to close the above AfD as well. Since I was the nominator, I would rather not close it myself, to avoid any process wonkery afterwards. Fram ( talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Now you said that 09jcsherrard was blocked indefinetly, but the notice said 31 hours. Can you tell me which it is, please make it clear.
HairyPerry (Talk) HairyPerry 13:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Listen, 09jcsherrard is one of my friends and he is sitting right next to me, you can tell me so he knows for sure. If you can't tell me make it clear for him...would you do that?
HairyPerry (Talk) HairyPerry 14:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude don't be getting smart with me, i was just trying to be cool with my buddy. HairyPerry (Talk) HairyPerry 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means man...trolling, and whos account are you talking about I have made useful contributions to a lot of sports teams on Wikipedia, if you talking about me. HairyPerry (Talk) HairyPerry 15:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I have started a thread that you may be interested in. Its about your extention of my block and the violation of WP:CIVIL that is your trainwreck remark.
Please see
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Seicer
«l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»
(talk)
14:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Please undelete the article Javier Flores, the reason ism because is a young filmmaker in my country and is one of the few people who is intrested in making things work for salvadorean cinema.
He is currently working on the show Juventud En Linea broadcasted by channel 10 in El Salvador, he has two years working there and many others working alone, and i have no notice of newspaper or magazine references for him, but it will be added when i found them.
thanks for reading my request and i hope you can undelete the page i created Guasinay50 ( talk) 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
A delete from you, but it's still a blue. RMHED ( talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Seicer. Can I ask you to look in on the UDR page again. Tag teaming seems to be taking place in an effort to force edits through without discussion. If you feel it's appropriate I'd welcome another block on edits to protect the article. The 16:43 version is intact. The Thunderer ( talk) 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A claim that a "moderator" "apologized" for deleting this article at the AfD (I think) has been made on my Talk page. I'm trying to figure out who that "moderator" is. Was that you, perhaps? -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have started a work page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Thunderer/Ulster_Defence_Regiment and also posted a set of objectives on the talk page. I've invited BigDunc and others to participate in an editing and discussion session to see if we can agree something which might resolve the issues which seem to exist. I would very much appreciate your examining the objectives and perhaps commenting or correcting anything which you think is inappropriate. The Thunderer ( talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hehehe - did you mean "ill will"? -- NE2 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I updated the links to AN/I reports in your summary at this RfC, as those discussions have now been archived. I expect that this is one of the exceptions to modifying another's comments, but I feel that I should notify you anyway. Regards. - Eldereft ( cont.) 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response here, but please check the case. I answered you there. It's not a joke and the fate of a user is decided. Kostan1 ( talk) 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Jewish Internet Defense Force. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was brilliant. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You know, my civility problems on Commons is doooone. I haven't been making anymore slurs or other insults. i've gotten better, and Scott said it's not impossible I will ever become an admin, it will just take several years possibly, just keep up the good work and don't be a jerk.-- Freewayguy What's up? 02:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
This is why you are rapidly becoming one of my favorite admins. Tan ǀ 39 05:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
The next time you see that I've obviously edit conflicted with someone, could you be so kind as to merge my comments in, rather than just reverting? ANI isn't exactly the easiest place to edit when it's busy, and there's no way I'm going to catch things like that in my watchlist. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
FIRST: You can help move this along by using your administrative tools to restore what Caspian blue has deleted. When complaints were posted on my talk page, I moved them to this page so that the thread would be in one place. At first, I thought that I'd done something systematically incorrect or insufficient. I didn't realize that there'd been more than three reverts at first -- didn't really understand the game being played until the WP:AN/I posting. Okay, now I get it.
Please fix this part of the complicated record which will prove my innocent involvement in a contrived situation.-- Tenmei ( talk) 13:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this a joke, or serious? EJF ( talk) 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a few hours away after the events from earlier this afternoon with
User:Peter Damian and I must say that I am still disappointed with how you handled this. You assumed that my listing was in bad faith and endorsed his removal of the AFD template, despite that that is not the correct way to challenge an AFD, where his actions were edit warring and arguably tantamount to vandalism, and you endorsed a series of personal attacks. Whether or not the deletion nomination was in error, there's a right and a wrong way to deal with it, and I think that both you and he chose the latter.
Stifle (
talk)
16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
86.153.130.184 is a pro pakistani vandalizing articles. another user claimed he is a sock of a user called Nangparbat. please see [1] and [2]. help please. he is inserting pakistani argument everywhere n remove indian ones. he write administered near kashmir (india) n removes for pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.31.145 ( talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
When I readded the F-URs to that image page, it was because the image was (at that time) still being used on 20+ pages and "consensus" was, I thought, trying to be established. So, telling me "Don't revert war on this" would not be assuming good faith. If you have a problem with any of my edits, please come to me first and I will be happy to explain. Take Care... NeutralHomer • Talk 13:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks familiar, no? –– Lid( Talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
it was an error as it was already sourced below.-- Otterathome ( talk) 00:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I would ask that you remove the protection on the TBN logo. No one has said anything about revert warring on that logo page but you. I looked, you are the only one who actually keeps saying "revert warring". Dragon695 suggested everything be reverted back and further discussion take place (discussion that never happened to begin with). Protecting a page in, one of which you are dicussing, to a version you have deemed "correct", may be looked at as misuse of your admin tools. Please rethink your protection of this page. Thank you... NeutralHomer • Talk 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Please consider amending your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemic theory of miracles. I assure you my nomination was made in good faith and in error, no more. Stifle ( talk) 14:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Smashville BONK! 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
So I am looking at the AFDs thinking to myself, 'oh boy, Seicer is going to get an ear full'. I come here, and no one has jumped on you for your quick deletion and close. Now I don't disagree with the results but I think we might want to let them go for the whole 5 days. Politics and religion are such heated debates that someone is going to claim foul and want them restored and re-listed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God falls into the same group. Cheers Gtstricky Talk or C 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1. I don't understand why this is called Spamming. The term spamming is being used in two fashions in this case. One is that you have been copying and pasting the same discussions, or similar discussions, to various user talk pages without considering that perhaps one or more have already answered your questions. Posting around to many users may seem like you are forum shopping until you can find one user who may agree with your viewpoints or ideas.
It may also be applied to the articles in question, given that they are recreations of deleted materials under different titles. Recreating articles after they were deleted is generally frowned upon.
2. What is the five day deletion policy? Typically, articles for deletion are given five days for consensus to develop, whether the outcome is to keep, delete or merge the article. There are exceptions, especially if the tally is so strong that there is a very slim to none chance of any consensus forming in opposition to the given rationale. In this case, outside of your opposing comments, there was little to no support towards keeping any of the three articles.
3. How did all of the diverse information on the four articles, which was growing with a very large number of independent edits all get deleted? Per the AfD process as noted above. Any user can nominate an article for deletion, or speedy deletion if it warrants it, and I am noting that at least one article was speedy deleted before it was sent to AfD. Independent edits is not indicative of an article's quality.
4. Were the sources , sourced as requested by the Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Monthly, New Jersey Times of Trenton, etc., inadequate? What is a major news source It still did not assert notability. If I wrote an article on my Grandmother's house for Wikipedia, which was referenced in a newspaper as being the prettiest house on the street, it would not make the house notable. Likewise, an otherwise unknown pastor for a very small church in a very small community in a very isolated part of the state is not notable. Please read over the notability guidelines for a clearer picture on that. Sources are not akways indicative of a notability.
Hope this helps, seicer | talk | contribs 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted my Rant. I had a change of heart and mind after studying Wikipedia and pages and histories of editors and others for a while, so I deleted my "rant". Day before yesterday was my first day. I am very green to this, and I assume from the above comment that you deleted the four Palin church and pastor articles. I did not even know I had a discussion page or how it worked until late in the deletion debate.
I deleted another emotional post of mine made in ignorance of Wiki policies and editor motivation. EricDiesel ( talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia. Please let me know what you are referring to with some specifics. I understand Spamming to mean having a computer generate a number of messages. EricDiesel ( talk) 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have recieved a large number of suggestions for improving the articles, and in general reponded with individual messages to each, unless exactly the same point was made by both. I do not understand what Spamming means on Wikipedia. Did you read the messages from those I was responding to, and my responses?
1. I don't understand why this is called Spamming.
2. What is the five day deletion policy?
3. How did all of the diverse information on the four articles, which was growing with a very large number of independent edits all get deleted?
4. Were the sources , sourced as requested by the Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Monthly, New Jersey Times of Trenton, etc., inadequate? What is a major news source
If you have time, you can respond on my talk page. Thanks. EricDiesel ( talk) 02:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you be willing to re-open the AfD for Wasilla Bible Church. I am somewhat puzzled that the AfD was closed so quickly, and I have not seen the article to evaluate whether it was a POV fork. Thanks, Dems on the move ( talk) 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am now responding to tens or hundreds of comments on my four deleted pages, so I only now had time to figure out what your post with "ANI Notice" meant.
Thanks EricDiesel ( talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I didn't slow down because I did not understand how talk pages work (I did not even know I could put comments on the deletion discussion page, or know about my own talk page, and I thuoght Wikipedia worked like the net, where there is a race to delete information that is not flattering, so I was posting on people's talk pages incorrectly and assuming bias where there was none.
1. I don't know how to tell that someonw is an administrator or just someone like me. For example, I thought you and Elan26 (or whatever his name was) had the same status.
One thing I noticed on all four articles was that they were EVOLVING into independent articles, and doing so very quickly, due to the huge interest in each seperate topic. For example, I would think a videotape of llspeaking in toungues]] would be very interesting to see, and compare how it is ddone in each small church, but on a page for each church, not on Palin's page which would be unfair (unless is is a video of Palin). I have never seen this, but heard it is pretty eye opening strange. Is white house public prayer in the presence of other world leaders going to include what is done in one or the other church? What are the conventions of the small Independent churche, Wasilla Bible Church? These questions are likely to have answeres sourcable on the web, and other contributors can find and add it to the pages.
Similarly, Palin's pastors other than the two with articles do not seem to be notable. even though a third pastor is MORE frequently quoted in major media, but he has no notability on his own. The two, Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins, on the other hand, are involved in different quotation controversies relevant to public policy, the former with two notable persons and his creating the situation whereby they met, and the latter for making controversial statements that parallel public policy reasoning of the Governor of Alaska, and for which all 100 US voters voted, that being that God wanted certain earmarks, and a pipelin. It seems biased to put this on Palin's pages, because it might just be a coincidence, but it sure is generating a lot of press.
The Israeli press is now covering Kroon, but not Kalnins, since they are notable for different reasons. The Israli press likely cover Kalnins entirely differently than Kroon, since they are notable for different things, in addition to just being two of the many of Palin's pastors. Kalnins is notable for his relation not only to Palnin, but to David Bricker (?), or whatever the name of the anti Semite he had making the remarks covered in the press was. (Having a Larry Kroon page to look up the anti Semite's name easily again would be useful.)
2. Is it possible to set up all four deleted pages (two notable churches, two notable pastors, with none of the other churches or pastors included unless they are in the press for other than talking about Palin) and watch how the information in them independently EVOLVES over five days?
3. I have to go read what a sandbox is before I respond to your offer. Thanks for your generous time to an admitted ranter. EricDiesel ( talk) 22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This was on the Wasilla Assembly of God deletion discussion page, but refers to Wasilla Bible Church. Since there is so much talk there, I thought I would pick it out to show you, since others have written that there is too much talk and the admin will be swamped. Again, being new, I am assuming you are the person who deleted Wasilla Bible Church, or directede it to Sarah Palin.
"Comment -- Wasilla Bible Church: This discussion seems to ahve become a WP:DelRev discussion of that article, which seems to have been the subject of a BAD FAITH AFD closure, perhaps for US party political reasons. That article should be restored and the AFD allowed to run its course. However the mechanism for that is to request a deltion review. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think the closing admin would object to reopening although no one has asked. see User talk:Seicer GtstrickyTalk or C 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)"
I argue that Wasilla Assembly of God should have its own page since most news stories refer to its internationally notorious anti Semite speaker, David Brickner, especially in the various international and Isreali press stories, so it could either be directed to Palin. It is unfair to associate Palin with Brickner like this. EricDiesel ( talk) 08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it be Spamming or impolite under Wikipedia etiquette to send this question to the handful of people who posted helpful suggestions on my talk page? I wanted to clear it here before sending the same identical question to more than a couple of people.
Question re: Notability is not contagious Thanks for your comment on my discussion page.
Thanks. EricDiesel ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, I tumbled onto these Palin-related deletions by accident, after I ran a Wiki-search for "Ed Kalnins". Without addressing the issue of notability -- which is very much in flux -- I'm nonetheless astonished that it never occurred to you (or anybody else, for that matter) that for the time being, at least, some of those pages should certainly exist as redirect pages to Sarah Palin -- locked down, of course, so nobody can change them back into articles (until and unless that is considered appropriate). Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned by the redirect. We are redirecting a vicar's name to a nearly-unrelated article about a member of his congregation. Maybe it would be best to delete it (and salt) as the AfD seems to indicate, and just let Special:Search lead people to Palin if that's what they are after? Cheers, Ian¹³ /t 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain your deletion of Image:OSU.svg? This was tagged as pd-ineligible. --- RockMFR 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Will do. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, can you take a look at [User:Scjessey]'s Block [6]. He was quickly blocked and looking at the evidence does not point to edit warring. Here is the link to the 3RR report: [7]. As you can see he was removing inappropriate information and in general keeping the vandalism down. Thanks for taking a look. Brothejr ( talk) 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I caused offence. None was intended, though it is true that I suspected wrong motives. Your assurance that there were none closes the case as far as I am concerned. Others involved have certainly gone over the top on POV issues. The removal of articles on the two pastors was appropriate, but they should have been redirected to articles on their churches (if surviving) or to Wasilla, Alaska, not to Sarah Palin. Following the undeletion of Wasilla Bible Church, I merged some of its content to the town article. I have done the same with that for Wasilla Assembly of God. As some one who regualrly commeent on AFDs listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity, I believe the best solution for NN churches such as these is to merge them with the town where they are, usually removing unnecessary detail. That is effectively what I have done. I am in England and have little interest in the partisan issues, which are necessarily hotly debated. However, I considered that the basis on which the matter was handled was incorrect. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Seicer. I'm sorry for not checking up on every single username that I posted regarding the Vanceburg, Kentucky article edits. I just grabbed all the usernames which referenced the city in some way. I'll try to be less lazy about that in the future. -- plushpuffin ( talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is in regards to an article you recently speedy deleted as a Test Page because the contents were a single sentence saying a racing driver sucked. However, just as a heads up, I think it'd be helpful to inform you that I believe you made an error in deleting the article because I think you might have missed the history section, as there was actually a legitimate article two edits prior. The article had merely been vandalized and not reverted, so someone nominated it for Speedy. No harm, it has been fixed, but just wanted to point it out so that you might not miss something similar again. The359 ( talk) 18:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Cutie ST. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 01:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leon_Ousby - I'll let you do the honours. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
and again :) I reverted your second close this time since I think wiki hiccuped. TravellingCari 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
great edit summary. Thanks for the laugh TravellingCari 01:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts at maintaining the AfD process. I see that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (Online series), which I started, and that you deleted The Suburbs (Online series) (thank you). The AfD also included the related articles List of The Suburbs episodes and List of The Suburbs cast members which you did not delete -- can I assume that this was merely an oversight? -- Orlady ( talk) 03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of P. S. I Loathe You. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I wish you had read the hangon. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 03:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice - you had earlier given a warning to orangejumpsuit ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for comments made on Sarah Palin. I just reported some ongoing edits to AN/I, here. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 07:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What YOU call "consensus" is what I call Tyranny of the majority but if we came up with a consensus that the Earth is flat, by golly, the online Encyclopedia Wikipeida would declare the Earth flat if enough Flat Earth editors had the consensus here... Your logic is flawed Orangejumpsuit ( talk) 07:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Damn! I was too late :( seicer | talk | contribs 12:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is gonna seem like I'm jumping down your throat, but I'm really not trying to. I have a few questions about that close. Hmmm. I've written and rewritten the first questions a few times and I can't seem to come up with anything that suits me, so here goes. I don't think that should have been closed as keep, but I can see where you could have thought so. I'm curious, then, to see what would have made you close that debate as delete, given the large number of keep voices in it? Was it your opinion that sources exists, and so notability was satisfied? Or was it your opinion that the vast majority of editors probably can't be wrong about sourcing existing? I should point out that you are under no...um...obligation to answer those questions. I'm not trying to press you or act as though I can demand an explanation. Lastly, do you think a DRV would be an appropriate route for this close, or do you think that would be fruitless? Thanks for your time.
Protonk (
talk)
14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to delete Adam's Case Files too. It was part of the AfD for "Adam's Case Files Mixtape," and was virtually identical to the forst file. I added it to the AfD discussion when the original author created the article without "mixtape" in a futile attempt to convince us it wasn't a mixtape. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Seicer. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we're in the business of extending blocks because people request unblocking. I'd kindly ask that you reconsider your extension of the block on Prometh3an – it seems an unnecessary escalation. — Werdna • talk 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Why have you closed these AfDs before the 5-day period is out. The Matt Henny one is less than 48-hours old. Unless you close as a speedy keep, they need to stay open longer.
Can you please revert your close? Nfitz ( talk) 16:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:CORP, states, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. WP:MUSIC states, A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. WP:RS, states, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Music charts were submitted. Mass Record Pool, who are located in Boston Mass. They have no affiliation with the label. Illinois Record Pool is an world reknowed record pool servicing the entire world. The label has no affiliation with them. • Gene93k said without warrant, or obviously never verifying anything that the label published those charts theirselves. Those charts came straight from these entities web site and can be easily searched online and anyone who takes this initiative can easily determine that HHN is not affiliated with them in any way. And according to WP:RS. • Gene93k should have explained why those references were rejected. • HHNRecordsPR ( talk) 21: 40:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Protonk ( talk) 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Seicer, you closed a number of SNOW AfD's and deleted the according articles. I think however that you forgot to close the above AfD as well. Since I was the nominator, I would rather not close it myself, to avoid any process wonkery afterwards. Fram ( talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Now you said that 09jcsherrard was blocked indefinetly, but the notice said 31 hours. Can you tell me which it is, please make it clear.
HairyPerry (Talk) HairyPerry 13:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Listen, 09jcsherrard is one of my friends and he is sitting right next to me, you can tell me so he knows for sure. If you can't tell me make it clear for him...would you do that?
HairyPerry (Talk) HairyPerry 14:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude don't be getting smart with me, i was just trying to be cool with my buddy. HairyPerry (Talk) HairyPerry 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what that means man...trolling, and whos account are you talking about I have made useful contributions to a lot of sports teams on Wikipedia, if you talking about me. HairyPerry (Talk) HairyPerry 15:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I have started a thread that you may be interested in. Its about your extention of my block and the violation of WP:CIVIL that is your trainwreck remark.
Please see
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Seicer
«l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»
(talk)
14:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Please undelete the article Javier Flores, the reason ism because is a young filmmaker in my country and is one of the few people who is intrested in making things work for salvadorean cinema.
He is currently working on the show Juventud En Linea broadcasted by channel 10 in El Salvador, he has two years working there and many others working alone, and i have no notice of newspaper or magazine references for him, but it will be added when i found them.
thanks for reading my request and i hope you can undelete the page i created Guasinay50 ( talk) 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
A delete from you, but it's still a blue. RMHED ( talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)