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. |
MAPPER is such an overwhelming technology, (never had the chance to read the article), though it should realy be on wiki. you should've atleast writen a deletion log. Ismahill ( talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please tell me why you deleted my article? As far as I can tell there was no problem with it. Thanks!
Jedimaster3410 ( talk) 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)jedimaster3410
Not that I disagree with the outcome, given that I'm the creator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trypophobia, but aren't you supposed to wait five days before deletion, or otherwise explain the hastier deletion? Likewise for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT Project Management Conflict management. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Seicer
I just noticed that you closed a whole bunch of Spring family AfDs (there's more, BTW: see my list here). I'm delighted to see them deleted, because I firmly believe that the correct response to a hoaxer is to promptly delete their work and allow honest editors to make a fresh start on the subject if they want to.
However, I am not sure that "speedy delete" was the appropriate label, because WP:CSD#A1 specifically excludes hoaxes. Would it perhaps have been better to have done a WP:SNOW closure?
I'm not trying to nitpick, just hoping to alert you to possible criticism from anyone inclined to nitpick. Hope this helps ... and if not, please ignore!
Best wishes, -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but you are wasting valuable editors' time. The courteous thing to do is to not nominate articles for deletion in areas you don't know. Or at least post something, say a question, where there's an editor community which could respond. And please don't quote WP:ALPHABETSOUP in response. Thank you. PetersV TALK 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yo, can you check the deleted version of this and see if it claims that Dean Fertita is a member? If so, that would be an assertion of notability per WP:BAND and the article may be salvageable. Regards, Skomorokh 07:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
While I myself am inclined towards the non-notability of Lucrezia Lerro - and was waiting for a bit of free time to do some little research before participating in the deletion debate - I must observe that just two people contributed to the debate. In fact, the third voter is the proposer of the deletion. I do not object to your closure, but I would have perhaps waited for some more opinions. Greetings, Goochelaar ( talk) 15:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I created 1929 world leaders. Please restore, thanks. -- Kendrick7 talk 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Seicer, I saw your deletion of the history of Muthappa Rai. It was a good idea. Maybe you can do the same for the other two because they were edited by user:59.165.249.102 and contain egregious wp:blp violations buried in the history. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 14:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to go about this, so I figured I would do to an admin that I trust to help me with this. I noted a new article Rise to Money] created earlier today doing New Page Patrol, and was looking into whether it was notable, etc. Looking into everything it seems there might be a walled garden goin on here with that album, the artist ( Yung Mercury), the production company ( Bald Eagles Inc.) and another album associated with them. None of the info posted about the artist could be verified, and I'm thinking I stumbled across either a hoax, or, assuming some bad faith here, someone promoting their musical career. What I'd like to know is how should I go about trying to correct this, like I said I'm finding it difficult/impossible to verify info in the articles, and I'm wondering if bringing up a number of articles that have been around for months to AfD would set up red flags. Anyway, I know to be bold, sometimes though, it's better to look THEN leap. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 19:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Digwuren has again resorted to personal attacks against you, which you can see at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Digwuren_reported_by_Russavia_.28Result:_.29. You may want to say something there. -- Russavia Dialogue 11:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Please ignore User:Russavia. If I had meant to malign you personally, I had added a link. As I didn't, you can rest assured that I have nothing personal against you.
The ambiguity in "some clown" is there for a reason. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I added a copy of the history with contributors on the talk page to comply with the GFDL. I hope you don't mind. Regards, Cenarium ( talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, and appreciate your point, even if you are mis-referencing WP:TE, and asserting that by simply dealing with (or trying to) all of the things coming at me (discussing AFD's, speedy deletions, ANI's, and accusations of "behavior"), I'm somehow in danger of being blocked. I'm expressing myself by usage of comments on the appropriate pages, and am well aware of how policy/process abuse can manifest itself in an attempted block (it has before). That section you deleted BTW was improperly moved by Grsz, effectively serving to deprecate it. I moved it back, but forgot to deal with the headers. I corrected that. Regards, - Ste vertigo 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
With respect to [1], you have not only blocked this user's ability to post, but everyone else who isn't an admin. This doesn't really help the situation. — BQZip01 — talk 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you have a look at Dalej78 ( talk · contribs · logs) latest activities? It's getting disruptive. Thanks. Tvoz/ talk 02:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I removed Speedy Delete tags from an article two days into AfD, and that already had been tagged for speedy and then was taken off by a different user. Let me know if you think this is somehow appropriate, and if it's truly my behavior that is inappropriate, rather than user "Bali ultimate". Thank you. Ks64q2 ( talk) 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The word 'spastic' should only be used to refer to a person suffering from that disability. I find it offensive to use the term as a pejorative. Please reconsider. Also, I would greatly appreciate it if, if you choose not to respond, that you would inform me in a clearer manner than an edit summary. Many thanks. -- Chzz ► 13:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I consider "spastic" to be an attack, fwiw. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 14:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see a very good reason why you want to insist on using a word others find offensive? You may not find it offensive, but others certainly do. Policy discourages (if not bans) this as well. So I want to hear a very good reason. -- Cat chi? 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Whilst you probably couldn't have been expected to know it, this might give you an idea of the problem with the word. Can you please redact it? Thanks, Black Kite 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've raised this here -- Chzz ► 20:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Seicer. Could you possibly reword this response to make it a little less abrupt. Given that this is likely the subject of the article and that we have collectively done him a severe injustice, I think he should be treated with exceptional courtesy. In truth, I suspect the actual correct answer would relate the fact that the account is not yet autoconfirmed. WP:COI neither prevents nor prohibits subjects from editing their own articles, as your response, given its brevity, could be mistaken to imply. CIreland ( talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:AN#IP blocked indef. – xeno ( talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice you've had your talk page protected for quite some time now. Perhaps consider lowering it, or creating a talk page where non-autoconfirmed users can contact you (with a conspicuous pointer to such a page somewhere in your talk page header). – xeno ( talk) 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Good call on the IP :) [3] -- lucasbfr talk 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you please have a look on Kim Schmitz again? User:Tturner2009 insists on reverting to his "revised version" - he just added some false references to his text and ignores every discussion. -- 78.34.4.52 ( talk) 08:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up. -- Srikeit 10:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Seicer. I am very concerned about your recent edits such as this one. I believe you are taking the guideline too far. For example, in that specific entry you removed information that was neither contentious nor added in bad faith. If you believe it to be wrong then find a reference to prove its veracity. Removing information such as this means that useful additions by inexperienced or IP users will be wasted. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Before I came across this discussion I reverted your removal of valid information from the Andrés Ricardo Aimar article specifically the sentence "He started his career with River Plate and has played for other Argentine clubs including Belgrano de Córdoba.". This information is not contentious enough for immediate removal even if it wasn't verified by an external link on the article.
Even if it were completely unverified, a {{cn}} tag would be more appropriate than immediate deletion. Please take more care to view the external links and to consider whether the material you are about to delete actually qualifies as "contentious material". Regerds King of the North East 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I find your attitude unhelpful, I disagree with your ultra-deletionist stance and your implication that I am doing the wrong thing. Find me one editor that has done more to improve Argentine football biographies with the introduction of external links, references, sources, infoboxes, appropriate categories and the removal of vandalism than myself (pick a few articles at random here and check the edit history). There are over 1,500 Argentine football biographies to maintain, only about half a dozen editors contribute on a regular basis to the WP:ArF area. I have done my best to ensure that they all have an infobox and at least one reliable source/external link. King of the North East 01:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Can you please transwiki List of Ranma ½ minor characters to wikia:annex:List of Ranma ½ minor characters? Thanks! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 01:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The Rod Dreher article was deleted and then restored so that some offensive edits could be purged from its history. In the process, it seemingly lost its semi-protected status. Do you think it should be semi-protected again? Soap Talk/ Contributions 12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify what it is about this article that might not be appropriately encyclopedic? I'd like to improve it in this respect if possible. Please reply on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Himatsu Bushi ( talk) 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You work for Xavier, sorry. Even worse though, you live in Cincinasty. Grsz 11 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm keeping my paws off the Rice University-related articles until the brouhaha blows over. However, User:Sergio1337 reverted similar trivia-removal edits made by User:Black Kite at other Rice articles. Madcoverboy ( talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi sEICER, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius ( talk) 06:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Seicer, the heated argument that led to the repetitive reverting of edits at the Rice University residential college articles has now subsided, and improvements are being made to all the articles as a whole. The final step of the discussion is simply whether or not to merge all the articles into one large list, or to keep them as separate entities, which does not affect their content. Would you mind removing the block on the Baker college article, so that the other editors and I can bring it up to standard with the rest of the articles? I appreciate it. AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy ( talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
March 30, 2009 was not Tuesday - that is not unsourced original research, but a plain fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Optfx ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
While your reasoning of wanting to resign from admin duties to focus on content is the same reason why I have never wanted to be an admin, I will say your hand on the tools will be missed. --David Shankbone 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi seicer, don't know whether you remember me or not. Well I have a little problem while editing. Previously when I edited anything, the template boxes which had wiki symbols as well as Latin and Greek symbols were activated so that when I cliked on it it will be added in the edit area. But now the templates are there but somehow deactivated. I can't click on them and add. Could you help me out on this one? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you have already contributed to the Discussion page for Kim Schmitz profile talk:Kim_Schmitz, I would like to request your comment on the recent changes that incorporate open collaboration with interested editors. It would be very helpful to receive input from you on the next step. My current intention is to upload the revised content to the main 'Article' page within two days if no further comment is received in that time.-- Tturner2009 ( talk) 11:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI. rootology ( C)( T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Seicer. I hope all is well with you. I know that you retired but I was hoping you would comment here if you had the time. I'm pretty sure if you look at User:Felix 12 22 you will have no doubt it is in fact USEDfan. Every thing from the way he edits, the edits themselves, how he behaves when called a sock, to the username is all the same. Also the fact that The Used related pages is all he edits. User:Raul654 ran a checkuser on USEDfan back in January and uncovered several sleeper socks, and performed some blocks to try and stop him. I asked for Raul to look into this, although I don't know if he will or not. I was hoping he was quacking loud enough to be dealt with the old-fashioned way. Have a good day. Landon1980 ( talk) 12:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
File:DSCN2388.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:US 60 SPUI interchange.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:US 60 SPUI interchange.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 19:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
sockabuse continuing. I can't deal with it anymore. Please help. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The article is complete, factual, neutral, and has 79 references...not from fan sites and all the referenced material is in my possesion. Chevrolet Engineering reports, Chevrolet literature, Auto press including Collectable Automobile, etc. I was informed it is close to feature quality. Your deletion of the DeLorean section remains deleted and the Showroom stock section has been revised and re-inserted, but if you completely rearrange the article again, I will only put it back so don't waste your time. Another thing-instead of rearranging to your personal taste, re-write some of the poorly written auto articles on this site. I've been busy doing that. Don't re-write? then rearrange something that really needs help. Vegavairbob ( talk) 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you may wish to weigh in here. rootology ( C)( T) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Seicer/Archive 15 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I fully support your suggestion of someone going through Request for Admin and if they refuse going to Arb Com. I didn't know about Arb Com until a few days ago but is very appropriate in this case. you may also notice in this that to cover up a bad close, he asked the closing admin to restore the article as a disambig page then other editors went back and returned the original article to its original state which made me do a 2nd [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination)}|AfD]] which wasted a lot of good editor's time. LibStar ( talk) 14:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thks for the edit and let me know if you are happy with this ( personally i believe that this revised version is much inferior) but i am not the only one here so i will not change your edits. do you agree to remove the delete notice and close the subject from now on , thsk and have fun.!!!-- Netquantum ( talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (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. |
MAPPER is such an overwhelming technology, (never had the chance to read the article), though it should realy be on wiki. you should've atleast writen a deletion log. Ismahill ( talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Could you please tell me why you deleted my article? As far as I can tell there was no problem with it. Thanks!
Jedimaster3410 ( talk) 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)jedimaster3410
Not that I disagree with the outcome, given that I'm the creator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trypophobia, but aren't you supposed to wait five days before deletion, or otherwise explain the hastier deletion? Likewise for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT Project Management Conflict management. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Seicer
I just noticed that you closed a whole bunch of Spring family AfDs (there's more, BTW: see my list here). I'm delighted to see them deleted, because I firmly believe that the correct response to a hoaxer is to promptly delete their work and allow honest editors to make a fresh start on the subject if they want to.
However, I am not sure that "speedy delete" was the appropriate label, because WP:CSD#A1 specifically excludes hoaxes. Would it perhaps have been better to have done a WP:SNOW closure?
I'm not trying to nitpick, just hoping to alert you to possible criticism from anyone inclined to nitpick. Hope this helps ... and if not, please ignore!
Best wishes, -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, but you are wasting valuable editors' time. The courteous thing to do is to not nominate articles for deletion in areas you don't know. Or at least post something, say a question, where there's an editor community which could respond. And please don't quote WP:ALPHABETSOUP in response. Thank you. PetersV TALK 00:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Yo, can you check the deleted version of this and see if it claims that Dean Fertita is a member? If so, that would be an assertion of notability per WP:BAND and the article may be salvageable. Regards, Skomorokh 07:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
While I myself am inclined towards the non-notability of Lucrezia Lerro - and was waiting for a bit of free time to do some little research before participating in the deletion debate - I must observe that just two people contributed to the debate. In fact, the third voter is the proposer of the deletion. I do not object to your closure, but I would have perhaps waited for some more opinions. Greetings, Goochelaar ( talk) 15:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I created 1929 world leaders. Please restore, thanks. -- Kendrick7 talk 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Seicer, I saw your deletion of the history of Muthappa Rai. It was a good idea. Maybe you can do the same for the other two because they were edited by user:59.165.249.102 and contain egregious wp:blp violations buried in the history. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 14:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to go about this, so I figured I would do to an admin that I trust to help me with this. I noted a new article Rise to Money] created earlier today doing New Page Patrol, and was looking into whether it was notable, etc. Looking into everything it seems there might be a walled garden goin on here with that album, the artist ( Yung Mercury), the production company ( Bald Eagles Inc.) and another album associated with them. None of the info posted about the artist could be verified, and I'm thinking I stumbled across either a hoax, or, assuming some bad faith here, someone promoting their musical career. What I'd like to know is how should I go about trying to correct this, like I said I'm finding it difficult/impossible to verify info in the articles, and I'm wondering if bringing up a number of articles that have been around for months to AfD would set up red flags. Anyway, I know to be bold, sometimes though, it's better to look THEN leap. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 19:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Digwuren has again resorted to personal attacks against you, which you can see at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Digwuren_reported_by_Russavia_.28Result:_.29. You may want to say something there. -- Russavia Dialogue 11:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Please ignore User:Russavia. If I had meant to malign you personally, I had added a link. As I didn't, you can rest assured that I have nothing personal against you.
The ambiguity in "some clown" is there for a reason. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I added a copy of the history with contributors on the talk page to comply with the GFDL. I hope you don't mind. Regards, Cenarium ( talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, and appreciate your point, even if you are mis-referencing WP:TE, and asserting that by simply dealing with (or trying to) all of the things coming at me (discussing AFD's, speedy deletions, ANI's, and accusations of "behavior"), I'm somehow in danger of being blocked. I'm expressing myself by usage of comments on the appropriate pages, and am well aware of how policy/process abuse can manifest itself in an attempted block (it has before). That section you deleted BTW was improperly moved by Grsz, effectively serving to deprecate it. I moved it back, but forgot to deal with the headers. I corrected that. Regards, - Ste vertigo 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 15:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
With respect to [1], you have not only blocked this user's ability to post, but everyone else who isn't an admin. This doesn't really help the situation. — BQZip01 — talk 21:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you have a look at Dalej78 ( talk · contribs · logs) latest activities? It's getting disruptive. Thanks. Tvoz/ talk 02:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I removed Speedy Delete tags from an article two days into AfD, and that already had been tagged for speedy and then was taken off by a different user. Let me know if you think this is somehow appropriate, and if it's truly my behavior that is inappropriate, rather than user "Bali ultimate". Thank you. Ks64q2 ( talk) 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The word 'spastic' should only be used to refer to a person suffering from that disability. I find it offensive to use the term as a pejorative. Please reconsider. Also, I would greatly appreciate it if, if you choose not to respond, that you would inform me in a clearer manner than an edit summary. Many thanks. -- Chzz ► 13:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I consider "spastic" to be an attack, fwiw. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 14:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see a very good reason why you want to insist on using a word others find offensive? You may not find it offensive, but others certainly do. Policy discourages (if not bans) this as well. So I want to hear a very good reason. -- Cat chi? 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Whilst you probably couldn't have been expected to know it, this might give you an idea of the problem with the word. Can you please redact it? Thanks, Black Kite 20:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've raised this here -- Chzz ► 20:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Seicer. Could you possibly reword this response to make it a little less abrupt. Given that this is likely the subject of the article and that we have collectively done him a severe injustice, I think he should be treated with exceptional courtesy. In truth, I suspect the actual correct answer would relate the fact that the account is not yet autoconfirmed. WP:COI neither prevents nor prohibits subjects from editing their own articles, as your response, given its brevity, could be mistaken to imply. CIreland ( talk) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:AN#IP blocked indef. – xeno ( talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice you've had your talk page protected for quite some time now. Perhaps consider lowering it, or creating a talk page where non-autoconfirmed users can contact you (with a conspicuous pointer to such a page somewhere in your talk page header). – xeno ( talk) 20:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Good call on the IP :) [3] -- lucasbfr talk 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you please have a look on Kim Schmitz again? User:Tturner2009 insists on reverting to his "revised version" - he just added some false references to his text and ignores every discussion. -- 78.34.4.52 ( talk) 08:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up. -- Srikeit 10:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Seicer. I am very concerned about your recent edits such as this one. I believe you are taking the guideline too far. For example, in that specific entry you removed information that was neither contentious nor added in bad faith. If you believe it to be wrong then find a reference to prove its veracity. Removing information such as this means that useful additions by inexperienced or IP users will be wasted. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 20:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Before I came across this discussion I reverted your removal of valid information from the Andrés Ricardo Aimar article specifically the sentence "He started his career with River Plate and has played for other Argentine clubs including Belgrano de Córdoba.". This information is not contentious enough for immediate removal even if it wasn't verified by an external link on the article.
Even if it were completely unverified, a {{cn}} tag would be more appropriate than immediate deletion. Please take more care to view the external links and to consider whether the material you are about to delete actually qualifies as "contentious material". Regerds King of the North East 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I find your attitude unhelpful, I disagree with your ultra-deletionist stance and your implication that I am doing the wrong thing. Find me one editor that has done more to improve Argentine football biographies with the introduction of external links, references, sources, infoboxes, appropriate categories and the removal of vandalism than myself (pick a few articles at random here and check the edit history). There are over 1,500 Argentine football biographies to maintain, only about half a dozen editors contribute on a regular basis to the WP:ArF area. I have done my best to ensure that they all have an infobox and at least one reliable source/external link. King of the North East 01:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Can you please transwiki List of Ranma ½ minor characters to wikia:annex:List of Ranma ½ minor characters? Thanks! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 01:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The Rod Dreher article was deleted and then restored so that some offensive edits could be purged from its history. In the process, it seemingly lost its semi-protected status. Do you think it should be semi-protected again? Soap Talk/ Contributions 12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you clarify what it is about this article that might not be appropriately encyclopedic? I'd like to improve it in this respect if possible. Please reply on the talk page of the article. Thanks. Himatsu Bushi ( talk) 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You work for Xavier, sorry. Even worse though, you live in Cincinasty. Grsz 11 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm keeping my paws off the Rice University-related articles until the brouhaha blows over. However, User:Sergio1337 reverted similar trivia-removal edits made by User:Black Kite at other Rice articles. Madcoverboy ( talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi sEICER, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius ( talk) 06:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Seicer, the heated argument that led to the repetitive reverting of edits at the Rice University residential college articles has now subsided, and improvements are being made to all the articles as a whole. The final step of the discussion is simply whether or not to merge all the articles into one large list, or to keep them as separate entities, which does not affect their content. Would you mind removing the block on the Baker college article, so that the other editors and I can bring it up to standard with the rest of the articles? I appreciate it. AniRaptor2001 ( talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy ( talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
March 30, 2009 was not Tuesday - that is not unsourced original research, but a plain fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Optfx ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
While your reasoning of wanting to resign from admin duties to focus on content is the same reason why I have never wanted to be an admin, I will say your hand on the tools will be missed. --David Shankbone 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi seicer, don't know whether you remember me or not. Well I have a little problem while editing. Previously when I edited anything, the template boxes which had wiki symbols as well as Latin and Greek symbols were activated so that when I cliked on it it will be added in the edit area. But now the templates are there but somehow deactivated. I can't click on them and add. Could you help me out on this one? --Legolas (talk2me) 11:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you have already contributed to the Discussion page for Kim Schmitz profile talk:Kim_Schmitz, I would like to request your comment on the recent changes that incorporate open collaboration with interested editors. It would be very helpful to receive input from you on the next step. My current intention is to upload the revised content to the main 'Article' page within two days if no further comment is received in that time.-- Tturner2009 ( talk) 11:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI. rootology ( C)( T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Seicer. I hope all is well with you. I know that you retired but I was hoping you would comment here if you had the time. I'm pretty sure if you look at User:Felix 12 22 you will have no doubt it is in fact USEDfan. Every thing from the way he edits, the edits themselves, how he behaves when called a sock, to the username is all the same. Also the fact that The Used related pages is all he edits. User:Raul654 ran a checkuser on USEDfan back in January and uncovered several sleeper socks, and performed some blocks to try and stop him. I asked for Raul to look into this, although I don't know if he will or not. I was hoping he was quacking loud enough to be dealt with the old-fashioned way. Have a good day. Landon1980 ( talk) 12:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my
"RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (
Ceoil,
Noroton and
Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read
Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
File:DSCN2388.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:US 60 SPUI interchange.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:US 60 SPUI interchange.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 19:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
sockabuse continuing. I can't deal with it anymore. Please help. --Legolas (talk2me) 11:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The article is complete, factual, neutral, and has 79 references...not from fan sites and all the referenced material is in my possesion. Chevrolet Engineering reports, Chevrolet literature, Auto press including Collectable Automobile, etc. I was informed it is close to feature quality. Your deletion of the DeLorean section remains deleted and the Showroom stock section has been revised and re-inserted, but if you completely rearrange the article again, I will only put it back so don't waste your time. Another thing-instead of rearranging to your personal taste, re-write some of the poorly written auto articles on this site. I've been busy doing that. Don't re-write? then rearrange something that really needs help. Vegavairbob ( talk) 04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you may wish to weigh in here. rootology ( C)( T) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Seicer/Archive 15 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I fully support your suggestion of someone going through Request for Admin and if they refuse going to Arb Com. I didn't know about Arb Com until a few days ago but is very appropriate in this case. you may also notice in this that to cover up a bad close, he asked the closing admin to restore the article as a disambig page then other editors went back and returned the original article to its original state which made me do a 2nd [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations (2nd nomination)}|AfD]] which wasted a lot of good editor's time. LibStar ( talk) 14:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thks for the edit and let me know if you are happy with this ( personally i believe that this revised version is much inferior) but i am not the only one here so i will not change your edits. do you agree to remove the delete notice and close the subject from now on , thsk and have fun.!!!-- Netquantum ( talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)