This page is an archive of User Talk:Seresin (or perhaps something else). If you wish to discuss something here, feel free to bring it up again. The history for this page is here, not on the main talk page. Thanks. |
Archives
Until August 2007 —
September 2007 |
I'm sorry, but I did not understand your technical question? Would you please explain? I'm the Wikipedian who has written that Disambiguation page which has been proposed for Deletion by User:Mikkalai. Thanx. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
With sincere pleasure I award you this Wikipedia Barnstar for your recognition and correction of irregularities at Wikipedia. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
Sure--I have no interest in dispute either...I just couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on. Regards-RoBoTam ice 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's happened again: an admin has placed semi-protection on Ayn Rand with the stated goal of silencing the "anonymous" contributors. This time, there's the added claim that one of the anons is a banned user, but not only is this is entirely unsupported by evidence and therefore most likely false, the protection affects ALL anons equally, even the ones known to be innocent, while sparing the signed-in users.
Frankly, I don't think any level of protection is necessary for the article at this time, but if it's going to be protected, let it be protected fully so that there's no bias. For that matter, there's no notice of protection posted in the article and I couldn't find anyplace where this admin announced his actions to other admins, as policy requires. I'm asking that you once again fix this problem. - Bert 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing - whatever it is I have no idea though. cheers. -- Merbabu ( talk) 08:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm back; I see you've got my back. Thanks much. Lar commented on AN that I use a bit of admin resources — and your move log is an example. While I regret this, a lot of that burden would exist somewhere; I just happen to have pissed someone off. Please consider yourself an associate mentor; i.e. I welcome your advice. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You are being mentioned on ANI in regards to your actions on Mykungfu. miranda 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
They are reliable sources and I will continue to re-add the content. If it wasn't reliable it wouldn't appear in more than one place. Do a google search! 69.133.83.124 ( talk) 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I just happened to see it on my watchlist. And thanks for blocking him after "vandalizing after final warning", saved me the trouble of going to WP:AIV. Just wondering, why was that link you gave me on some "secure" webpage?-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions| Guest) 04:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
continues attacks on talk page. Perhaps protection for duration of block? Enigma message 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but why have you deleted the Catty the Cat article, I do not understand. I understand you don't see the importance but it is a TV show that seems interesting. I'd like for you to place Catty the Cat article back on Wikipedia because I do not see the reason for deletion. Herbiesteven93 ( talk) 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming an administrator. -- Alien joe ( talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Seresin. I was wondering why 7 questions are necessary in addition to the 16 the candidate has already answered for you to be able to reach a decision on Avraham's RfB. It increases the load by nearly 50% at a stroke. Surely in your experience of the candidate, their contributions and logs history, the other 16 questions, the lengthy statements etc., there is enough information for you to reach a useful decision. Much like the proliferation on RfAs of late, these look like fairly formulaic questions that aren't going to teach you much and that there is essentially no chance of the very-experienced candidate getting wrong. It just seems a bit like setting the price of your support at answers to 7 of your personal-favourite questions, in a kind of quid pro quo, rather than the broader picture. Splash - tk 13:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Seresin. You'll be pleased to know that I'm dipping my toe(s) into the world of WP:CHU. I'm sorry if I've let the community down by not being the most active 'crat but at least I'm not classified as a genuine "inactive bureaucrat" at WP:BUREAUCRAT. Anyway, I hope to continue to fulfil my responsibilities to the best of my ability. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that :). Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like this to go as smooth as possible and I'm really hoping that the admins would see their way to unblocking me, despite the suicide note (used to distract the stalker I had) and the sockpuppet claims (which are false). Who should I talk to? Vampire Warrior II ( talk) 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Your probably right. However, given that he was edit warring, and edit warring to include a rather insignificant piece of trivia to an article about a living person, to the point of violating BLP, I will reinstate his unblock request. However, I will not unblock him. You or any other admin may unblock him whenever they want. I will raise no objection. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet tag to User talk:UniqueTamil. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 ( talk 2 me) 07:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that, if you look more closely, it turns out that this is not a case of one person reverting against consensus using multiple IP's.
Aside from one random, drive-by vandal, there are only three IP's in use, belong to two consistent "anon" editors. Two of those IP's are used by me, and I shift between them automatically depending on network load. I've made a point of signing my changes with my real first name and have never pretended that the two IP's represent two different people. If I could configure the network to use just one IP, I would, but I can't. The last IP belongs to a person who, while often participating in discussion, has not chosen to sign with a name or anything else, and has informally been called the night owl. Given this, banning us both would be easy. Of course, it would also be wrong.
You see, it's not at all clear that either of us are editing against consensus. We are, however, editing against the false, self-declared "consensus" of like-minded (read: rabid) fans of Rand, who are violating NPOV by removing well-supported criticism. In this, we are joined by J Reading, Lilith and others who have accounts, as well as by the now-banned Edward, who only recently gave up entirely on making this article accurate. The number of people on either side shifts with who chooses to participate during any given period of time, and I don't see that either side has even a plurality, much less a majority or a true consensus.
Therefore, the way to solve this is to either remove the protection on the article or step it up to full, so that the admins do not interfere with the consensus-building process by artificially silencing some members of one faction. - Bert 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's one thing to make a decision, even a wrong one, and take responsibility for that decision. This leaves open the possibility of eventually recognizing your error and fixing it. It's another thing entirely to hide your decision under the guise of neutrality. After all, once you've already gotten involved, getting uninvolved is just an endorsement of the status quo that you've created by your prior actions. So I'm not going to ask you to do the right thing; you've already refused. I'm just going on record to say that you're doing the wrong thing, and doing it the wrong way. I don't imagine you'll agree, much less that you'll learn anything from this. I just have a compulsion to at least state the truth so that it's out there for everyone else but you to see. - Bert 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 ( talk)
Your decision was to correct the injustice caused by one-sided protection. After you fixed it, another admin broke it, but you don't want to "get involved" by fixing it again, even though you're already involved. I do not consider this admirable.
Ryulong is, to be frank, pilloried all over the blogs as among the worst of the worst admins in terms of abuse. Talking to this person would be worse than pointless. Then again, talking to you doesn't appear to be much more productive.
At this point, I've said what I have to say, so I'm done here. Until you grow a conscience, you won't hear from me again. - Bert 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Seresin, how long should I wait to hear about this before figuring that it has fallen through the cracks? Is this being discussed somewhere in bureaucrat-land? If so, and it's some place I can access, could you point me to it? I'm curious to see what the discussion looks like. Frankly, I've started to wonder whether I really want to change to this name. The whole idea was to become more anonymous (without losing my edits-equity), not to attract attention to myself, and although I don't have any enemies that I know of on WP, it's not out the the question that this was done deliberately to me, not randomly, as some kind of retaliation. Well, if the usurpation goes through, I'll take it, but.... anyway, I'd appreciate if you could answer me here, not on my own talk page. Thanks. Djiann ( talk) 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Seresin.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. I wanted to especially thank you for your sequence of detailed and thought-provoking questions that were of help to clarify both the issues and my opinions. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi ( talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I hate to bother you, but the other admin I asked hasnt been seen in over a month and youre the next familiar name on the list. Basically, I noticed a sign saying that you promise to provide a copy of a deleted article upon request. Well I'm here to ask for just that, if you would be so kind. The article is The Unspeakable Vault (of Doom), and I am not sure if I have ever edited it or not, but I remember reading some information in it that isn't anywhere else on the Web. The author of the webcomic has posted in his blog about the deletion of the page, but I dont think he realizes that it can be recovered by an admin. I also think the article deserves a shot at going live again, since the comic has grown beyond the Web and produced some hardcover books as well as other media (including even a film, apparently, though I dont know what the budget of it is), and is more notable now. But if we are going to do that we would have to have the latest version of the article before deletion since it would take a long time to get back to that state. Also, please note that I doubt that I would be the one to revive the article; I just want this information so I can email it to the author of the comic and let him decide what he wants to do. Please write back and let me know if everything is OK with my request. Soap Talk/ Contributions 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I dont know if the software alerted you of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seresin/Admin <--- somebody wrote to you but chose to do it on the wrong page. Soap Talk/ Contributions 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It was 10 keeps against 8 merges, where is the result merge? Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am requesting that user 211.21.238.26 be blocked for a period of ONE YEAR. This user has been repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia, with repeated warnings in April as well as several other warnings. Thanks. Prowikipedians ( talk) 09:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There's been a few comments that the colours on the scoring charts for Dancing with the Stars are less than ideal for a number of reasons (colour differentiation, hurts the eyes, clashes etc) so I've put a proposal for a colour change up here. Obviously other suggestions are welcome, but I do think a change of some sort should be considered... and this seems like a good time (now that we're officially in between seasons and the articles are stable). As you've shown interest in the past, I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI. -- Van helsing ( talk) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of User Talk:Seresin (or perhaps something else). If you wish to discuss something here, feel free to bring it up again. The history for this page is here, not on the main talk page. Thanks. |
Archives
Until August 2007 —
September 2007 |
I'm sorry, but I did not understand your technical question? Would you please explain? I'm the Wikipedian who has written that Disambiguation page which has been proposed for Deletion by User:Mikkalai. Thanx. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
With sincere pleasure I award you this Wikipedia Barnstar for your recognition and correction of irregularities at Wikipedia. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
Sure--I have no interest in dispute either...I just couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on. Regards-RoBoTam ice 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's happened again: an admin has placed semi-protection on Ayn Rand with the stated goal of silencing the "anonymous" contributors. This time, there's the added claim that one of the anons is a banned user, but not only is this is entirely unsupported by evidence and therefore most likely false, the protection affects ALL anons equally, even the ones known to be innocent, while sparing the signed-in users.
Frankly, I don't think any level of protection is necessary for the article at this time, but if it's going to be protected, let it be protected fully so that there's no bias. For that matter, there's no notice of protection posted in the article and I couldn't find anyplace where this admin announced his actions to other admins, as policy requires. I'm asking that you once again fix this problem. - Bert 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing - whatever it is I have no idea though. cheers. -- Merbabu ( talk) 08:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm back; I see you've got my back. Thanks much. Lar commented on AN that I use a bit of admin resources — and your move log is an example. While I regret this, a lot of that burden would exist somewhere; I just happen to have pissed someone off. Please consider yourself an associate mentor; i.e. I welcome your advice. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You are being mentioned on ANI in regards to your actions on Mykungfu. miranda 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
They are reliable sources and I will continue to re-add the content. If it wasn't reliable it wouldn't appear in more than one place. Do a google search! 69.133.83.124 ( talk) 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I just happened to see it on my watchlist. And thanks for blocking him after "vandalizing after final warning", saved me the trouble of going to WP:AIV. Just wondering, why was that link you gave me on some "secure" webpage?-- Sunny910910 ( talk| Contributions| Guest) 04:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
continues attacks on talk page. Perhaps protection for duration of block? Enigma message 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but why have you deleted the Catty the Cat article, I do not understand. I understand you don't see the importance but it is a TV show that seems interesting. I'd like for you to place Catty the Cat article back on Wikipedia because I do not see the reason for deletion. Herbiesteven93 ( talk) 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming an administrator. -- Alien joe ( talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Seresin. I was wondering why 7 questions are necessary in addition to the 16 the candidate has already answered for you to be able to reach a decision on Avraham's RfB. It increases the load by nearly 50% at a stroke. Surely in your experience of the candidate, their contributions and logs history, the other 16 questions, the lengthy statements etc., there is enough information for you to reach a useful decision. Much like the proliferation on RfAs of late, these look like fairly formulaic questions that aren't going to teach you much and that there is essentially no chance of the very-experienced candidate getting wrong. It just seems a bit like setting the price of your support at answers to 7 of your personal-favourite questions, in a kind of quid pro quo, rather than the broader picture. Splash - tk 13:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Seresin. You'll be pleased to know that I'm dipping my toe(s) into the world of WP:CHU. I'm sorry if I've let the community down by not being the most active 'crat but at least I'm not classified as a genuine "inactive bureaucrat" at WP:BUREAUCRAT. Anyway, I hope to continue to fulfil my responsibilities to the best of my ability. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting that :). Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like this to go as smooth as possible and I'm really hoping that the admins would see their way to unblocking me, despite the suicide note (used to distract the stalker I had) and the sockpuppet claims (which are false). Who should I talk to? Vampire Warrior II ( talk) 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Your probably right. However, given that he was edit warring, and edit warring to include a rather insignificant piece of trivia to an article about a living person, to the point of violating BLP, I will reinstate his unblock request. However, I will not unblock him. You or any other admin may unblock him whenever they want. I will raise no objection. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet tag to User talk:UniqueTamil. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 ( talk 2 me) 07:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that, if you look more closely, it turns out that this is not a case of one person reverting against consensus using multiple IP's.
Aside from one random, drive-by vandal, there are only three IP's in use, belong to two consistent "anon" editors. Two of those IP's are used by me, and I shift between them automatically depending on network load. I've made a point of signing my changes with my real first name and have never pretended that the two IP's represent two different people. If I could configure the network to use just one IP, I would, but I can't. The last IP belongs to a person who, while often participating in discussion, has not chosen to sign with a name or anything else, and has informally been called the night owl. Given this, banning us both would be easy. Of course, it would also be wrong.
You see, it's not at all clear that either of us are editing against consensus. We are, however, editing against the false, self-declared "consensus" of like-minded (read: rabid) fans of Rand, who are violating NPOV by removing well-supported criticism. In this, we are joined by J Reading, Lilith and others who have accounts, as well as by the now-banned Edward, who only recently gave up entirely on making this article accurate. The number of people on either side shifts with who chooses to participate during any given period of time, and I don't see that either side has even a plurality, much less a majority or a true consensus.
Therefore, the way to solve this is to either remove the protection on the article or step it up to full, so that the admins do not interfere with the consensus-building process by artificially silencing some members of one faction. - Bert 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's one thing to make a decision, even a wrong one, and take responsibility for that decision. This leaves open the possibility of eventually recognizing your error and fixing it. It's another thing entirely to hide your decision under the guise of neutrality. After all, once you've already gotten involved, getting uninvolved is just an endorsement of the status quo that you've created by your prior actions. So I'm not going to ask you to do the right thing; you've already refused. I'm just going on record to say that you're doing the wrong thing, and doing it the wrong way. I don't imagine you'll agree, much less that you'll learn anything from this. I just have a compulsion to at least state the truth so that it's out there for everyone else but you to see. - Bert 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 ( talk)
Your decision was to correct the injustice caused by one-sided protection. After you fixed it, another admin broke it, but you don't want to "get involved" by fixing it again, even though you're already involved. I do not consider this admirable.
Ryulong is, to be frank, pilloried all over the blogs as among the worst of the worst admins in terms of abuse. Talking to this person would be worse than pointless. Then again, talking to you doesn't appear to be much more productive.
At this point, I've said what I have to say, so I'm done here. Until you grow a conscience, you won't hear from me again. - Bert 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Seresin, how long should I wait to hear about this before figuring that it has fallen through the cracks? Is this being discussed somewhere in bureaucrat-land? If so, and it's some place I can access, could you point me to it? I'm curious to see what the discussion looks like. Frankly, I've started to wonder whether I really want to change to this name. The whole idea was to become more anonymous (without losing my edits-equity), not to attract attention to myself, and although I don't have any enemies that I know of on WP, it's not out the the question that this was done deliberately to me, not randomly, as some kind of retaliation. Well, if the usurpation goes through, I'll take it, but.... anyway, I'd appreciate if you could answer me here, not on my own talk page. Thanks. Djiann ( talk) 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Seresin.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. I wanted to especially thank you for your sequence of detailed and thought-provoking questions that were of help to clarify both the issues and my opinions. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi ( talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I hate to bother you, but the other admin I asked hasnt been seen in over a month and youre the next familiar name on the list. Basically, I noticed a sign saying that you promise to provide a copy of a deleted article upon request. Well I'm here to ask for just that, if you would be so kind. The article is The Unspeakable Vault (of Doom), and I am not sure if I have ever edited it or not, but I remember reading some information in it that isn't anywhere else on the Web. The author of the webcomic has posted in his blog about the deletion of the page, but I dont think he realizes that it can be recovered by an admin. I also think the article deserves a shot at going live again, since the comic has grown beyond the Web and produced some hardcover books as well as other media (including even a film, apparently, though I dont know what the budget of it is), and is more notable now. But if we are going to do that we would have to have the latest version of the article before deletion since it would take a long time to get back to that state. Also, please note that I doubt that I would be the one to revive the article; I just want this information so I can email it to the author of the comic and let him decide what he wants to do. Please write back and let me know if everything is OK with my request. Soap Talk/ Contributions 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I dont know if the software alerted you of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seresin/Admin <--- somebody wrote to you but chose to do it on the wrong page. Soap Talk/ Contributions 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It was 10 keeps against 8 merges, where is the result merge? Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am requesting that user 211.21.238.26 be blocked for a period of ONE YEAR. This user has been repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia, with repeated warnings in April as well as several other warnings. Thanks. Prowikipedians ( talk) 09:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
There's been a few comments that the colours on the scoring charts for Dancing with the Stars are less than ideal for a number of reasons (colour differentiation, hurts the eyes, clashes etc) so I've put a proposal for a colour change up here. Obviously other suggestions are welcome, but I do think a change of some sort should be considered... and this seems like a good time (now that we're officially in between seasons and the articles are stable). As you've shown interest in the past, I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI. -- Van helsing ( talk) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)