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 there. You closed the AfD for "Michael Sandefer" yesterday, but you forgot to take Michael sandefer (lowercase 's') with it. – SJL 03:27, 12 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)

I should have added that the articles were being snowed in. The "5-day-period" is not a binding date; if it is reasonable to judge that the article is going downhill (or uphill) fast, with solid arguments, then one can infer that it could be closed speedily. Deletion review is where you would need to take it. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence that Matt Henny is notable given articles such as [1]. Under WP:SNOW "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause". I'm not sure that simply closing a debate after less than 48-hours when the only people who have commented are the usual "Me too" crowd, who have simply parroted the nominator. The contestion on the prod was that he met WP:BIO, however the nominator simply argued that he didn't meet WP:ATHLETE ignoring that he meets WP:BIO, despite it being long established that WP:BIO trumps WP:ATHLETE. As for Semih Aydilek - I don't think a case could be made - but I still think it is proper that the 5-day period should be carried out for these borderline cases - he's signed for Championship team, if he were ever to play then a very-fine line would be crossed and the article would be back without objection. Nfitz ( talk) 17:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Seicer. How about re-listing both AfDs, for a new 5-day interval? The deletion will probably go through anyway, and we will have saved some extra process. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. seicer | talk | contribs 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Don't forget to take them out of the original logs and put them in the Sept. 12 deletion log. ( WP:RELIST). I am obviously an authority, I have never relisted anything :-). EdJohnston ( talk) 18:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I can't find the damn things :P seicer | talk | contribs 00:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

At great trouble and expense, I have found and deleted the entries in the old logs. (It helps to have a browser that can do searches in wiki text, which alas Safari can't do). Also I added {{subst:relist}} to the Henney discussion, which looks quite official. Relisting is more fun than I thought, but has many steps! I wonder if Twinkle can do this automatically. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd thing is, I did multiple searches in the logs and could not find it listed. I think there is a plug-in to make searching in Wikipedia much easier and I should probably install it. I've been so busy today that all I have had time to do is peacemeal edits. And yes, Twinkle adding this functionality would be a lot easier! seicer | talk | contribs 01:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seicer, will you look at this and take whatever action you think is appropriate? This user has been disruptive from day one, mainly regarding genre related edits. He/she removes sourced edits and adds back unsourced. User has received a block in the past for this and has been warned by multiple users. He/she is now manipulating their talk page warnings and vandalizing multiple articles i.e. [2] [3] [4] [5]. Landon1980 ( talk) 04:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't know better I'd wondering whether you forgot to log-in as your Kurt Weber sock before making that last comment at AFD. ;) Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to notify you that both Pedro and I have agreed that Octaviusc is probably an SPA. I hope you didn't count that vote. I'm going to file a RCU sometime soon to check it out. Cheers, — §unday b 01:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to say which AFD! Sorry, this one. :) — §unday b 01:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I found that article while patrolling the ass end of the new pages queue (I wonder how it was missed). I've been sending hoaxes to AFD because I've always thought that an assertion of notability is an assertion of notability, even if you don't buy it. Perhaps I should propose that CSD A7 be changed to "reasonable good faith" assertion of notability before someone creates an article saying that "Joe Shmoe Huckleberry" in Hicksville Georgia is "Jesus Christ".

In practice, I've noticed other new page patrollers tagging hoaxes G3. That's probably what would have happened if this article was caught when created. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, not that I mind, because this article seems to be heavily vandalized as a rule, but could you explain why you semi-protected it? Just curious. Thanks, -- Figureskatingfan ( talk) 04:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Disney Vandal issues, until we can get a rangeblock (which I'm not terribly effective at) or resolution at the school. I just don't want to protect one article and then have the issue crop up somewhere else. seicer | talk | contribs 04:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Visual gallery of toucans. 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. Nikola ( talk) 05:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

From the ANI/DRV thread and your recreation for G11 speedy I gather that A7 is unacceptable for products or, well, physical objects of any kind. Which is, embarrassingly, news to me; just goes to show you shouldn't assume too much. From the comments on those threads I also gather that expanding A7 is a debate that has seen some action. But my question is an innocent one, because I really don't know: are there any speedy criteria are categories that can be applied to products? Or, to bring it home to this example: if there hadn't been blatant advertising, which CSD category could I have used? 9Nak ( talk) 06:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G11: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

Entity in this instance was inteperted as the monster truck and the company or organization that the user ran to promote the truck. seicer | talk | contribs 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Think I see what you mean. entity is very broad but exclusively promote is very narrow, so the force remains in balance. Time to rethink my use, clearly. Thanks for the help. 9Nak ( talk) 12:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot with CSD that is pretty unclear or unambitious. It's about time that we receive clarifications, because these issues occur on an almost daily basis. I'm only guessing that 'entity' isn't exclusive to corporate products and the like. seicer | talk | contribs 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• ---Comment On Seicer's Behaviour In This Matter Also Sent To 9Nak---

Hello 9Nak, I have noticed your user name at the bottom of countless posts here on Wikipedia, (including a post on Seicer's talk page concerning my truck) so I'm going to assume that you are an administrator of high standing. I wanted to ask your thoughts on the creation of my first page, and specifically, the unprovoked bullying and attacks I have recieved from Seicer after posting said page. Eventually these insults and accusations brought me to the point where I felt forced to drop the topic, but I would like to address some of the comments made by Seicer in the hope that those new to Wikipedia are treated with respect and given the process they deserve.

First of all, referring to a new users first page, and I quote Seicer here, as 'crap' is uncalled for and not very helpful. To address some of his other statements, the reason I initially posted this page was not for promotional or advertising purposes, as this truck is an innovation in the monster truck industry with an all new concept and design. No mere 'hobby', it was created with the input of monster truck veterans and experts in the field, costing tens of thousands of dollars. It was not created and posted on Wikipedia to permorm as a simple 'link' to a YouTube video. It was posted so that those interested in the topic could view the advancements and innovations being made in the monster truck industry.

Your input would be appreciated.

Thanks. Kildare2 ( talk) 12:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• First, you claim administrator abuse when it is deleted on the first round, then abuse when it is deleted on the second. And you claim the word "crap" is somehow an insult? Perhaps "crap" was too forceful of a word, but to be realistic, your truck isn't notable in the least bit. It contains spam -- a link to your web-site and YouTube videos, and the article is merely promoting your truck. It can't be construed any other way than that. Even if it was taken to AfD -- which I would support if it came down to that (supporting it being taken there, not supporting the article's keep), it would be deleted in a heartbeat. seicer | talk | contribs 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

this guy wiki games the three edit rule to get other editors banned. and has been called out by Adminstrator Seicer for removing all the info that could be constured as negative from the Alcoholics Anonymous wiki page.

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Alcoholics+Anonymous&diff=197618867&oldid=197618528

A separate page had to be created for the Effectiveness of Twelve Steps that became renamed the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous. Both Scarpy and Mr Miles did not allow the other studies to be readmitted to the Alcoholics Anonymous Pagen, hence a separtate page was created to contain the studies and perserve them for the wiki.

he has constantly inserted POV in the George Vaillant section and he constantly attackss the study I have submitted below, which has recently been reworded to be more accurate. By the way the the study below uses much the same methods as Project Match, where therapists trained in twelve steps deliver the treatment to the study subjects.

Ståhlbrandt, Johnsson, Berglund Sweden 2007- A two year study of 556 University students. The subjects were assigned to one of three groups that being a brief skills-training {BSTP} alcohol-intervention program, or a 12-step-influenced alcohol intervention program {TSI}; or to a control group that received no intervention. The Brief skills-training program was composed of lectures and discussions which was derived from the University of Washington's Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students program and based on cognitive-skill intervention and motivational techniques. The 12-step program provided lectures by therapists trained in the 12-step approach. All participants completed a baseline assessment, as well as follow-up questionnaires one, two and three years following the baseline year. The study indicated that all three groups significantly reduced their scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) from baseline assessment to the two-year follow-up. Stahlbranndt indicated maturity could be a factor for this. However, among those students deemed to engage in high-risk alcohol consumption – defined as AUDIT scores of eight or above for men and four or above for women , and in greater danger of having negative consequences from alcohol consumption, the Brief Skills Training Program was more effective in that they decreased their alcohol comsumption more than the twelve step group and the control group. [36]

-- 207.194.108.93 ( talk) 00:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)MisterAlbert

Is vandalizing the alcoholics anonymous effectiveness page, removing studies, faulting users, etc, etc.

-- 199.60.112.30 ( talk) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)futureguy

What I meant by "Take it further" was to report Edward321's comments to whomever deals with that side of things on Wikipedia. I believe my comments were wilfully misinterpreted so that he doesn't have to issue me with an apology for claiming that I stated that I made something up when I clearly never made any such comment. -- Bravo Plantation ( talk) 11:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While this may have been 'resolved' in respect to me not making a "legal threat" (which by the way was completely preposterous and totally over-the-top), Edward321 has still not issued me with an apology for stating publically that I had admitted to creating an article which I blatently did not do. Also, it would have been courteous on your behalf to inform me that the matter had been 'resolved' on my talk page rather than not bothering. -- Bravo Plantation ( talk) 13:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh no. I'm sure you can check the ANI page all by yourself to see it. seicer | talk | contribs 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What a patronising response. Either way, may I suggest that if you are going to start a conversation on my talk page, at least have the good manners and courtesy to update my talk page with the conclusion. -- Bravo Plantation ( talk) 14:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A user is not required to apologize for whatever they may have done. seicer | talk | contribs 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is liballous? -- Bravo Plantation ( talk) 14:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to provide a DIFF? seicer | talk | contribs 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what that is. Please elaborate. Thanks. -- Bravo Plantation ( talk) 14:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you specify exactly what it is that you consider libellous, and which page it is located on? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have copied and pasted the following from the page that I feel I am owed an apology because of -

"When will I find out if my article is going to be deleted or not? It's been hours now. Thanks. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD nominations generally stay open for 5 days. I would like to offer a friendly suggestion - that you check out Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. The article isn't yours, per se. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Yeah I know the article isn't mine :) It was just a figure of speech as I created it! --Bravo Plantation (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete based on Bravo Plantation's admission that he just made it up. Edward321 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Comment Add it as a comment to the Slush article. That would make the former more substantial. --Shieldfire (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] A Message to Edward321 You posted on the talk page for 'Jubbly' that it should be deleted as I confessed to "making it up". Please remove this comment as I NEVER once said this. I consider the comment that you made to be unjustified, and quite illegal. Please remove your comment and issue me with an apology or I will take this further. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)"

This shows exactly why I am owed an apology from user Edward321. -- Bravo Plantation ( talk) 14:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that you are the subject of a libellous statement on Wikipedia, please E-mail the information team. I don't think this would be characterised as illegal, but I think you're saying (in other words) that you feel Edward321 has misstated your position. Please note that users cannot be forced to apologize on Wikipedia, and demanding for an apology usually falls on deaf ears (or blind eyes). However, if a user has made a false statement and is unwilling to retract it upon request, then it's probably best you try and contact an admin to politely explain the situation and request for their assistance in having the statement retracted. Alternatively, you can try a form of Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. In any case, good luck! Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Bravo Plantation has only posted part of the AfD comments and has not listed the comment that I was responding to. In this edit [6], Bravo Plantation says "Yeah I know the article isn't mine :) It was just a figure of speech as I created it!" Since he said it was a figure of speech that he had created, I !voted to delete based on his admission [7]. Edward321 ( talk)

Let me also note that I was not the first person to say that the subject of that AfD was made up. The AfD creator said the subject was made up [8] . So did the first person to!vote on the Afd [9]. Miquonranger03 calls it a neologism, which is a fancy way of saying it was made up [10]. At which point BP said "It was just a figure of speech as I created it!" [11] and I responded. Why is Bravo Plantation singling me out for complaint when I was the 4th person to say it? Edward321 ( talk) 05:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because others have indicated their belief that the content seems to be made up or fabricated. However, you're saying Bravo confessed to making it up, and it doesn't appear as if he himself has stated/confessed that he fabricated it. That's why it's important to comment on content rather than the contributor. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt ( talk) 01:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your rapid close of the AfD after only 16 hours of the list was a good thing to do. . Not that the article was likely to be kept, but that people should have a chance to discuss it, in addition to a pileon by the people there over the next few hours. I usually want to comment on such article, not usually to keep, but generally to suggesta merge or a redirect, and I shouldhave a chance. Others might possibly be affected by my argument. For that matter, I might possibly have said delete, as I sometimes for, and again I want the opportunity to show that I do sometimes say delete. In this case, it would have given me an opportunity to show I accept that fan fiction generally does not warrant articles. (not that I would bring a deletion review for something like this). DGG ( talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In most cases, the content can be merged into the main article. In some instances, I take the time to merge the content over, but the information provided was so trivial and unencyclopedic that that wasn't really the case. It can be easily re-created if need be on the main article page, but it needed to be completely reworked. I'd be happy to provide a copy of the page if you'd like -- or make it available for others.

To elaborate, I didn't feel a need to keep an article that'd be SNOW'ed under in a matter of hours. In the future, I won't try to be as speedy with the closures unless it is patently obvious that the article isn't worthy of inclusion or deletion. This was borderline. seicer | talk | contribs 17:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the info that I read in the blog about there being 16 songs. However I re-added the info about them taking their time on the album, the release date, and the album concept because I read that in AP magazine, I think I sourced it correctly but I am not positive. Less than you ( talk) 03:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

^This guy is USEDfan all over again. Nobody comes to Wikipedia to make edits like this. His previous sock puppet made the change that I reverted, and to top it all off, also added the AP magazine info, unsourced of course. Not to mention that the edit summaries contain the same bad grammar and spelling. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely USEDfan for sure. This user is picking up where he left off. It is obvious it is him, without a doubt. Landon1980 ( talk) 21:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this enough for you to block as a sock? It is USEDfan's IP right in the middle of the new socks edits minutes apart making the same edit? I'm certain a checkuser would confirm the new sock a sock of USEDfan. Landon1980 ( talk) 22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a definative connection on this, and the user did respond to my inquiry on his talk page about reliable sources -- which is more than what USEDfan ever did. I'd be cautious on this, but I'll keep a watch just in case. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, USEDfan's IP address in the midst of the edits making the same edit, edit warring, and using the same horrible grammar is as definitive as it gets. The checkuser that last dealt with USEDfan should be able to take a look and confirm this. Landon1980 ( talk) 14:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're still not convinced that it is USEDfan, this will spell it out clearly. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 04:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been making edits to improve the tracklist tables on certain pages and some user is reverting them with something called 'rv' and one was about socks and a used fan, I asked them why but they have not yet replied, you helped me with something a last week or 2 weeks ago. What do I do? Less than you ( talk) 05:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I currently stopped reverting the rest of the pages, I saw these tracklist tables on My Chem's page and thought they were nice and it would be good to bring the style to the Used page too. I read about edit wars and this has potential to start them so I will wait and see what the other user does, maybe you could say your opinion on what looks better. I'm just trying to improve things and I don't understand what they said I'm doing wrong. Thanks sir. Less than you ( talk) 05:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We are currently discussing some of it, but you seem to know a lot about wikipeida. I think it would be helpful to voice the mis-understandings between the other user and I. Such as formats and tracklist tables. Less than you ( talk) 06:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to end the dispute with taking their side. I left them a message ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pwnage8#The_Used_3 ) so hopefully it settles the dispute we had. They have been on wiki longer then me so they know much more then I do and I don't understand as much as them about an open wiki so I will use them as a guide for help in the future. Thanks. Less than you ( talk) 02:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 6 • 8 September 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments Project news Deletion debates Featured member From the editors	Features Gap appears in freeway New York subproject appears on the Wikipedia Signpost New York State Routes leaves jurisdiction of USRD From the editors—newsletter decommissioned	State and national updates State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— Rschen7754bot ( talk) 03:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, may be coming your way. TravellingCari 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seicer. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you protected Ernest Rutherford due to excessive vandalism. I agree entirely, and I wonder if you could also protect J.J. Thomson for the same reason. Thomson was a slightly older physicist (in fact he was Rutherford's academic advisor) who discovered the electron and also won a Nobel prize, and his article history shows much of the same juvenile vandalism recently. Dirac66 ( talk) 16:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Dirac66 ( talk) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find something about Afd run times but could only come up with this "at the end of the discussion period (about five days), it should be closed within a few more days at most. Asking for someone to close the discussion is unnecessary." [12] Hobartimus ( talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

...and? I'm not sure which AFD you are talking about here, but discussions can be closed at administrator discretion if it appears that it is snowballing or if there is reasonable evidence to believe that the article should be kept or deleted without a full five day marathon. Care to provide a link to the AFD in question? seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[13] I'm fine with the deletion just wanted to ask if you could add "no prejudice for recreation" or something similar as the case develops it can become more notable later. The original article was also tagged with rescue and I was working on expanding it to show notability so I thought there is a chance for some leniency or throwing of a bone :). Hobartimus ( talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I didn't vote in the Afd as I thought I have plenty of time. Hobartimus ( talk) 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If you want to recreate it in userspace (I can provide a copy for you), to expand upon its noteworthy-ness -- mainly due to its controversial nature and its duplication at two articles, I'd be more than happy to do that. seicer | talk | contribs 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I'd appreciate that a lot. Hobartimus ( talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now. Hobartimus ( talk) 01:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been userified: User:Hobartimus/sandbox2. I've got it watchlisted; I'm actually quite interested in how this will play out myself... seicer | talk | contribs 01:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to provide a link to the "reasonable evidence to believe" policy you cited above? DGG ( talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm already well aware that you hold reasonable grudges against those 'deletionists'. If the article is snowballing, or if there is evidence to believe the article is a hoax, or a duplication of an already existing article, then it can be deleted. In this case, it was information that was repeated on two pages. It was userified with the hope that it can be expanded upon shall it become a notable event, and to which the OP agreed to. Nothing to see here, move along. seicer | talk | contribs 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this definitive enough for you? Landon1980 ( talk) 07:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a bit, but yeah, that was enough. I didn't act earlier because he hadn't done anything that was conclusive, such as this. I couldn't act on that or the prior examples, but I recommend filing future reports at SSP or file a RFCU. I may be away from WP for a bit. seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I will request a checkuser or file an SSP if he comes back in the future. Laziness on my part is why I didn't last time; I just knew you were familiar with him. So you are leaving us for a while? I hate to hear that, you're one of the better admins we have. Landon1980 ( talk) 04:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Naw, I've just become so busy writing articles for my (soon to be four) web-sites, doing photography and working that WP has been put to pasture for a while. That and it's the fall foilage season, so I really won't be around much during that :) seicer | talk | contribs 04:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The Typo Eradication Advancement League got deleted recently, I think by you. I was planning to add to the article but didn't quite get round to it. I don't quite understand the mechanism, but could I see a copy of the article in order to improve it? Let me have a go at fixing it up (it is notable, AFAICS and there is more material to be added) and then perhaps pass it through AFD? Best wishes, Robinh ( talk) 14:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Recreated at User:Robinh/sandbox. Let me know if you have any questions/comments or need help. seicer | talk | contribs 04:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Well I've had a look at it to remind myself what the content was, but I don't think it deserved speedy. Other editors contributed to it too, not just me (although I couldn't find the history). Surely appearing on Language Log and Today programme qualify as noteworthy? Any chance of passing it through AFD? cheers, Robinh ( talk) 07:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Seicer. You have new messages at Papa November's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, you blocked me for 24 hours after being "reported" by User:Hexagon1. The problem is that he/she is the one who has been edit warring, reverting my reversals of his/her absurd changes and ignoring any kind of discussion. He/she made at least three absurd edits that reflect intimate ignorance of the subject, and has ignored the arguments I've raised on the talk page calling them "original research". Take a look at the template history: I made 3 reasonable and elaborated edits on the 26 September 2008 which are 100% veracious and reflective of the state that is laid out in the al l the handbooks, and then on 4 October 2008 User:Haxagon1 makes edit elaborating it as "removed political influence and removing redlink". I've later removed his nonsense [14] and have opened the talk page raising 3 very problematic issuse with his scheme, to which he responds in a well-anticipated manner as "original research", "nationalism" blah blah, and reverts my reversal. That's how it has been going on for some time (I don't have 24/7 Internet access ATM), him/her continously reverting my reversals and ignoring the discussion on the talk page, wating for consensus to be reached and only then template be edited. I have not been edit warring, I was simply reverting it to the state before the contentious changes made by User:Hexagon1, and this new Russian dude who appears to think that Old Novgorod dialect "sprang" from Old East Slavic [and was ready to committ his naive interpretation to the template immediately, and even revert my reversal of his change after I explained him on the talk page how ON could not have possibly "descended" from OESl. since it's more archaic than it]. So there are 4 issues in question now, and more forthcoming judging to the talk page. The appropriate course of action for this to be solved would be to revert the template prior the state of their butchering, lock the template and forbid any kind of contentius changes to be made until points I've raised are resolved. You should unblock me immediately as my "edit warring" reversals like this: [15] were in fact reversals to the state before User:Hexagon1's edits, and a call to discuss open issues before committing them, not pushing of some alleged "OR" or "POV". -- Ivan Štambuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.74.66 ( talk) 10:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk whom you blocked for 24 hours yesterday due to a 3RR violation has been evading the block by editing from 161.53.74.66. I unblocked Ivan and reset the block back to 24 hours and blocked the IP address for 24 hours as well due to the evasion. Ioeth _{( talk contribs friendly)} 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Seicer there is a little problem with an Afd you closed earlier [16]. You allowed development of the article in my user space, however some users (not me) decided to recreate the article under the name Sarah Palin e-mail controversy. However this was done not by them writing an article but by renaming the article "David Kernell" so the talk page discussion is all messed up among other things the earlier parts talking about an article on David Kernell etc. Anyway actually I had no idea about the recreation process of a properly Afd-d article, so I planned on coming to you first (the article in my sandbox is still not completely ready) and ask about Drv or whatever process needed to be used once I had a decent article. I have no idea what to do in light of this "rename recreation" so I'm asking you. Because of the rename, my contribs show as if I edited "Sarah Palin e-mail controversy" and it's talk, however I never did, I always wanted to bring it back by consensus that it's notable based on the text and not by simply ignoring the previous Afd. Hobartimus ( talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Notifying the page... seicer | talk | contribs 15:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete my image of Pav3.jpg Pav3.JPG? I am allowed to use any picture on my user page. Please answer on my user page immediatly. Marshall T. Williams ( talk) 19:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mr_Miles

on a rampage on user talk pages, falsifying info, attacking other user talk pages , best guess off his meds, please take action. http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7715/866/200/My%20Photo.jpg\

most gratefully yours, futureboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.112.30 ( talk) 01:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like an edit war has broken out over the last couple of days. You might want to take a look. Ronnotel ( talk) 09:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

you closed the AfD as delete; article's already been recreated, as such, i've unarchived the AfD till it's re-deleted. ThuranX ( talk) 14:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has not been recreated. I simply moved Kent Simpson (ice hockey, b. 1975) to Kent Simpson, seing as how after the non-notable Simpson was deleted, we were left with only one Kent Simpson article on Wikipedia. Let me know if this is a problem. Thanks. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 15:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before I re-written my Livecare Support article User:Alfax/Livecare_Support to let published and linked on Comparison of remote desktop software. In the same time, another Livecare concurrent Teamviewer was published in Comparison of remote desktop software page. I do ask you to unlock the Livecare Support page to complete the information regarding this theme.

Please help me to understand what is the difference between the articles. I wait your reply. thanks Alfax ( talk) 15:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you unblocked User:Lav90 in July, (who is clearly the same as serial copyrighted-image uploader User:Tasos90, who was blocked for that as well) there have been two more images uploaded: Image:Brisbane Skyline 2008.jpg and Image:Brisbane Montage.jpg. The montage one I'm particularly concerned about, but basically, do those look like the same problems as the earlier images? I blocked the user indefinitely after the edit warring at Brisbane (including demanding that a semi-protection template be put on for no real reason), but I frankly just don't trust those images. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 03:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Seicer, please take a closer look, you missed something there. I know there were 6 reverts, but must have screwed up one of them. However, even with minus one of those listed, he still violated 3RR. What he called two self-reverts were not in fact self-reverts - they constituted one revert. What he did was, after deleting the POV tag twice:

1. Deleted information on "rape kits"

2. Restored the information on rape kits and deleted POV tag

3. Deleted information on rape kits again.

You can call this 5 reverts or four reverts. Whatever the case, the article began with a POV tag, developed into an article with information on rape kits, and then lost both the POV tag and information on rape kits. In other words, three times he took off a POV tag placed there by someone else, not by him, and deleted information placed there by someone else, not him. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I see you using two identical DIFFs, two self-reverts that had nothing to do with a POV tag or were malicious, and a report that was malformed and stale (waiting four days?). seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all the reverts had to do with the POV tag - 3 had to do with the POV tag and 2 with rape kits. My understanding (according To ferry himself) is that more than 3 reverts of any aspects of an article within a 24-hour-period (i.e. not necessarily the same edit) constitute 3RR. Also, I was not aware that one had to report 3RR within a certain time period? (I'm not one to take the time to "catch" transgressors. It's the least of my concerns usually, especially since I usually edit contentious articles and thus would never get any work done if I was running after people all the time.) The POV tag issue is ongoing and so the question of POV tag removal is not stale. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can accurately describe it as "drive-by tagging" given that the major contributor freely admits to having rewritten it to better reflect his fringe POV. Guy ( Help!) 18:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not "drive-by tagging," but I would like to see more of a discussion afterwards that doesn't include canvassing on over a dozen boards, noticeboards (including AN, which was reverted (not by me)), and user pages, and comments that aren't specific to the tags themselves. seicer | talk | contribs 19:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seicer, User:KingsOfHearts deleted sourced material with disruptive edits on Sarah Palin today. I left a warning on his talk page and noticed that this is a pattern and he was recently blocked by you. Enough is enough, IP75 ( talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note: User:KingsOfHearts has deleted the previous warnings and blocks from his user page after I left the warning today. IP75 ( talk) 22:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. WVhybrid ( talk) 00:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made some points and asked some questions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reopening discussion to ask pertinent questions. Some of that relates to your actions, which I assume were done in good faith. I have concerns over the reasons for the blocks. Please take a look. Thanks. -- Noroton ( talk) 01:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think at this point, it would only serve to beat the dead horse down just a bit more, so I'll refrain from commenting. seicer | talk | contribs 19:01, 14 November 2008 (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/Cold fusion/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/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai ( talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind dropping a note explaining your blocks please? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, nevermind. I just did not look hard enough. Tiptoety ^talk 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I see it's already been declined. seicer | talk | contribs 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with the closing of this SSP, especially since it was based on the page protection. The page was protected at our (Pinkadelica and myself) request because of the issues raised in this sock case, which is a group of what seems clearly to be a plethora of socks advocating a birthdate that couldn't be verified. This went on for literally months, with multiple "I know this because" reasons. One of these accounts stated that he/she had a birth certificate supposedly obtained from the brother of the actress, that the brother wouldn't have an issue with it being released, and asked where it could be sent as proof. This has raised greater issues, since the account has submitted (electronically, it would seem) this supposed document. One issue is with the brother being able to consent to release, if it were the brother. After the page was protected, an adminstrator came in and changed the birthdate, based on what seems to be this electronically submitted birth certificate, over the page protection. We do suspect that OTRS has been duped by the sockmaster. Ultimately, everyone agreed to wait for the outcome of this SSP to determine how to proceed. The resolution of the SSP case based on the protection of page, which is still protected based on awaiting the outcome of the SSP isn't a resolution. What would you suggest one do now? Let the possible fraud stand? Submit this somewhere else? Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And don't use tags like  Inconclusive &  Unlikely, they are for RFCU. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 13:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh no. If it's not in the documentation, and not made explicit, then they are fair game. seicer | talk | contribs 14:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to use them myself, until they told me not to OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 14:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to use a variety of templates that fit the situation, barring any official discussion with consensus, and an updated page in the Administrators Instructions. Nothing against the discussion that ensued, but that's pretty weak and inconclusive at best. seicer | talk | contribs 14:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought I solved this, but I think I overlooked it. I'll check it out in a few hours. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe LuketheSpook is active again using this account to edit. The new account is monitoring all the same pages and making all the same edits that Luke and his drawer of alter-egos were making. Thoughts? The Real Libs- speak politely 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would ask, given the disputed nature of WP:MOSNUM (see WT:MOSNUM and the various RFCs on date unlinking and other discussion there) that you unblock Tennis Expert. The editors performing automated edits should stop performing them until the community decides this is the way to go instead of having the issue forced by brute mass editing. — Locke Cole • t • c 21:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And just a pointer, I've left some responses at WP:AN to the Tennis Expert section. — Locke Cole • t • c 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You are exactly the wrong person to make those inferences. seicer | talk | contribs 00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How's that? And just because I'm involved doesn't make me wrong. I ask you to reconsider what you've done. In particular I ask how your decision to block and perform mass disputed edits is reconciled with one of the ArbCom's recent decisions? — Locke Cole • t • c 01:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits."

So... a lack of discussion, or discussion that leads to no consensus, followed up by hundreds of reverts... gauging by the number that have reverted his changes in the past (and the sheer number of varying editors and administrators), he's in the minority. And judging from administrator consensus at AN and his talk page, he's still in the minority. Sorry. seicer | talk | contribs 02:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As they've bypassed the discussion phase, there can be no consensus. The "number that have reverted" is irrelevant if they cite a guideline page which is disputed, especially when they fail to participate in the discussion prior to performing the edits again. Please see WP:BRD. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• You may be aware that Locke Cole has deigned to " warn" me about de-linking dates, and attempting to build a case to send to arbcom. I can certainly see the irony in Cole's action, and his reliance on that very same piece of decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Fait_accompli, as cited above by User:Seicer. It's similar to where two warring editors seek to warn the other of having violated WP:3RR - a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Ohconfucius ( talk) 13:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• But unlike most of those participating in this wide edit war, I've actually attempted discussion, repeatedly, only to be told it already had consensus and that they would refuse to discuss it (or, more likely, they simply ignored my pleas for discussion and carried on anyways). That's the difference between me and other so-called edit warriors. I actually tried (and am still trying) to participate in discussions to resolve this dispute. And yes, given the unrepentant actions of those performing mass edits during a dispute I would be silly to not start a log of activities should this go to the ArbCom. With this new RFC being discussed I'm a little more optimistic we can avoid that, hence why there haven't been any recent updates... — Locke Cole • t • c 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• We shall see. Ohconfucius ( talk) 03:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seicer. Apologies for the delay. I've responded to your question for a citation, as requested here: User_talk:Rebroad#Life_is_complicated..._Some_people_specialize_in_complications.. Cheers, -- Rebroad ( talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The unblock template should probably be removed. Enigma ^message 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks :) seicer | talk | contribs 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So have you retired or not? This is very odd. Um, what policy or guideline are you invoking here, please? This is very strange behaviour, and I believe it needs justification, particularly under the Admin Policy concerning "Communication". Otherwise you are in breach. I'm especially concerned to see the logical basis of this threat. There may also be a breach of the Admin Policy on "Conflict of interest", but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Please read the policies carefully and provide the administrative basis underlying your post. Tony (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, feel free to find citations of where I was involved with the MOS squabbles prior to the AN/ANI posts. I have no idea what you are indicating by "strange behaviour," or of "conflict of interest," or "admin policy." Can you elaborate? seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem Tony is concerned about may be that your "warning" to Lightmouse is very vague and only contains pointers to entire noticeboards rather than individual threads. It's impossible for Lightmouse to know what, exactly, you are telling him not to do, and whether you are interpreting these unspecified discussions correctly. That's why it comes across as a threat. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not my intention. I will amend it with links to the threads in question. It's not a 'threat' towards prior actions, or else the whole lot of those involved would have been blocked at least once for revert-warring; this deals with future edits in light of the RFC. seicer | talk | contribs 01:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The RFC concocted by Tony is invalid and inappropriate, I would even say it's disruptive since he was well aware another RFC was already well into preparation. Please don't give an appearance of administrative approval of his RFC by using it in your notifications. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How so? As noted on the RFC, which has overwhelming support for de-linking -- and I should note, your contributions and that of Tennis Expert are nowhere to be seen, it was filed and completed before your draft RFC was assembled into any reasonable form. You are free to open up your RFC during or after the current RFC, but given the current consensus towards de-linking, I highly doubt that you'll sway any opinions. seicer | talk | contribs 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Beg pardon? Tony1 started his disruptive RFC today. The other RFC at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC was started nearly a week ago and has been the subject of over fifty edits and numerous talk page discussions. Tony's RFC had no input prior to being started and appears to be a knee-jerk reaction because of the general attitude that date delinking should stop until the matter is resolved. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke is correct, Seicer - the RfC that appeared out of nowhere today was written by Tony1 without any discussion on the talk page - not even a hint that he was planning one. It provides no context for the questions, the wording clearly gives Tony1's personal preferences a decided advantage, and it completely side-steps an RfC that Tony was well aware of. Given the amount of division over this issue, and the fact it concerns a Wikipedia guideline, how is this unilateral action not disruptive? -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 03:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The RFC was filed within dispute resolution guidelines, and that there is adequate background given in the discussion to give context to the RFC. Don't you think that if the numerous administrators who have already chimed up in the RFC thought that it was improper, that it would have been closed much earlier? seicer | talk | contribs 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it was filed "properly", but it totally ignored the ongoing discussion at the existing RFC and is an act of disruption. Two things regarding the second part of your reply: 1) administrators have no more weight in a discussion than any other editor so pointing to "numerous administrators" is wrong. 2) Not everyone participating in Tony1's RFC may even be aware that another RFC had been in preparation for a week hence why there are few complaints as to the process used. — Locke Cole • t • c 04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

« I never stated that administrators have more weight in voiding opinion; I stated that those administrators believed that the RFC was filed properly and had no objections to its running. In answer to your second question, not everyone should know that another RFC has been in the works for over a week; once it is properly filed and linked, then they should. It's still in draft and it has not been made live. Had Tony's RFC gone through during your RFC, then it could have been seen as disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 04:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Look. The outcome of any dispute is to try and find consensus one way or the other, yes? Usually reasonable discussion assumes reasonable behavior. Tony1 knew of the impending RFC and chose to do an end run around that. That's disruptive and an act not made in good faith that the consensus building process was working. It doesn't matter if his filing is "correct" or that he beat us to some imaginary finish line, it's that he's trying to undermine the progress made so far. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, you've said "Had Tony's RFC gone through during your RFC, then it could have been seen as disruption." Does that mean that if the RfC that was already in development is launched while Tony's is active, it will be seen as disruptive? That would hardly be appropriate, but... As well, what is the likelihood of the pre-existing RfC being able to be prepared and discussed now, with another RfC active? -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 05:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There is already an ANI entry here. However no one seems to be using it lol. This is truly a war that should stop. It's tarnishing admin's reputation and making NWA happier. Dengero ( talk) 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You threatened to block any involved editor if they began date delinking/linking/reverting while discussion was in progress. Here's your opportunity: Special:Contributions/Date delinker ( Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs)'s sockpuppet). — Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Two things: Firstly, someone's being a nasty little snitch here. I'm not deliberately delinking dates, I'm primarily cutting down overlinking, and putting all dates into dmy format for certain category of articles. E&OE, there are no cases of deliberate date-delinking going on. Secondly, the RfC is well under way, and is headed for a landslide against Cole's side. Following his inexcusable attempt to bury Tony's RfC, I assert that Cole is totally lacking in good faith (and has been from the very start). Date delinker (aka Ohconfucius) _{hard problems} ^proverbs 08:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You were warned not to engage in disruptive editing while a discussion was ongoing. I didn't force you to run AWB and delink dates, did I? Second, as noted in a thread above, that RFC is a sham, Tony's attempt to derail the legitimate discussion and work that was done at the real RFC (the one that was going to go in the watchlist notice to gain wide community consensus). But it seems some people are so intent on getting their way they're prepared to sabotage a weeks worth of work so they can present the questions their way (and not in the wiki way, which works through consensus and discussion). No sir, my good faith is at an end with all the shenanigans going on from you and your supporters. — Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• It would be a good idea if you put an end to this campaign of talk page spamming. Ohconfucius ( talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it your threat to block was in fact a lie? If that is the case then I reserve the right to begin mass reverting Date delinkers edits. — Locke Cole • t • c 13:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• It would be a good idea if you put an end to this campaign of talk page spamming. Ohconfucius ( talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Administrator note I made it specific: "...any editor that is involved in the process of date-delinking and -linking will be subject to a block by an administrator..." I do find it very pointy, although there is this blip on the British/English dates that can be found at WP:MOSDATES:

I'll check when I get to work. On a brief scan, it seems that the British dates are being applied to British characters and articles. If he has been edit warring on this though, the account will be blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's one which isn't changing dates but removing links (it's on the first page of his contribs as I write this). I'm sure some of the edits are fine, but he appears to be ignoring the appeals to stop while discussion is ongoing. I didn't do an exhaustive check of his contribs, FYI, though I'm positive there's more in there. — Locke Cole • t • c 13:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gave a 24 hour block for that, and will leave a note. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 13:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the link he posted: Cole is dead wrong. The date in the above example was changed from June 13 to 13 June. In fact, the scrip will write to a delinked dmy regardless, and I paid particular attention not to touch those articles which did not need conversion to dmy. Date delinker (aka Ohconfucius) _{hard problems} ^proverbs 04:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole is right. The date in the above example was changed from " June 13, 1963" to "13 June 1963". That is a date delinking activity along with a date format correction. Tennis expert ( talk) 06:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a big notice on your page that says 'Retired'. Are you retired? Lightmouse ( talk) 13:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It states that I am "tired." seicer | talk | contribs 13:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. A joke. A sense of humour is probably a requirement for Wikipedia editors these days. Sorry I didn't see it. Lightmouse ( talk) 14:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone already took offense to the giant dick comment too :) seicer | talk | contribs 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to your reference to giant dicks. You are in good company, User:Theresa knott links to a picture of her tits. It is just that User:Tennis expert has the same 'Retired' banner yet is still active. I don't understand why he uses that banner and at a glance, I mistakenly assumed you were doing exactly the same as him. Its a funny old world. Lightmouse ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Seicer. How long should the date-linking-related voting on the RfC on WT:MOSNUM keep on going? Clearly, the voting is extraordinarily lopsided. But the issue is that if there is bot activity, there will be a continuous dribble of editors coming to WT:MOSNUM complaining about black-colored dates that don’t take them anywhere and how they were never consulted. It is never easy to swallow an argument that goes like this: “Sorry, this was extensively discussed and voted on for XX hours and you missed out.” As you may know, Locke Cole tried to archive and shut things down after only 14 hours. How long should it run to ensure that we can fairly say “you missed out but your input wouldn’t have made any difference in the outcome”? Two days? Four? Being mindful that consensus can change, at least for the near-term, I want this to be settled. Greg L ( talk) 21:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC's typically run for 30 days or until such time that an overwhelming consensus can be established -- like the Snowball Clause for AFDs. seicer | talk | contribs 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Greg L ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I had in mind at least several weeks. Tony (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

SkyWalker ( talk · contribs) was not warned by you about the 3RR/EW/ANI/AN issue, but he was warned about the prior ArbCom decision as it relates to fait accompli. He's resumed delinking dates, apparently: [17]. I think a warning about the situation rather than a block would be appropriate in this case. — Locke Cole • t • c 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hat tip for your great coverage on Wikipedia of Underwood's passing. youngamerican ( wtf?) 16:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)