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 |
Just to let you know I'm going to be away for the next week without much internet access. Other bureaucrats will need to take care of renames etc. - its a pretty busy time, so I'm sure they'll appreciate all the help you and the other clerks can give them. If you have time, keep an eye on the archiving- the bot still has a habit of adding ((not done)) requests to the archives without removing them from the main pages, which can lead to duplicates. WjBscribe 06:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help...have a nice day! - LA @ 22:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for handling LA's problem, and for pointing out my inconsistency. I didn't realize the user had refused to allow his account to be usurped -- I thought it had been a bureaucrat's decision. Of course that one should be turned down too. — Dan | talk 18:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Restoring the older version is up to you. I did notice that it was created in 2005 and the "...up and coming British rock group Bad Beat Revue." is still a red link. I would say that the original was non notable as well as falling under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain the differences to me? I didn't see a method by which to delete the redirect; I would have likely used that, had I known. I think I am more concerned with JHunterJ tossing the kitchen sink at a problem he cannot get traction on (namely, the inclusion of Harry Potter to the HP dab). I mean, he's an admin; if he cannot be persuaded to act civilly or keep to the rules, what alternatives are available to us? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Man, you haven't been on msn for like 2 years. Please get on sometime, we have heaps to talk about. :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, what consensus are you speaking of? And in what instance does consensus override policy? It isn't notable, and have been proven as such. Repeatedly. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
...is when Meta Knight and King Dedede become unprotected. I just thought I would remind you ;-) --68.220.146.229, That same person who kept reverting the articles a month ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.146.229 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
for dealing with those Grawp puppets and cleaning up the Wiki afterwards. Oxymoron83 09:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
Re your message
For fixing my user page and protecting it...such a lovely name he choose for me. Bored person that guy must be... Collectonian (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I have restored this article, which you deleted under CSD:A7. Please remember to check the history of articles before deleting them - this was a perfectly decent stub until it was replaced with nonsense fifteen minutes before you deleted it. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What was your reason for deleting Wendy Whitebread? The notability of the book is so great that I thought it unnecessary to point it out. Nevertheless, I will explain it, the book is generallty recognized as a byword for smut, in the way that it is not just erotic, but totally over the top pornographic. As such it made a mark in the mind of any student of comic books, especially the US or "adult" ones.
The book is a cult fav and as such it deserves an article, perhaps not the article I wrote, but an article certainly. The book is a byword for sexual exploitation of ladies in comic books, not something I am in as such, so if you are better in porn, please do so.
The point is that Wendy Whitebread is no longer just a comic book, it is the comic book title indicating a point where normal people wouldn't go.
As such I cannot consider the attemmpt to delete the article, rather than to IMPROVE it an un-Wikipedian vandalism. Of course, if you're not into comics it's not your fault.
ThW5 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting my picture. :-) Have a nice day! Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I could be inclined to agree with you. What's your view on the rest of the articles on the band's albums? Most consist of little more text than that one. Should they all be redirected? TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
←Well, the official site, and vendor entries do not grant notability. What do you need? seresin ( ¡? ) 21:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Seresin - Why remove the Parliamentary Procedure Category? Categories, I suppose, can be used for many purposes. This is from Help: Category -- A category is a software feature of MediaWiki. Categories provide automatic indexes that are useful as tables of contents. Together with links and templates they structure a project.
In that vein, the reason it was removed from this article Nuclear Option was that in reviewing the project structure of Wikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure this may not be an article that the project wants under their purview - at least at this time. If you want to link this article to the Parliamentary procedure page or project, there are other ways of doing that - and it may be quite appropriate for the editors of this article to do that.
I guess it depends on how one looks at categories. Are they a software feature that help structure a project? - if one leans that way, then perhaps inclusion/removal in a category should be coordinated with the editors of the project that the category is under. I meant no harm or disrespect in removing it from this article. Since you put it back right away, I'm not going to war over it and remove it again, but I would appreciate hearing your views. ~ Parlirules 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Seresin, thanks for responding so quickly.
"As for the page, categories do not exist solely to support Wikiprojects. While Wikiprojects do use them, categories primarily exist to group articles that have a similar theme together.** This article relates to parlimentary procedure — hence the category. Whether the Wikiproject wants it under their purview or not is not particularly relevant to its inclusion in the category. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)"
**"Would you point me toward the wiki documentation that includes "categories primarily exist to group articles that have a similar theme together."? Thanks! ~ Parlirules 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Should Nothing444's first RfA be added to the category as well? Enigma message Review 00:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll bet that header got your attention..but I'm just alluding to your deletion of Unbelievable (disambiguation). I assume you deleted it because another editor speedied it, but, for future reference, (disambiguation) pages should not be deleted when the dab is moved to the plain title. Such redirects are useful for intentionally linking to a dab page, because they let disambiguators know which incoming links don't need to be fixed. Cheers--ShelfSkewed Talk 03:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the article, saying it failed to assert notability. Would you be able to help me get it up to standards? I was previously uninvolved with the article, but after I noticed it was deleted, I asked an admin to put the content in my sandbox. I then moved it to a new page and then started working on it. Enigma message Review 04:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Seresin,
I am nearly only active on the german wiktionary and do really not intend to edit on the english wikipedia. I only ursurped user:I so that nobody else does it. Until now I made already more than thousend edits on the german wiktionary, the SUL account will become mine, as soon as it is possible. Many people have said SUL is a bad thing because of problems like this. But SUL has already started for Admins and will come for all accounts sooner or later. We can only make the best of it.
If you have ideas how i can point out the situation clearer on my user page and user talk page: Let me hear them. --I (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I had no knowledge that you were an admin; you should have informed me, at least in your warning at my talk page. Had I known I of course would not have reverted as admins have the right to decline speedy tags. See also this and this where I also responded. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you blank this redirect? [1]. There are many incoming links to the page, which now do not redirect to the new location. DuncanHill (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This page CC Poindexter was deleted as a result of user Miranda placing a false ban notice on the page (db-banned). One of them was on a userpage and not an article. RobertOgleFan in fact has not been banned and has cleared checkuser. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000. It was stated that Technically Unrelated and no geographic relationship to MKF's usual stomping grounds. Thatcher 11:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) In fact she placed about 5 of them up at the same time in an attempt to have several articles deleted which she did not agree with. They included Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Alpha Phi Alpha and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. You were the only admin to actually take a look at this and reverted List of African American Greek & Fraternal Organizations. Can you please look into the deletion of this article? Do you have any suggestions? RobertOgleFan (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For working quickly to fix the grawp vandalism :) Chris 06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks, you did the right thing. 02:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I think this edit war is stupid, but I'm dealing with people who keep censoring the article and just ignore (or delete) what I consider to be irrefutable arguments against this censorship. I've looked at the history of this page, and it's not encouraging. The people who try to fix things get viciously attacked and driven off Wikipedia, often on the flimsiest of excuses and with the complicity of certain admins. I've already been accused of being the sock puppet of a banned user, against all evidence. Edward's been run off and Bert's been accused of at least two different counts of sock puppetry that I noticed. This article is a cesspool and it's surrounded by corruption and violence. Nonetheless, I'm going to stick around until they get an admin to remove me, on whatever basis they can manufacture, because I think the truth is bigger than anything a True Fan can understand. 07:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)
Seresin, there has been no sustained edit-warring between registered users on the Ayn Rand page, only one good faith reversion of spelling and one removal of uncited claims (without a subsequent revert). Full protection is impeding the development of the article at a time when we finally have a group of ideologically diverse, communicative editors discussing improvements to the page. Please reconsider your escalation: full protection is only supposed to be used in the most serious of cases. Regards, Skomorokh 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the article. It is clearly the case that the author, user:RobertOgleFan, is a sock of user:Mykungfu. But perhaps not an abusive one. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Please talk to user:Miranda about this user. She says he is banned, you say he is not, and I will happily wait for the two of you to achieve consensus. Please. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
~Sigh~ Mykungfu has been banned since October 2006. Under BAN, If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned. See this as well as his socks. miranda 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)