User talk:Seicer/Archive 11

Ulster Defence Regiment

Hi Seicer. Can I ask you to look in on the UDR page again. Tag teaming seems to be taking place in an effort to force edits through without discussion. If you feel it's appropriate I'd welcome another block on edits to protect the article. The 16:43 version is intact.The Thunderer (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lokah

A claim that a "moderator" "apologized" for deleting this article at the AfD (I think) has been made on my Talk page. I'm trying to figure out who that "moderator" is. Was that you, perhaps? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The log has it being deleted by Wizardman on 1 June 2008 per the AFD, and again on 15 August 2008 by Gogo Dodo due to CSD G4. seicer | talk | contribs 10:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it was you, but since you nominated the article for deletion and you are the only other admin besides Wizardman involved in the first delete, I thought I would check. The whole claim was rather suspicious to me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

UDR proposals

I have started a work page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Thunderer/Ulster_Defence_Regiment and also posted a set of objectives on the talk page. I've invited BigDunc and others to participate in an editing and discussion session to see if we can agree something which might resolve the issues which seem to exist. I would very much appreciate your examining the objectives and perhaps commenting or correcting anything which you think is inappropriate.The Thunderer (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Bad ill"?

Hehehe - did you mean "ill will"? --NE2 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess you can say I've gotten physically sick of looking at these threads too... :) seicer | talk | contribs 21:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U InternetHero

I updated the links to AN/I reports in your summary at this RfC, as those discussions have now been archived. I expect that this is one of the exceptions to modifying another's comments, but I feel that I should notify you anyway. Regards. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please check the facts

Thank you for your response here, but please check the case. I answered you there. It's not a joke and the fate of a user is decided. Kostan1 (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Duh. And I replied accordingly. I checked the "facts" and they are pretty clear. seicer | talk | contribs 13:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Jewish Internet Defense Force

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Jewish Internet Defense Force. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If everyone could

I thought it was brilliant. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Seicer

You know, my civility problems on Commons is doooone. I haven't been making anymore slurs or other insults. i've gotten better, and Scott said it's not impossible I will ever become an admin, it will just take several years possibly, just keep up the good work and don't be a jerk.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 02:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

RFAR notification

Hi. I have posted a request for arbitration of User:Elonka on the WP:RFAR page. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the notice. I apologize for my hasty comment regarding wheel warring. I would not in actuality conduct that, given that even if a block was inappropriate or done without consensus, wheel warring over it poses an issue that is as serious as the block itself. I would express my disappointment, however. I am not going to be able to substantially contribute to these future discussions as my time is very limited, so I am going to recuse myself from further comment at that arbitration request, at the RfC and on her talk page for the time being. seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AN comments

This is why you are rapidly becoming one of my favorite admins. Tan ǀ 39 05:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I try to do my part to be everyone's favorite asshole! :) seicer | talk | contribs 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On edit conflicts

Hi,

The next time you see that I've obviously edit conflicted with someone, could you be so kind as to merge my comments in, rather than just reverting? ANI isn't exactly the easiest place to edit when it's busy, and there's no way I'm going to catch things like that in my watchlist. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Joseon tongsinsa

FIRST: You can help move this along by using your administrative tools to restore what Caspian blue has deleted. When complaints were posted on my talk page, I moved them to this page so that the thread would be in one place. At first, I thought that I'd done something systematically incorrect or insufficient. I didn't realize that there'd been more than three reverts at first -- didn't really understand the game being played until the WP:AN/I posting. Okay, now I get it.

Please fix this part of the complicated record which will prove my innocent involvement in a contrived situation.--Tenmei (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So now you are telling me what I should do? Pfft. Come back with a better attitude. seicer | talk | contribs 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks . In my view, there was only one constructive outcome; and it flows from something Taemyr wrote: "Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project." Taemyr's suggested mentorship option seems promising. In that context, I construe the following as an initial topic for discussion with a mentor:

• I received this demand on my talk page. That was followed with this equally long rant on a totally unrelated thread at ANI.

Thank you for your contribution to the process in which I begin to figure out how to improve the effectiveness of my Wikipedia contributions. --Tenmei (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Latics

Is this a joke, or serious? EJF (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At first, I always took Kurt's comments with a grain of salt, but I sincerely do believe now that self-nominations are prima facie evidence of power hunger. seicer | talk | contribs 19:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed

I've taken a few hours away after the events from earlier this afternoon with User:Peter Damian and I must say that I am still disappointed with how you handled this. You assumed that my listing was in bad faith and endorsed his removal of the AFD template, despite that that is not the correct way to challenge an AFD, where his actions were edit warring and arguably tantamount to vandalism, and you endorsed a series of personal attacks. Whether or not the deletion nomination was in error, there's a right and a wrong way to deal with it, and I think that both you and he chose the latter. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. Best to leave this matter behind rather than generate more drama. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

put this is tanthalas talk article. it is blocked. pls

86.153.130.184 is a pro pakistani vandalizing articles. another user claimed he is a sock of a user called Nangparbat. please see [1] and [2]. help please. he is inserting pakistani argument everywhere n remove indian ones. he write administered near kashmir (india) n removes for pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.31.145 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg

When I readded the F-URs to that image page, it was because the image was (at that time) still being used on 20+ pages and "consensus" was, I thought, trying to be established. So, telling me "Don't revert war on this" would not be assuming good faith. If you have a problem with any of my edits, please come to me first and I will be happy to explain. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk 13:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, policy trumps consensus on this issue, especially given that it is a blatant misuse of fair use and logo guidelines. The edit summary was not in direct comment towards you, but in general -- this is an issue that should not be revert warred. seicer | talk | contribs 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless (people saying there isn't a rule, people saying there is), I would have liked to seen some discussion before everything getting removed. Even if consensus isn't needed, I think it is still necessary to explain what you are doing and why and even come up with other options (so everyone can be happy). Just an idea, I guess. Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk 14:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion on why it had to be removed, and rationales were given for its speedy removal. seicer | talk | contribs 14:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

May want to look at user:Youtubeowner

Looks familiar, no? –– Lid^(Talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. seicer | talk | contribs 03:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Otterathome

it was an error as it was already sourced below.--Otterathome (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean, above? You could have avoided this drama by being more civil in your discourse. Perhaps explain that it was already sourced, and to clear up any confusion, you could have duplicated the reference using the <ref name="same name" /> tag. How hard is that to fathom? seicer | talk | contribs 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Could have, it is not necessary to do if it is sourced in the detailed parts of the article. Many features articles don't have any sources in the lead.--Otterathome (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

TBN Logo Protection

Resolved

 – Please take this either to RFPP or NFC. seicer | talk | contribs 03:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that you remove the protection on the TBN logo. No one has said anything about revert warring on that logo page but you. I looked, you are the only one who actually keeps saying "revert warring". Dragon695 suggested everything be reverted back and further discussion take place (discussion that never happened to begin with). Protecting a page in, one of which you are dicussing, to a version you have deemed "correct", may be looked at as misuse of your admin tools. Please rethink your protection of this page. Thank you...NeutralHomer • Talk 03:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This way. The comments implied that anyone is free to revert back to a version that was a gross violation of policy. As time has shown, policy trumps consensus, especially in sensitive cases such as this. Don't like it? Go here instead.

And amazingly enough, as I correctly pointed out in other threads at ANI, as soon as someone disagrees with policy or with how an administrator(s) deal with editors, they cry "admin abuse." Typical. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think you need to take a couple steps back, because you are getting a little too involved in this and aren't even bothering to assume good faith. Saying some are "crying admin abuse" or if someone does't like it they can go somewhere else is a, as you put it, gross violation of policy...that policy, WP:AGF.

Several times Firsfron and myself have shown that there is no policy to violate. There is no rule that states an image can only be used once or twice and there isn't a policy that states that image has to meet some criteria to be used. But there was also another gross violation of policy last night. Three users completely overstepped the rules of policy, consensus, and blantantly ignored they fact there is no rule you all keep trying to cite...those users are Gonzo fan2007 (who stopped when people voice opposition), Future Perfect at Sunrise, and you. There is no violation in using that image, but there is violation in your actions. - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The lax view you take on a serious issue such as this is appalling. There is no "consensus" towards keeping the 120 errant image placements on various pages. Three administrators did not "overstep" the rules of policy, consensus and etc. -- and if you review prior cases of Fair Use Abuse, you will see that the position I am taking is the position that has been supported in the past. I've given you guidance on where to go from here. If you want it unprotected, take it to RFPP. If you want a policy change, go to NFCC. Don't go to other administrators' talk pages to try to sway this; it doesn't work and reflects poorly on your judgement, especially when you go off and complain about my actions. That makes this all the more reason to shrug this off... now I remember who you are... seicer | talk | contribs 03:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I take the same view as another admin, Firsfron. Also, allow me to quote Firs on something, your protecting the TBN image is "in clear violation of the policy on page protection: 'Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own position in a content dispute.'"

Plus, what does my block record have to do with this? - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One final thing, as this entire discussion here and on AN/I have made me completely lose faith in many admins and the consensus process, if there is a problem with a fair-use image, please let Firsfron know as I want nothing to do with F-URs or F-UR discussions for a very very very long time. See you around the Wiki....NeutralHomer • Talk 06:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And we have others who agreed with my protection, and that it has not been removed (or requested). Given the veiled threat of revert-warring, protection was one method of ensuing that the revert-warring would not continue for the interim (five days), after which the situation can be evaluated once all of the drama has been died down. Drama eases with time, it seems. seicer | talk | contribs 11:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Request amendment

Please consider amending your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemic theory of miracles. I assure you my nomination was made in good faith and in error, no more. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the accusation of bad faith, and best wishes for the future. seicer | talk | contribs 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's cool. Meanwhile, Image:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg has had its discussion spread over four pages. I've declined to unprotect it, although it might have been a better idea for you to leave protection to someone else to start with. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that now, but after hearing about the whole deletionist/inclusionist agenda in the thread, the veiled threat of reverting (on top of the beginning of an edit war previous to that), the various e-mails, and etc., I acted in a speedy manner. I should have taken it to another administrator for review and for protection. Thanks. Hopefully this can be resolved, with the majority of the administrators agreeing with the policies and guidelines that are set forth. Consensus doesn't always trump policy, especially in a case as serious as this. seicer | talk | contribs 16:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--Smashville^BONK! 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

All those Palin Church/Pastor articles

So I am looking at the AFDs thinking to myself, 'oh boy, Seicer is going to get an ear full'. I come here, and no one has jumped on you for your quick deletion and close. Now I don't disagree with the results but I think we might want to let them go for the whole 5 days. Politics and religion are such heated debates that someone is going to claim foul and want them restored and re-listed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God falls into the same group. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I might have been more lenient in this case, but the articles were recreations, some were CSD'ed, the OP has not responded to any inquiries and has instead spammed countless talk pages (and has yet to heed any advice of any -- by asking the same questions further). Let me get some sleep and come back in the morning. If there is any significant consensus towards restoring, feel free to open it back up or I'll do it myself when I'm up and going. I just don't know the intent of the editor, and all AfD's were going downhill pretty fast. seicer | talk | contribs 02:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Morning seems like a much better time to think about this. I am off too... 'nite. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't understand why this is called Spamming. The term spamming is being used in two fashions in this case. One is that you have been copying and pasting the same discussions, or similar discussions, to various user talk pages without considering that perhaps one or more have already answered your questions. Posting around to many users may seem like you are forum shopping until you can find one user who may agree with your viewpoints or ideas.

It may also be applied to the articles in question, given that they are recreations of deleted materials under different titles. Recreating articles after they were deleted is generally frowned upon.

2. What is the five day deletion policy? Typically, articles for deletion are given five days for consensus to develop, whether the outcome is to keep, delete or merge the article. There are exceptions, especially if the tally is so strong that there is a very slim to none chance of any consensus forming in opposition to the given rationale. In this case, outside of your opposing comments, there was little to no support towards keeping any of the three articles.

3. How did all of the diverse information on the four articles, which was growing with a very large number of independent edits all get deleted? Per the AfD process as noted above. Any user can nominate an article for deletion, or speedy deletion if it warrants it, and I am noting that at least one article was speedy deleted before it was sent to AfD. Independent edits is not indicative of an article's quality.

4. Were the sources , sourced as requested by the Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Monthly, New Jersey Times of Trenton, etc., inadequate? What is a major news source It still did not assert notability. If I wrote an article on my Grandmother's house for Wikipedia, which was referenced in a newspaper as being the prettiest house on the street, it would not make the house notable. Likewise, an otherwise unknown pastor for a very small church in a very small community in a very isolated part of the state is not notable. Please read over the notability guidelines for a clearer picture on that. Sources are not akways indicative of a notability.

Hope this helps, seicer | talk | contribs 02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted my Rant. I had a change of heart and mind after studying Wikipedia and pages and histories of editors and others for a while, so I deleted my "rant". Day before yesterday was my first day. I am very green to this, and I assume from the above comment that you deleted the four Palin church and pastor articles. I did not even know I had a discussion page or how it worked until late in the deletion debate.

• I will be posting five questions on the Wasilla Assembly of Goddeletion discussion page. I did not even know I had a discussion page or how it worked until late in the deletion debate. Your comments or help answering them would be appreciated.
• If you think I should delete any other inapproriate comments, please let me known. EricDiesel (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

After briefly scanning your tirade, I'm not going to give a considered reply after I noted the following:

• "I suppose your group..." in reference to conservative whitewash;
• "...deletion article zealots..."
• "...with most of the responses feeling like I am grading papers of undergraduates..."
• "...(my) army..."

You seem to believe there is a political motivation, which is about as far as from the truth as it can get. Sorry, I don't carry a political agenda when I administer Wikipedia, and neither do the other editors who almost unanimously voted for deletion of the articles.

Furthermore, you haven't exactly grasped the concept of spam at Wikipedia -- not in reference to the articles you created and then recreated, but in reference to your pointless spamming of the same comments to various user talk pages, including mine. Copy and pasting comments with little motivation outside of trying to gather consensus towards your point-of-view is spam, plain and simple. You put little to no thought in preparing adequate dialogue, hence your ignoring of various notices and messages on your talk page and at ANI until your pages were deleted; and your copying and pasting of text to various user talk pages is just pure lazyness. seicer | talk | contribs 04:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted another emotional post of mine made in ignorance of Wiki policies and editor motivation.EricDiesel (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Spamming Talk Pages

I am new to Wikipedia. Please let me know what you are referring to with some specifics. I understand Spamming to mean having a computer generate a number of messages.EricDiesel (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are recreating the same articles under various titles: Ed Kalnins, Sarah Palin's pastor, and on and on. You've received well enough warnings for this. You have also been spamming various administrators pages in a poor attempt to drum up support: [3] [4] [5] etc. Spamming is not localized to a computer. seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have recieved a large number of suggestions for improving the articles, and in general reponded with individual messages to each, unless exactly the same point was made by both. I do not understand what Spamming means on Wikipedia. Did you read the messages from those I was responding to, and my responses?

1. I don't understand why this is called Spamming.

2. What is the five day deletion policy?

3. How did all of the diverse information on the four articles, which was growing with a very large number of independent edits all get deleted?

4. Were the sources , sourced as requested by the Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Monthly, New Jersey Times of Trenton, etc., inadequate? What is a major news source

If you have time, you can respond on my talk page. Thanks.EricDiesel (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A reply has been given on your talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 02:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Reopen AfD

Would you be willing to re-open the AfD for Wasilla Bible Church. I am somewhat puzzled that the AfD was closed so quickly, and I have not seen the article to evaluate whether it was a POV fork. Thanks, Dems on the move (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I ask the same thing about Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church, and Larry Kroon, and argue below to let them independently evolve for five days, especially as they are all covered in different stories in different world media, because they are notable for different reasons. Thanks. EricDiesel (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

* YIKES! on my first experience in attempting to write an article.

I am now responding to tens or hundreds of comments on my four deleted pages, so I only now had time to figure out what your post with "ANI Notice" meant.

I only figured out what the "my talk" page was late in the various deletion debates, since I did not know I could edit discussion pages, nor that "talk page" and "discussion page" are synonomous (they are, aren't they?).

1. YIKES! on my first experience in attempting to write an article. Is it normal for hundreds or more lengthy comments (on this and other pages) for an article whose topic that is NOT even notable?

2. Did you refer to me as Spamming because I should not be posting on other's pages unless they contact me, even if the messages are individually written to adress comments made elasewhere but relevant to my article? Is there an etiquette for ssending messages that you could quickly let me know about before I mess up again?

Thanks EricDiesel (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the number of comments, not really, but the articles you chose were in relation to a highly controversial topic. Most AfD's won't generate this much interest or discussion, but combined with the high profile target it is connected to (of Sarah Palin, not the church), then there were more than the usual number of comments.

I referred to your comments as spammy mainly because you copied and pasted the same question to numerous talk pages without even slowing down to respond to what had already been replied to. Outside of that, it was fine and I see no major issue with it. I'm glad that you've taken the time to slow down and reply to the queries, because most of what you've asked has been answered. Mainly, in sending messages to users, be sure that it isn't overboard. Usually sending a message to one or two administrators in regards to the deletion is fine -- but to ten or more is stretching it a bit -- and this is not assuming bad faith on your part.

I hope that you stick around and continue editing. Your contributions were valid, but on the stand of being in an individual article? Perhaps not. If you want to continue to edit those pages and re-submit them, I can set you up with a sandbox on your userpage -- such as user:EricDiesel/Sandbox, that you can use to form the article. Afterwards, you can show off the finished page to me (or if you want me to look over it more), or go to deletion review to have the pages re-instated. seicer | talk | contribs 18:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I didn't slow down because I did not understand how talk pages work (I did not even know I could put comments on the deletion discussion page, or know about my own talk page, and I thuoght Wikipedia worked like the net, where there is a race to delete information that is not flattering, so I was posting on people's talk pages incorrectly and assuming bias where there was none.

1. I don't know how to tell that someonw is an administrator or just someone like me. For example, I thought you and Elan26 (or whatever his name was) had the same status.

One thing I noticed on all four articles was that they were EVOLVING into independent articles, and doing so very quickly, due to the huge interest in each seperate topic. For example, I would think a videotape of llspeaking in toungues]] would be very interesting to see, and compare how it is ddone in each small church, but on a page for each church, not on Palin's page which would be unfair (unless is is a video of Palin). I have never seen this, but heard it is pretty eye opening strange. Is white house public prayer in the presence of other world leaders going to include what is done in one or the other church? What are the conventions of the small Independent churche, Wasilla Bible Church? These questions are likely to have answeres sourcable on the web, and other contributors can find and add it to the pages.

Similarly, Palin's pastors other than the two with articles do not seem to be notable. even though a third pastor is MORE frequently quoted in major media, but he has no notability on his own. The two, Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins, on the other hand, are involved in different quotation controversies relevant to public policy, the former with two notable persons and his creating the situation whereby they met, and the latter for making controversial statements that parallel public policy reasoning of the Governor of Alaska, and for which all 100 US voters voted, that being that God wanted certain earmarks, and a pipelin. It seems biased to put this on Palin's pages, because it might just be a coincidence, but it sure is generating a lot of press.

The Israeli press is now covering Kroon, but not Kalnins, since they are notable for different reasons. The Israli press likely cover Kalnins entirely differently than Kroon, since they are notable for different things, in addition to just being two of the many of Palin's pastors. Kalnins is notable for his relation not only to Palnin, but to David Bricker (?), or whatever the name of the anti Semite he had making the remarks covered in the press was. (Having a Larry Kroon page to look up the anti Semite's name easily again would be useful.)

2. Is it possible to set up all four deleted pages (two notable churches, two notable pastors, with none of the other churches or pastors included unless they are in the press for other than talking about Palin) and watch how the information in them independently EVOLVES over five days?

3. I have to go read what a sandbox is before I respond to your offer. Thanks for your generous time to an admitted ranter. EricDiesel (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This was on the Wasilla Assembly of God deletion discussion page, but refers to Wasilla Bible Church. Since there is so much talk there, I thought I would pick it out to show you, since others have written that there is too much talk and the admin will be swamped. Again, being new, I am assuming you are the person who deleted Wasilla Bible Church, or directede it to Sarah Palin.

"Comment -- Wasilla Bible Church: This discussion seems to ahve become a WP:DelRev discussion of that article, which seems to have been the subject of a BAD FAITH AFD closure, perhaps for US party political reasons. That article should be restored and the AFD allowed to run its course. However the mechanism for that is to request a deltion review. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think the closing admin would object to reopening although no one has asked. see User talk:Seicer GtstrickyTalk or C 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)"

I argue that Wasilla Assembly of God should have its own page since most news stories refer to its internationally notorious anti Semite speaker, David Brickner, especially in the various international and Isreali press stories, so it could either be directed to Palin. It is unfair to associate Palin with Brickner like this. EricDiesel (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Spamming?

Would it be Spamming or impolite under Wikipedia etiquette to send this question to the handful of people who posted helpful suggestions on my talk page? I wanted to clear it here before sending the same identical question to more than a couple of people.

Question re: Notability is not contagious Thanks for your comment on my discussion page.

I am new, and have been asking questions about this without a response from anyone and maybe you can help me understand the deletion of my four articles.

Palin's history teacher is clearly NOT notable. However, if Palin were a politician known for her denial of the Holocaust, her history teacher WOULD be notable, especially if the history teacher was a Holocaust denier.

Similarly, I would think Hegel’s history teacher would be notable because Hegel’s is notable for his theories on history, while Hegel’s sewing teacher would not be notable.

The general point is that a relation of B to notable A does NOT automatically transfer notability from A to B, but a relationship of B with the CAUSE of A’s notability WOULD, in addition to the mere simple relationship of B to A.

• Is this correct at Wikipedia?

Thanks. EricDiesel (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief - Why no redirects??

Hey there, I tumbled onto these Palin-related deletions by accident, after I ran a Wiki-search for "Ed Kalnins". Without addressing the issue of notability -- which is very much in flux -- I'm nonetheless astonished that it never occurred to you (or anybody else, for that matter) that for the time being, at least, some of those pages should certainly exist as redirect pages to Sarah Palin -- locked down, of course, so nobody can change them back into articles (until and unless that is considered appropriate). Regards, Cgingold (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I hope you'll take a moment to reply to this note. Cgingold (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll set up a redirect tonight after I am back from my errands (really busy at the moment). seicer | talk | contribs 23:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good -- please be sure to do it for both Ed Kalnins & Wasilla Bible Church. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Got all three redirecting to Palin. seicer | talk | contribs 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If Wasilla Assembly of God survives its AFD, I think we should redirect Kalnins there instead of to Palin; he is the current pastor of this church. GRBerry 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm not sure if I'll be available this weekend, so feel free to redirect it (or have someone else notified of it). seicer | talk | contribs 04:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree on that. Cgingold (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed Kalnins

I'm a little concerned by the redirect. We are redirecting a vicar's name to a nearly-unrelated article about a member of his congregation. Maybe it would be best to delete it (and salt) as the AfD seems to indicate, and just let Special:Search lead people to Palin if that's what they are after? Cheers, Ian¹³/t 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree on this one. I recently changed the redirect for Wasilla Bible Church on similar grounds. The RFD for Larry Kroon is another example. Perhaps a redirect to Wasilla, Alaska, or no redirect at all (no one in the AFD seemed to be advocating for any redirect at all, simply deletion). Keeper ǀ 76 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I was waiting for more discussion on the redirects, and to find some consensus before applying the changes. But if you feel that it is in the best interest to delete and salt, or redirect, then feel free to do so. I'll not be around much this weekend so I won't commit the changes myself. I trust your all's judgement on this. seicer | talk | contribs 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed Kalnins should not redirect to Sarah Palin. It is a surprising redirect, not at all intuitive nor expected. Either the article should stand on its own with its own content or be deleted. A redirect to Wasilla Assembly of God might be appropriate but not a redirect to Sarah Palin. The page seems to be protected right now so I cannot fix it as you suggest. Can you please do something about this before you leave? Thanks. WTucker (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:OSU.svg

Can you explain your deletion of Image:OSU.svg? This was tagged as pd-ineligible. --- RockMFR 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OSU does not have a license that is compatible with Wikipedia (a free license), and the image was not released into public domain and is not applicable under Fair Use. It was tagged under WP:CSD#I9. Do you want me to restore it so it can be taken to Possibly Unfree Images? seicer | talk | contribs 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The argument behind the pd-ineligible tag is that it is simple text and would not be eligible for copyright under US laws. This is probably a bit questionable for this image, but it would at least be valid for fair use here. --- RockMFR 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how that argument has held up with other logos from other universities. We had a spat a long time ago at my alma mater, University of Kentucky, about the logo (I was uninvolved in the discussions) regarding Fair Use and pretty much everything I stated above. seicer | talk | contribs 23:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, after looking at the images side by side and doing a close inspection of both, the svg was hand drawn. I'm terribly sorry for deleting it, but thanks for bringing it up to my attention. It was very well reproduced! seicer | talk | contribs 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And OSU does not allow reproduced versions of their logo to exist, please see: this. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 15:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 5#Image:OSU.svg. seicer | talk | contribs 16:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The original link at the top of this discussion applies to marketing partners; the other link applies to those who are approved by OSU to use the logo (i.e., OSU's own marketing efforts, and anyone who's been approved, officially, to use the logo). Neither applies to a fair use version of the logo, which is what a Wikipedia article would use. So, I think using the exact logo would be fine -- though it should probably be bitmapped, rather than the SVG version (to comply with the "low resolution" aspect of WP's fair use guideline). -Pete (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What we have right now is not a fair use logo and comparing the SVG to an official GIF there are big differences graphically in the text. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that copying something -- whether by electronic or manual means -- does not affect its copyright status. For example, covering a song is not making a recording -- but you still have to pay the copyright owner royalties. So I think we have to consider fair use, regardless of what version of the logo is made -- regardless of if it was drawn by hand, or copied from their web site. -Pete (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe a similar issue arose with a TV Guide logo. The end result, I think, was to extract the logo from a PDF. We could do the same here. I'm not saying to throw fair use out the window, just that the current status (the image and licensing) is not acceptable. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think I misunderstood you. You're saying that the current logo is unacceptable, because it's not a faithful enough copy of the real deal? If that's your position, it sounds reasonable to me. The "fair use" issue would be the same, as far as I can tell, regardless. But it may be that we need a higher quality/more faithful version for the article, from content perspective. -Pete (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad Block Review

Hey, can you take a look at [User:Scjessey]'s Block [6]. He was quickly blocked and looking at the evidence does not point to edit warring. Here is the link to the 3RR report: [7]. As you can see he was removing inappropriate information and in general keeping the vandalism down. Thanks for taking a look. Brothejr (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked. seicer | talk | contribs 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Bible Church, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Ed Kalnins

I am sorry if I caused offence. None was intended, though it is true that I suspected wrong motives. Your assurance that there were none closes the case as far as I am concerned. Others involved have certainly gone over the top on POV issues. The removal of articles on the two pastors was appropriate, but they should have been redirected to articles on their churches (if surviving) or to Wasilla, Alaska, not to Sarah Palin. Following the undeletion of Wasilla Bible Church, I merged some of its content to the town article. I have done the same with that for Wasilla Assembly of God. As some one who regualrly commeent on AFDs listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity, I believe the best solution for NN churches such as these is to merge them with the town where they are, usually removing unnecessary detail. That is effectively what I have done. I am in England and have little interest in the partisan issues, which are necessarily hotly debated. However, I considered that the basis on which the matter was handled was incorrect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll retract my comments in a few minutes. I knew that by deleting the article that it'd create some dialogue on the issue, but there was far less than I expected -- especially since all three are seemingly tied with the most popular article at Wikipedia for the moment. The three are being redirected or deleted/salted based on discussions here and elsewhere, and I'm not handling those. seicer | talk | contribs 17:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vanceburg

Hi, Seicer. I'm sorry for not checking up on every single username that I posted regarding the Vanceburg, Kentucky article edits. I just grabbed all the usernames which referenced the city in some way. I'll try to be less lazy about that in the future. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gerardo Bonilla

This is in regards to an article you recently speedy deleted as a Test Page because the contents were a single sentence saying a racing driver sucked. However, just as a heads up, I think it'd be helpful to inform you that I believe you made an error in deleting the article because I think you might have missed the history section, as there was actually a legitimate article two edits prior. The article had merely been vandalized and not reverted, so someone nominated it for Speedy. No harm, it has been fixed, but just wanted to point it out so that you might not miss something similar again. The359 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

USEDfan again

Special:Contributions/Cutie ST. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. *sigh* seicer | talk | contribs 14:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo finish :-)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leon_Ousby - I'll let you do the honours. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

and again :) I reverted your second close this time since I think wiki hiccuped. TravellingCari 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

*chuckle*

great edit summary. Thanks for the laugh TravellingCari 01:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was funny until I screwed it up by posting it before I could modify it. seicer | talk | contribs 01:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot would thank you for that. I think we put it on life support, at the least, at the weekend. We're insane, but it's an outlet. Have a good night! TravellingCari 03:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Thanks for your efforts at maintaining the AfD process. I see that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (Online series), which I started, and that you deleted The Suburbs (Online series) (thank you). The AfD also included the related articles List of The Suburbs episodes and List of The Suburbs cast members which you did not delete -- can I assume that this was merely an oversight? --Orlady (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you for informing me of this. Both have been wiped. seicer | talk | contribs 03:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks. --Orlady (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for P. S. I Loathe You

An editor has asked for a deletion review of P. S. I Loathe You. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I wish you had read the hangon. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I did, and it was inadequate. Sorry. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not. Sources were existent, the book was confirmed (which it wasn't in February), and the AfD I referred you to had plenty of information about it. You've made an error. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it to DRV. You'll get no assistance from me if you continue to pander in that attitude. seicer | talk | contribs 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I report on Orangejumpsuit

This is a courtesy notice - you had earlier given a warning to orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for comments made on Sarah Palin. I just reported some ongoing edits to AN/I, here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should reign in this guy Wikidemon... his bold face threats [8]and bullying [9]is not very civil...

as wells as his arbitrary censorship...I say..who elected MR. Wikidemo as king???Orangejumpsuit (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

His "censorship" isn't arbitrary, consensus on the talk page seems to be against you. Dayewalker (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What YOU call "consensus" is what I call Tyranny of the majority but if we came up with a consensus that the Earth is flat, by golly, the online Encyclopedia Wikipeida would declare the Earth flat if enough Flat Earth editors had the consensus here... Your logic is flawed Orangejumpsuit (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's consensus, you refuse to discuss it or acknowledge it, but it's plain old consensus on the talk page, which is what we're supposed to be coming up with. Looking in from the outside, the logic is sound. Dayewalker (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn! I was too late :( seicer | talk | contribs 12:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship)

This is gonna seem like I'm jumping down your throat, but I'm really not trying to. I have a few questions about that close. Hmmm. I've written and rewritten the first questions a few times and I can't seem to come up with anything that suits me, so here goes. I don't think that should have been closed as keep, but I can see where you could have thought so. I'm curious, then, to see what would have made you close that debate as delete, given the large number of keep voices in it? Was it your opinion that sources exists, and so notability was satisfied? Or was it your opinion that the vast majority of editors probably can't be wrong about sourcing existing? I should point out that you are under no...um...obligation to answer those questions. I'm not trying to press you or act as though I can demand an explanation. Lastly, do you think a DRV would be an appropriate route for this close, or do you think that would be fruitless? Thanks for your time. Protonk (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus at the AfD were in favor of keeping the article. There were numerous procedural/speedy keep comments on the basis that the original rationale for deletion was incorrect, and I am in agreement with that.

The rationale that the article should be deleted because it "lacks reliable sources" but is "probably notable" is essentially the same as saying, "the article needs cleanup more so than deletion, but this is a good tool to get that done." That's not what AfD is for, but if you feel like the deletion was improper, DRV is the way to go. seicer | talk | contribs 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. I do want to note that the wording of the nomination was probably the result of the nominator's misunderstanding rather than a misreading of what AfD is there for. further down the bottom of the AfD (after I asked him to come back and clarify), he notes why he used the word "notable". Thanks for responding. I'm not sure I'll file a DRV because I don't think that you were wrong in any procedural sense. I guess I'll think about it. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam's Case Files

Don't forget to delete Adam's Case Files too. It was part of the AfD for "Adam's Case Files Mixtape," and was virtually identical to the forst file. I added it to the AfD discussion when the original author created the article without "mixtape" in a futile attempt to convince us it wasn't a mixtape. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi there Seicer. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Prometh3an

I don't think we're in the business of extending blocks because people request unblocking. I'd kindly ask that you reconsider your extension of the block on Prometh3an – it seems an unnecessary escalation. — Werdna • talk 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of the unblocking template and gaming the system is not what I call a fair game. I've amended the block but have fun with the train wreck you are all setting up. seicer | talk | contribs 12:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semih Aydilek and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Henney

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)

HHN Records article

WP:CORP, states, An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. WP:MUSIC states, A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. WP:RS, states, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Music charts were submitted. Mass Record Pool, who are located in Boston Mass. They have no affiliation with the label. Illinois Record Pool is an world reknowed record pool servicing the entire world. The label has no affiliation with them. • Gene93k said without warrant, or obviously never verifying anything that the label published those charts theirselves. Those charts came straight from these entities web site and can be easily searched online and anyone who takes this initiative can easily determine that HHN is not affiliated with them in any way. And according to WP:RS. • Gene93k should have explained why those references were rejected. • HHNRecordsPR (talk) 21:40:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review is where you need to go. Seeing as how it keeps getting recreated, I'm going to fully protect the article to prevent that from happening, unless you go through proper channels. seicer | talk | contribs 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

_{Already protected.} seicer | talk | contribs 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Space Battleship Yamato (spaceship). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of beloniform fishes

Seicer, you closed a number of SNOW AfD's and deleted the according articles. I think however that you forgot to close the above AfD as well. Since I was the nominator, I would rather not close it myself, to avoid any process wonkery afterwards. Fram (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd. The article was deleted, but the script chose not to flesh out the main page. I'll take a harder look at my closures in the future. Thanks! seicer | talk | contribs 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just checking...

Now you said that 09jcsherrard was blocked indefinetly, but the notice said 31 hours. Can you tell me which it is, please make it clear.

HairyPerry(Talk) HairyPerry 13:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen, 09jcsherrard is one of my friends and he is sitting right next to me, you can tell me so he knows for sure. If you can't tell me make it clear for him...would you do that?

HairyPerry(Talk) HairyPerry 14:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been made quite clear on his talk page why he was blocked indefinitely, and the template was replaced with one that reflects his duration. seicer | talk | contribs 14:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude don't be getting smart with me, i was just trying to be cool with my buddy. HairyPerry(Talk) HairyPerry 15:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if this wasn't a trolling account before... seicer | talk | contribs 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means man...trolling, and whos account are you talking about I have made useful contributions to a lot of sports teams on Wikipedia, if you talking about me. HairyPerry(Talk) HairyPerry 15:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification - ANI Thread

Hi,

I have started a thread that you may be interested in. Its about your extention of my block and the violation of WP:CIVIL that is your trainwreck remark.

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Seicer   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion Request

Please undelete the article Javier Flores, the reason ism because is a young filmmaker in my country and is one of the few people who is intrested in making things work for salvadorean cinema.

He is currently working on the show Juventud En Linea broadcasted by channel 10 in El Salvador, he has two years working there and many others working alone, and i have no notice of newspaper or magazine references for him, but it will be added when i found them.

thanks for reading my request and i hope you can undelete the page i created Guasinay50 (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Deletion Review and submit a request for Javier Flores to be undeleted. If you need to create a page, but do not yet have enough sources or information, you may want to try creating the article in your User:Guasinay50/Sandbox for the time being. seicer | talk | contribs 15:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male film actors (A-K) (2nd nomination)

A delete from you, but it's still a blue. RMHED (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The script I'm using has its quirks which I've noted and will pass along. seicer | talk | contribs 23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)