User talk:Seicer/Archive 14

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, Seicer! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Used

Hi Seicer, sorry to bother you with this again, but will you look at this if you get a chance. He's back again, and edit warring to implement the same material as usual. Landon1980 (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, I'll look into this more soon. seicer | talk | contribs 01:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd say that is about all you can reasonably do. I don't think there is enough evidence to justify an indefinite block. I would ask for a checkuser but I doubt they would do one based on those edits. Landon1980 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He started edit warring again as soon as the block expired. Landon1980 (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I requested a checkuser and forgot that I was supposed to add the new account to the existing subpage that already existed. I also saved on accident before I posted any diffs, etc. Can you delete the subpage I created since he is already blocked? Landon1980 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Used Page

Hi, you seem to have helped me since I joined here. There is a user 'Landon1980' that keeps removing information from the used page. If I revert it, they change it back. All this information is properly sourced and accurate and I try telling them that but they do not listen. What could we do about this because I think that they are vandalizing the page by not allowing updated information on it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remote peace (talk • contribs) 06:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What would Wikipedians be if not pedantic?

In reading your proposed principle, I can't tell whether you really mean deprecated (deplore) where you have used depreciated (belittle, devalue)[1]. This changes the meaning to the proposal somewhat so I wanted to ask. A thousand apologies for the OTT pedantry. Ronnotel (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! Let me change that... seicer | talk | contribs 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Threshold (online game)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Threshold (online game). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Theblog (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

fs

Can you please explain how my actions are forum shopping as you claim on my talk page. I do not understand why asking two editors a question on their talk pages fits the bill. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hello Seicer - I am writing to ask if the Karan Johar article can be reduced to semi-protection as there are some typos which need to be corrected. Also, it seems like bad form for the page to be locked for three months when there is a clean up tag on one of the sections. If this is the area under contention, perhaps you could move it to the talk page to sort out? If you can't undo the lock, could I ask you to clean up the page a little bit? Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi'ed. Oddly enough, I applied a semi logo yet fully protected the page. seicer | talk | contribs 04:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd like to make a few tweaks to the article to clean it up. I don't know what happened in the past but if editing goes out of control again, we can opt for a full protect. For the moment, let me see what I can do. Regards, -Classicfilms (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please replace the article "Ira W. Jayne

The deletion reason was stated "No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion"

Did you read it? This man pioneered the Friend of the Court, developed the boarding home plan replacing orphanages, organized the Children Aid Society. Additionally his involvement as national Vice President of the NAACP and the American Bar Association Chairman and vice President of the National Lawyers Guild.

Seems all of this makes him worthy! Plus the page has been there for over a year!

Please replace the article "Ira W. Jayne - I have spent hours researching this information!

Thank you, Tony Slosar (toneron2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toneron2 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made it available at User:Toneron2/Ira W. Jayne, a subset of your userpage. You are free to edit it there and add in additional reliable and verifiable sources -- which is the biggest reason why the article was originally deleted. Let me know if you need help! seicer | talk | contribs 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I do have good references - I just hadn't added them yet - seems it was deleted only a few hours after the article was revised. Question - my most reliable and verifyable source is a periodical from 1995 that does not exist on the web. How is that handled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toneron2 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That can be sourced using a citation; a citation template makes easy work of citing sources, especially if they are not available on the Internet. seicer | talk | contribs 12:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Threshold

ACME drama rating

Batshit insane!

I'm starting to get a bit of a concern that the Threshold thing is gonna be a new ED (i.e. constantly arriving at DRV every other month with the same arguments over and over again). As much as I'd hate to say this, I think that a can of worms has just opened. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for something to do during my downtimes :) I don't see it really being all that big of an issue, unless it is frequently and continuously canvassed off-Wikipedia. At that point, salting it would suffice. At this point, there is no consensus to overturn, and it is likely to stay that way. Frequent abuse of DRV will mean that they will only be closed with speed. seicer | talk | contribs 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very troubled by one aspect of your close on this, actually - you seemed to dismiss the presence of the CGM reference as unverified. I am troubled by the suggestion that print references have a higher bar to clear - it seems to worsen the problem we have of excessive reliance on online sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I have authored two GAs and quite a few articles that could qualify if I would spend a little more time on them. I have used MANY sources that are accessed only through print publications, but per verifiability, I have accessed the source through a news aggigrator, such as Access World News. It's extremely easy for any user to come in, provide a bullshit source, and then claim that it is all reliable and holy. Not to say this source is the same, but sources need to be reliable and also verifiable. seicer | talk | contribs 13:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not as though all copies of the magazine have been burnt. The source is perfectly verifiable. Now, is it trivially verifiable through an Internet search? No, but that's not required. Nothing in WP:V says it has to be verifiable with your computer. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point, that the CGM issue is moot. I'm not even focusing on that, but on the newsgroup posting (which is not reliable or verifiable), and on the self-published blog entry. seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, are you suggesting that Richard Bartle does not meet the criteria laid out in WP:V for self-published sources? Do tell, what exactly would he need to do beyond what he has done to count as an expert on MUDs? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarplaninac

Hello Seicer, this is IllyrianDescendant. I wanted to talk to you about the Sarplaninac article, there some edits I would like to do in that article, for example the place of origin its not Yugoslavia, we both know that Yugoslavia doesn't exist.So please if you could help me with this please again... Sincerely Yours User:Illyriandescendant 6:55 PM, 09 January 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is there for a reason. I am not willing to do perform any edits without broad consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 12:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

USEDfan

Hi Seicer, I really hate to bother you with this again and I know you have to be getting tired of dealing with this. However, he is already back again, and is pretty much making the exact same edits in the exact same section with the exact same horrible grammar. Do I need to request a checkuser or is this something you can act on? Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Already beat you to it :) Gave the page a lengthy protection for the interm. This is something flagged reversions may help alleviate in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. I didn't even know you could flag reversions, but yeah sounds like it would help. If I remember correctly the last time you semi-protected the article he just waited to be auto-confirmed, but it will help for sure. Thanks again, and have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions is a mixed bag. It can be useful, but tedious and annoying to implement and maintain. seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anon "evading" block

An anon appears to be User:Sven70, whom you blocked. The personal system of orthography matches, the location of the IP matches Sven70's claimed location, and so forth. He's decided that appealing the block is demeaning, so he's just going to edit anonymously.

I don't honestly know whether we should care one way or the other, but I thought I'd let you know that he's back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 discussion

ACME drama rating

Epic dramafest!

In the process of subpaging, I think a comment of yours was lost. Majorly talk 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't find it, but it doesn't matter much to me. It's at RFAR, and I may comment on it later. seicer | talk | contribs 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by film title)

Hi I notice you marked the titled AfD as "delete" and closed it, however you only deleted the List of nominees for the Academy Award for Best Actress (by film title) page, with no action being taken on the other 4 list also pages. I don't have that much experience at AfD, but was just wondering if some action should have also been made towards them, as currently they have deletion listings on their pages which link to the now closed AfD. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the best thing to do is to rename a few of the nominated articles after sorted lists are put in there (removing the (by actor), etc), and deleting the others. I'll put the sorted tables in the articles, and post back here when it's done. Phil153 (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. That's what I get for doing this so early in the morning ><. Phil, let me know when you are done, and I'll delete the remainder that aren't used. seicer | talk | contribs 14:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The sorted lists are now at:

List_of_nominees_for_the_Academy_Award_for_Best_Actress_(by_actress)
List_of_nominees_for_the_Academy_Award_for_Best_Director_(by_director)
List_of_nominees_for_the_Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor_(by_actor)

These would need to have the (by actor) etc removed from the title as per the AfD. I'll see if I can move these into the main articles, but I'll ask on the talk pages first and go through AfD again.

By my reckoning (with the one deleted already), that only leaves the following for deletion:
List_of_nominees_for_the_Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor_(by_film_title)

BTW I've seen you around cleaning stuff and you really do a great job as admin, I figure you hear that a lot but another one doesn't hurt. :) Phil153 (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As a curious note, why can't the top three lists be merged into one, with just additional columns? seicer | talk | contribs 14:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for getting rid of listcruft, but I'm not sure if the community agrees in the AfD. Multicolumn sorting isn't that intuitive. The lists already exist in the main articles anyway (linked on each page), just not in a sortable form, so if you think the consensus was to delete them all, then by all means nuke 'em. Phil153 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The top three are for seperate Acadamy Awards. Ones for Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Actor. Basically I think these are becoming lists of winners to accompany the Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Actor main articles. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted them, but I'm open for the possibility of combining all into one list, which would be sortable. All three share items that are common. seicer | talk | contribs 18:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

disruptiveness

Um... Seicer, I don't find myself disruptive, just unexperienced and I would really appreciate you drop it to just let me carry on a normal (Wiki)life. Thanks. Kalajan€₣ 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking over your prior contributions, and the generous warnings and notices given on your talk page, I'm pretty sure that you are aware of our core policies and guidelines. That said, I'll repeat this snippet from your talk page: "Not everything is a crisis, not everyone is your enemy." seicer | talk | contribs 05:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the deletes on the two lists for Fraternities

Thank you for the deletes, I was attempting to split a category into three other categories and for two of the three, when I copied from my notepad to create the articles, I forgot to put Category: in front.Naraht (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to dig one up

The problem with web only sources is of course you need something to be posted to the web before you can source it. But yes, I'm sure ;).--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 20:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Calling someone names (Arrogant) is a quick way to lose your Admin status.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, if you can't provide a reliable source for your statements, then it would be best not to include them at all -- especially for an article that is depicting a current event that is rapidly developing. Have fun fighting for my removal of administrator status for calling you out on your arrogant commentary. seicer | talk | contribs 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson. Is it better to be right or sourced? Especially when a source will be available in 10 minutes. Anyways, as it stands now, it looks like he didn't even get sick at all, he just was overcome with grief at the sight of Kennedy. Can I source that? Yes. Is it true? Who the fuck knows. I can source that he collapsed as well, but that doesn't make it true, in fact, that statement is false. So I favor being right over being sourced. Thanks.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 20:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And crap like that is ripe for a BLP violation. seicer | talk | contribs 20:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My Life Would Suck Without You

Its true, without you my life would suck! Anyway to the topic in hand. While I disagree with the deletion in general of this article, I know your protection is necessary to enforce the procedures in place. However, once this single charts, it will become notable, as per <insert various places previously quoted here>, I would hope you would remove protection on that day, to allow people that have been working on the article to finally add the information they have (currently on somebody's user page). I'm not one of those editors, I have no interest in the article to be honest, I'm just an outsider looking in! jenuk1985 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Hello, On behalf of the concerned parties in the mediation case of The Man Who Would Be Queen. I know that none of you have to accept our case. I felt that asking all of you would be the best first approach. If you have any interest in mediating for us, or not, please indicate this on the talk page of the mediation case. If you are outright interested, want to mediate this case, and need no other convincing then please indicate that as well and we can get the ball rolling. If not we will not bother you anymore. Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may add to what Hfarmer wrote above, we very much need your help. As a group, we have had an enormous number of disputes on a set of related pages, and parts of this dispute have even put WP in The New York Times. The pages themselves remain an embarrassment to WP, and I hope you can help us solve our long-standing impasse for our own good as well as for WP's.

I can’t imagine what you or any other mediator uses in deciding which cases to take. I can’t say that the specific issues we need help addressing are novel (COI, incivility, etc.); however, I do have some confidence that most people would find the subject matter rather engaging. Such issues include the nature of transsexuality, the controversies between how (some) scientists describes transsexuality versus how (some) transsexual activists describe transsexuality, a book on the topic that immediately became wildly controversial, and the individual activists and scientists involved (some of whom participate here), all of which became quite ugly. The most complete (yet brief) description of where we now stand (in my opinion) is here.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can help us to resolve this wide-ranging problem.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Received; let me discuss this over and I'll give you a heads up hopefully today or tomorrow morning. seicer | talk | contribs 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Great; thank you. — James Cantor (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doctor_of_Chiropractic

Since you commented earlier, could you give some feedback on the current discussion about a topic ban of User:Levine2112? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I was childish. You gave me a very good opportunity to look back on myself. I made up my mind to have a conversation with Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs). I don't spare my efforts to realize mutual understanding with Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs).--Bukubku (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blah?

Blah?. This needs to be addressed, there's nothing "blah" about it. Dreadstar † 01:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is. It's nothing more than a likely IP sock returning to stir up drama, when there are two related RFAR cases open. He can make his points there. seicer | talk | contribs 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a sock, I totally agree; but it was blamed on User:Martinphi without any proof or evidence whatsoverver. I don't care who it is, they need to be dealt with - but these unfounded accusations, such as "pseudo-outing" need to be stopped. Find the right target or stay out of it. Dreadstar † 01:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me to "stay out of it"? That's not a very friendly threat. seicer | talk | contribs 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat? You read a "threat" in that? Amazing. If you think that's a "threat", then by all means take it up the chain. It's not even close to a threat. Dreadstar † 02:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Fine, it's not a threat; just a very poor choice of words. You're letting your personal preferences and bias show here. seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now it's not a "threat", it's just "bias". Well, isn't that pretty? No, I'm asking for proof of an unsubstantiated accusation, you hid that thread citing "blah", when I think an unsubstantiated allegation needs to be proven or withdrawn. How is that "bias"? I think the bias is quite on the other side. If checkuser proves me wrong, then I'll apologize, but I won't take your accusations of "bias" and "threats" lightly. Dreadstar † 02:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As Captain Hunt would say, "Bring it". Dreadstar † 02:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: epic lulz

So, Dreadstar deleted the sockpuppet investigation that he tried to bully me into filing. It was later restored by another admin. Should I be concerned about this? Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm off to file this at AN. seicer | talk | contribs 12:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/81.131.6.69. I've noted Dreadstar's involvement in this and have a case ready in the event he does any more shenanigans. seicer | talk | contribs 12:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ghost

Given you contributed alot early on to ghost, you may have an opirion on some proposed merges etc. Scroll down from Talk:Ghost#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom on date links

I saw that you'd issued an indef block to User:Date delinker. I just wondered whether the block should be logged at the case page, as another admin appears to have done for that user's primary account? Mlaffs (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

On User:Ringkjøbing, the account is not blocked, so I think a variable needs to be altered in the tag to make it reflect the block log status. MBisanz ^talk 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Xeno resolved it. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Reqluce block / talk page editing lock

I know he's been fairly offensive on and off, but I don't see that the degree of stuff he's done requires a talk page lock.

Yes, he could leave some more edits which are offensive there, or more offensive edit summaries, but it's also the only convenient venue to try to talk him into being more civil in the future.

Would you object to undoing the talk page edit portion of the block?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If he continues post unlock, then any administrator reserves the right to re-enable it. I'll note this on his page. seicer | talk | contribs 23:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If he continues to abuse significantly, I won't object with a relocking. If he continues to abuse significantly and I'm the first one to find it I'll lock myself... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at GaGa

ACME drama rating

Run-of-the-mill drama

As the person given the waring, you have no power, I will give you a warning, I have always given good faith, when someele for example YOU, bad faith is given. You have no right nor the power to give a warning, If you want to block me, then block me. But you dont have any evidence, so I wont. I hope you understand. kind regards.

Assume good faith and give good faith you will get it in return.

What goes around, comes around.

Dance-pop (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is some of the worst adims I ever delt with. You say that I stared blind reverts, I give a edit summary, that justified it. I have contacted two abbrituors to sort this mess out. Seicer you are one of the worst adims, you take things out of context and do not look at both sides of the story. I hope that other third party adims see this, because I am concerend about the safety of other adims. I will be watching carefully, to see if you contiue with your eratic behavior. I hope you learn from this, I am dissapointed at you for your poor work as an adim. You wrongfully blocked me edit wrrings is to be repoted at 3RR violations and vandilism at ongoing vandlism( by the way I did nothing wrong). You ethic and morals on wikipedia should be questioned. I am digusted at you as a follow admin and your ignorance and arrogance. From the person you blocked wrongfully. Dance-pop (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

hey boy, don't attack admins. --Efe (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you please reply, to your message. I guess you wouldnt sine your a "bad" admin. I am still keeping an eye on you.Dance-pop (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A certain IP

Since your in on this whole Lady GaGa mess, you might want to keep an eye on this IP. I'll give you 3 guesses as to whom it belongs to. — R² 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

Thanks for the unblock.From the history I have gathered, YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be block happy(trigger happy type) and blocks user on minor issue as was the case with this usuer (talk) and other.Should I refer him ?User:Yousaf465

User talk:BarbaraBowen

This user is requesting an unblock. Seems legit. Figured I'd just shoot it your way. I'm going to bed, so if you want to unblock her go ahead, I'll be offline. Protonk (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User: dance-pop

Ok. I try to talk to people on their talk page for help. Thay ALL have ignored it. Therefore how can I, I must mass revert. I have other users to stop before it turns it an edit war but repectively ignore. How can I do anything when I am being ignored EVERY TIME. I am frustrted at users who do not look at both sides of the story. Im sorry if you feel my edit sums. are threatning, but its your opinion and I only do it because users dont listen eg-charmed. Dont bring up the past, my recent deits on your page has being ignored, and the only reason for that is because you know I have being wrongly blocked. I have tryed to dispute content but again I am ignored. Do you see were i am going...please do not ignore this edit. Dance-pop (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Two ips

Same user is using two Ip and again and again reverting edits 24.28.83.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 70.112.77.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) User:Yousaf465

That should have taken care of it. Let me know if there are more! :) seicer | talk | contribs 14:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He is again using this ip 72.179.41.55.this ip was used only to revert your edits..To me he seems to either User:idleguy or User:KnowledgeHegemonyPart2.Most likely the second one He is on a wikibreak and still editing!User:Yousaf465

See this user talk page User talk:Zencv.They are doing it time and time again.Going out of control.User:Yousaf465

Dance-pop

Hi seicer. I think you are the one who installed a block against User-Dance-pop. I think nothing has changed by the block, still the abuse and the threats continue along with the edit war. Just now i pinged him giving reasons for why some info can't be in a particular article, but alas, again started the threats. Could you please take a look in this again? "Legolas" (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a fairly long explanation/warning on Dance-pop's talk page, and talked to Legolas about his premature redirection of the one article in question; feel free to tack on or push buttons as you see fit. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Although now having read that comment two sections up... "Therefore how can I, I must mass revert." Hoo boy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also sexist and a naughty, naughty admin! I'll review his contribs; if he continues today, block it is! seicer | talk | contribs 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trolled :(

Take a look at this. What to do when you are trolled? :-( "Legolas" (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for semiprotection

Thanks for protecting the sst article.User:Yousaf465

You are on WP:ANI

Hello, Seicer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Yousaf465 on an Anti-India Propoganda. Thank you. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for any inconvenience caused

I'm regretful for any inconvenience caused due to my actions.Sorry for that.User:Yousaf465

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles. Pcarbonn is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed. Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution).

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Otherkin

Hey, I restored this. I don't see how it's reasonably speedyable as nonsense. Friday (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Just wondering - was that ANI comment directed at me? I started to respond to it, but then I wasn't sure... Tan | 39 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no. Not to you :) seicer | talk | contribs 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ukufwakfgr block

Argh. I edited at almost the same time you did, offering to give User:Ukufwakfgr one more chance to become a valued contributor. Now I'm not sure if I should unblock because I offered to, or decline because of your review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. You can go ahead and give him one more chance. I'll resend my block decline. seicer | talk | contribs 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

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/MZMcBride/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/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Onorem

I appreciate the thought, but I prefer that my user and talk pages remain unprotected. It won't help much in this specific case anyway, since this guy's socks were mostly created in 2007 from what I've seen. --Onorem♠Dil 12:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediation committee question that needs to be addressed

Your input regarding a question for the mediation committee is requested. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation#Would_this_case_be_accepted.3F. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

Ukufwakfgr was unblocked based on a willingness for him to edit in good faith on other articles besides the ones on which he was being contentious. I'd note that he has gone 10 days without any contribs whatsoever on any articles, and I wonder if his plan is to wait out a few months and then come back ot the aforementioned contentious articles. MSJapan (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're in the mood for more abuse...

Special:Contributions/Axmann8

Seems in the 3RR range, and is now he's citing some blog to prove the Obama's birth certificate was a forgery. Guettarda (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't support the inclusion of inaccuracies or demogoguery, but this article on Drudge is not the kind of publicity that is good for Wikipedia. Public opinion should not be that biographical articles are treated differently for different people, but the same for all. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Let the conservatives squeal in delight over an article that puts Barack Obama in a negative light. seicer | talk | contribs 13:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Point? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Take care

Please don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? A one line response isn't "long and involved." No user is restricted from any talk page without an ArbCom sanction, and as the initiator of the ArbCom case, I have more than a right to post. It wasn't inflammatory nor degrading, and it would be appropriate of you as such to strike the offending comments. How he replies is his own doing; not mine. seicer | talk | contribs 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm advising you that in the past 3rd parties arguing with themselves on SA's talk page has led to poor results. If you chose to ignore my advice, feel free. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved your hat up higher; there is no reason to contain anything south of Coren's comment if you are going to be selective. Hope you don't mind. seicer | talk | contribs 13:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't (mind, that is - IE it's fine). I chose the spot I chose because it included all of the material that SA did not respond to an the nne talkpage block endorsement which was in bad taste. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Klien

Well done. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Is there any precedent for a "speedy no consensus"? Seems to me that consensus was building towards "keep." The solution to clusters in an AFD is to warn editors violating NOT#CHAT and CIVIL, not to reward them by disrupting the procedures. Would you reconsider? It's just going to be a larger cluster at WP:DELREV. THF (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no bias towards a reconsideration at an appropriate time, but the timing, and the gross civility and BLP vios. just overrode the useful comments made. I will, however, clean up the AFD if you can give me about 30 minutes. seicer | talk | contribs 18:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up meaning reopen and permit the five days to run? I don't want to open a WP:DRV if we can agree that it shouldn't have been closed. THF (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Borderline is even a stretch. Calling the guy an idiot in passing...don't we have more egregious attacks and BLP issues to worry about? Grsz¹¹ 18:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but when it is a high profile individual that's now been tracked on multiple high profile web-sites and newspapers, we need to ensure that even the AFD's are rid of such inane comments. seicer | talk | contribs 18:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If I provided sources that supported my claim would it be acceptable, as I'm sure I could. Grsz¹¹ 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not followed along with the discussions regarding the individual. Sources that supported what claim? seicer | talk | contribs 18:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That he's an idiot. Nevermind, I've removed my vote and it's an ANI. Grsz¹¹ 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)