User talk:Seicer/Archive 16

Proposed community ban of NYScholar

Hello. You have previously commented on issues related to User:NYScholar. I have just proposed that NYScholar be community banned here. I am contacting you partly because your participation in the discussion would be welcome, but also because I have referred to your past comments, and want to give you the chance to ensure that I am not misconstruing them or using them out of context. Best, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet

Halfacanyon has a highly suspect pattern of behavior for a new editor, i.e. a new editor who immediately wades edit wars and AFD's and taking aggressively anti-Israel positions.Historicist (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hope not. These sorts of disputes are every typical in the I/P arena and as you can see from my block log I've had my fair share of fights. :D I responded to the ANI Seicer. If there is anything else I need to do let me know! Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas‎

I'm a whole lot baffled by your having this closed this based on it being an attack page on someone?? There is nothing at all in any way in what I wrote on that page that was a bad faith personal attack upon Viriditas. It was a chronicle of the extremely stressful experience I had with this editor and what I said was most certainly a good faith representation of what I saw and experienced. I'd like to know why you had this deleted without it being given an opportunity to be heard. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You failed to communicate to Viriditas and failed (as a collective whole) to use dispute resolution in an effort to solve the issues at hand. Leaving it up incomplete, without even an attempt to take the user-conduct RFC seriously, leaves only one to assume it has a more poorer prospect. At such, the first few lines on the RFC -- instructions -- gives another rationale as to its deletion.

As an uninvolved outside editor and former administrator, the charges of plagiarism is very much serious that deserves a second look at (which I will tomorrow), and that any blatant plagiarisms will be deleted. If the content is reinserted, I'll have the page protected and/or the offending users blocked, because it inserts legality issues if it continues on. See also WP:ANI#RFC used to harass. seicer | talk | contribs 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement that "You failed to communicate to Viriditas and failed (as a collective whole)" seems inaccurate where, not only was every attempt to corral the Wikihounding and attack behavior made on article/noticeboard pages, but -- dreading further Wikihounding -- I also placed the following "Sincere Request" on this user's Talk page, which was ignored, and then another renewed my request.Mosedschurte (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The charge of plagiarism didn't have anything to do with the article in question (Jonestown) on which a large part of the behavioral issues resulting in the WP:RFCU was based. Clouding the waters with unfounded accusations was part of the dispute, but not in regard to the article in question itself. That issues from other places were dragged into it and made part of the dispute is an editor behavior issue. I addressed my concerns about that repeatedly, questioning that this editor was sufficiently neutral based on history with the other editors. My understanding from this diff is that the reviewer did not agree with the claim. The issues brought up by Viriditas were primarily regarding WP:NPOV and were also reviewed and not supported [1]. Because the editor chose to reply to the RFCU with a report at WP:AN/I rather than respond to the RFCU doesn't negate my concerns with how I was treated by Viriditas and in fact, my history of editing on Wikipedia has never involved plagiarism, source cherry picking, or other similar issues. NPOV was never an issue until this. That I was drawn into this by how the dispute progressed was something I actively tried to avoid and said so clearly on the talk page. It doesn't negate my treatment and that is at issue. This issue for RFCU is not about the content, it is about how Viriditas's behavior progressively deteriorated. That there is a poor history between Viriditas on the one part and Mosedchurte and Yachtsman1 is the foundation for what happened on Talk:Jonestown and something I actively tried to discourage from the moment it began. Of course, Viriditas is going to see it as a personal attack, it's about his/her behavior. If the RFCU had content issues as to how it was written is something someone did not bother to address at any time and no opportunity or notification to fix it. I requested, more than one time, to ask for dispute resolution or a third party neutral mediator/reviewer be brought in on Talk:Jonestown. Viriditas was not amenable to that, instead filing the WP:NPOV noticeboard report and sticking a peer review request on the page. If I didn't post those diffs in the right section of the RFCU, that is something that can be easily remedied since they are on the RFCU page. And finally, if I recall correctly, the original RFCU has content that I posted that confirmed Viriditas did know about the filing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lookit…

Hi, Seicer. Take a look here and here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

…and especially here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

CSD tag

Hey Seicer. Could you please give me a link to the previous deletion discussion for Football Manager 2010? Thanks very much. — Satori Son 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the deletion discussion? Enigma^msg 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, someone asked above. Enigma^msg 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was premature on my part to do so. I'm curious as to how the content arrived in its current state from a new user, though. seicer | talk | contribs 03:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an anon removed the PROD tag without comment. I wish there was a way to avoid clogging up AfD with stuff like this. — Satori Son 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aryavarta.jpg

The modification clause was removed based on advice from other members. However, this is not original research. In fact this is based on the latest genetics research of SE Asian population and human migrations, as well as latest research on the Indus Script. All these topics are well discussed and settled in Wikipedia itself. Please do not delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellSpence (talk • contribs) 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit question

Seicer -- can we discuss your rescission of my edit? You removed it from "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" with the comment that "Washington Independent -- a collection of independent blog articles, is not a RS," but other Washington Independent articles by the same author are cited several times in the article. --TheMaestro (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is being discussed at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#The Washington Independent article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

'Blacks'/'Black people'

Hi - I think you may have missed the point when you say 'There is nothing in the MOS that states that the word "black" has been admonished in favor of African-Americans or any other term, and your statements of proof either do not exist or don't back up your statements.' Neither 'black' nor 'African Americans' are under discussion, and I am simply referencing MoS which states that 'black people' is preferred above 'blacks'. There are therefore no 'statements of proof' that I need to make to 'back up my statements'. Either we defer to MoS, or come up with a good reason why aq particular use of a potentially offensive word is justifiable.

Further, your comment 'I also suggest to stop going to ANI to report every user who has opposed your comments' seems somewhat unfair - I have not named any user or users (or even complained about any unnamed editor) and it is misleading for you to suggest otherwise. This is my first experience of such a dispute, and ANI seemed to be the place to take it - perhaps some advice on how to take the dispute further might have been a more useful response? Best, Little grape (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Grape here. We have a dispute over terms / language usage. If turning to the Manual of Style isn't the solution, then what is? The MoS gives firm advice. If people wish to lobby for the MoS to be altered then that's fine. But as the MoS currently stands, Grape is correct to say that "black people" rather than "blacks" should be used. --bodnotbod (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Me three. Same with white people rather than "whites", gay people rather than "gays", etc. That said, I don't think Little grape is helping matters by throwing around unwarranted accusations of the use of "offensive" terminology. The matter doesn't rise to that level; at most it's a question of being polite. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I think I've always said 'offensive to some' or 'offensive to many people' or somesuch. Please explain why these comprise 'unwarranted accusations'? It is clear that in some populations the term 'blacks' (and, no doubt, 'gays') is perfectly acceptable. What needs to be understood by those people is that their own 'accepted' terms may be offensive elsewhere and that a more universally accepted term is required - which is why MoS says 'black people' is preferred over 'blacks'. Little grape (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide a specific link to where it states "black people" is preferred over "blacks" in the MOS? seicer | talk | contribs 01:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY spells it right out. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why our policy deprecates usage that appears to be accepted by the New York Times,[2] The Times (UK)[3], the NAACP,[4] the Urban League,[5] the American Civil Liberties Union,[6] and Barack Obama?[7]Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because the US is one of the countries that seems to find the term acceptable? However, this is the 'English speaking', not the US version of the encyclopaedia, so perhaps we should defer to a more generally acceptable term? Little grape (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Note my cite of the BBC. Are you saying that they are a US organization? I wasn't aware of that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being dense, but.... BBC cite? Can't see one! Little grape (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, that should have been The Times (not enough coffee yet). As for the BBC[8] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

With the US having the most PC way of handling racial characteristics of any English speaking country, I doubt that "blacks" is less acceptable outside the US that it is in them.--Atlan (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the US has a very good record when it comes to sympathetic treatment of minorities; your reference to 'PC' would appear to indicate some prejudice in such matters and must make it difficult for you and others to manage a NPOV? Little grape (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I presume by NPOV you mean your point of view? As if the view that blacks is an inappropriate term is any more NPOV than the view that it is not. But that's not really the point, is it. I argued that constant repetition of the term "black people" is undesirable, and therefore alternatives should be used. That viewpoint is irrespective of whether or not, someone, somewhere, finds whatever term offensive.--Atlan (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up.

Regarding Allstareco on WP:RfArb, I've deleted the page that you mention, so that's why your link is a red link :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

I'm familiar with the terms "VOA" and "SPA" - what is a "POS" account? Parent Over the Shoulder is the only thing I can think of. — Ched :  ?  14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

heh "Piece of Shit" :D seicer | talk | contribs 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

duh! ... sorry about that, sometimes my stupidity amazes me. ... thanks. ;) — Ched :  ?  06:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Mexican Empire

Thank you so much for helping with this. I have not been a ble to calm this user down, and he has not been able to work with me, besides issuing an inquiry about sockpuppetry. He is claiming his work is the "original" page. Hopefully, we can work this out! C.Kent87 (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the process of inquiring about Sockpuppetry? Will it be thrown out, or do I have to do anything? As I've told the other user, a shared IP address is quite possible. C.Kent87 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll see what happen if this ip anon is reported as your sockpuppet, because I checked this anon ip and it comes from Santa Maria, California. --TownDown^{How's going?} 01:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As rollbacker must know what's the differences between editions and reversions. --TownDown^{How's going?} 01:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the hell this is supposed to mean. seicer | talk | contribs 12:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this edit you, Seicer? If not, it would appear that an IP was attempting to pass him or her self off as being you. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My IP address should resolve to 198.*.*.*. I no longer have Internet access (or cable) at home. seicer | talk | contribs 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Amorrow

Don't bother emailing Jehochman; he'll just tell you what's already widely known: Amorrow is a horrible person, and thus he believes we should delete (or actually incorrectly reattribute) anything he touches. --NE2 22:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You very much

Thank you very much for “fighting” for me I greatly appreciate it. I read the discussion that was left on m ypage it seemed like the editor Dougweller was still bent on claiming that my account should remainded blocked because of copyright violations. I have a question for you did they tell you who “owned” the pictures I uploaded? Because if they claim they weren’t mine they had to be someones right? As I read the discussions you had. I had just one that wasn't mine and I marked it as that ALL the rest were my own The one that wasn't mine. It was from the artists website and THEY GAVE FULL PERMISION for it to be used as long as they got credit and I marked it as suchI do not belive for a split second that my indefinite block was based on these so called copyright violations. It all started when an editor Polly asked Dougweller to block be clamming that MY pictures were not mine and he didn’t want me to have the "opportunity to download more picture". Then Polly came back claiming I had left some “aggressive comments on another editors page User:Daisy1213" this same editor had been sending me rude messages but that wasn’t considered. Daisy also left a message on her talk page telling people if they don’t like her edits they should take it up with Dougweller. How ironic . The message Polly left Dougweller is right here on his talk page[[9]]. I saw over and over again that Dougweller did not like that you said an apology should be issued to me. I guess that would be admitting that he is wrong and what he did was in fact cowardly. He has had a long list of unjustified blocks, I was just one of them. Once again I thank you for fighting for me, but I am disgusted with the admistrator power abuse on Wikipedia and people like Dougweller make me not want to be a part of wikipedia any longer. Take care Bottracker (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again and for the record, your original block was for copyright violation. Your uploads were later reviewed by an Administrator User:Black Kite, with a great deal of experience in this area and he agreed with me. The unblock was done under the misunderstanding that you'd been blocked for your username and I objected to an apology made thinking I'd blocked you for your username. There was no reason for me to owe you an apology for a username block as that wasn't the reason for my block. I'm disappointed that instead of admitting that perhaps you don't understand our copyright policy and trying to find out how you can insure that your uploads are within our policy you instead call me names. I know you won't believe me, but if I was ever wrong about a block I'd apologise. And all you needed to do to get me to unblock you originally was to say "I didn't think I'd made any copyright violations and if I did, I'm sorry, what do I need to do to make sure this doesn't happen again" and also a commitment not to make personal attacks. It would have been that easy. Ah, Daisy said that if people were unhappy with her edits they should report it to an administrator and suggested me as a possibility. I can't see that as a bad thing. Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

commons:File:Lexington centercourt.jpg

Sorry to bother you. Just wanted to inform you that one of your images ended up on Commons. I changed the license to "self" because it did not originally come from Flickr. Hope everything is ok now. --MGA73 (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Same with commons:File:Midway Main Street.jpg. Feel free to thange the info on the images if somthing is not right. --MGA73 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:DSC 0440.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DSC 0440.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:DSC 0428.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DSC 0428.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 19:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin

Welcome the bit back. Now remove those retired notices. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)