User talk:Seicer/Archive 21

Hello

Good to see you around! --Rschen7754 05:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

New year, more sitting at the terminal. So why not? Good to see you are still around too! seicer | talk | contribs 05:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris James (racing driver)

Hi, impressive protection extended to this article! The most I've seen after a request on the Protection Request Noticeboard is 2 weeks. I wish that terms like this were used more often to deter vandals, thank you! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It seemed to be a long-term issue with multi accounts, so instead of having you or someone else constantly peg the board requesting assistance, I did the long protection length. That should make the editor bored enough to not want to bother with it. seicer | talk | contribs 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate?

Hi seicer. In this AN/EW report you ruled that there was no edit warring violation because "there were some serious BLP issues with some edits that needed to be reverted". That would imply that at least three of WWGB's reverts were WP:3RRBLP exceptions. Could you please explain which edits you think are legitimate exceptions and why? I'm definitely not seeing it, and it apparently wasn't obvious to EdJohnston either. Thank you.- MrX 23:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Rephrase summary

On results(Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#EEng of questionable civility) You have not mentioned that you have blocked EEng for 48 hours. Can you rephrase it? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I had put it at the bottom (the update), but I amended the summary at the top to be clear. seicer | talk | contribs 13:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin Seicer and WP:ADMINACCT. Thank you. - MrX 18:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed my request

Hi seicer. It looks like you accidentally archived my post on your talk page from yesterday. I was asking if you would please discuss your ruling at AN/EW in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT.

In this AN/EW report you ruled that there was no edit warring violation because "there were some serious BLP issues with some edits that needed to be reverted". That would imply that at least three of WWGB's reverts were WP:3RRBLP exceptions. Could you please explain which edits you think are legitimate exceptions and why? I'm definitely not seeing it, and it apparently wasn't obvious to EdJohnston either. Many thanks. - MrX 15:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, it was sweeping statements such as "Alcorn's parents were publicly accused of pushing her to suicide" and other heavy-handed comments that were coming from blogs and non-reputable sites that I was worried about. Stuff like this is a BLP issue, but there wasn't anything more serious that needed oversight or at least a scratching out by an admin. But looking through the edits today, it seems that most, if not all, of those concerns have been taken care of. seicer | talk | contribs 21:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The "stuff like that" that you link to was my comment about something that was reliably sourced, and in fact, verifiable from the primary source. The content was awkwardly worded and should have included attribution (which I later added), but in my opinion it didn't justify multiple reverts by WWGB. I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I would caution you against taking any potentially controversial admin action in the future if you're not going to be available to briefly explain your reasoning. Some of the regular admins on AN/EW do an excellent job of explaining their decisions and discussing cases with participants before ruling.- MrX 22:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up questions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#EEng of questionable civility has now been archived, so I'd like to follow up with two questions to you that you did not have the opportunity to answer there. Do you have any second thoughts about your use of the word "crap" in the edit summary of your first edit removing EEng's comments? And, in the future, would you consider using Template:Hat or Template:Cot instead of deleting such comments? Thanks for your answers to my questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I realize that despite your quick pop in on the 20th to protect a page, you may still be away. When you get back, I look forward to discussing the comments I made at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Seicer of questionable fitness with you. I understand that you may not be willing to accept my request for discussion or my suggestion of what I think would an appropriate next step, and if you tell me to bugger off, I won't be personally offended and will take my arguments and concerns elsewhere. I wish you well and hope that whatever you are 'away' doing isn't too painful for you and maybe even enjoyable (I have no idea if it is a vacation, work related, or something else). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(replies to both) Currently on the road, so my access is by phone. Will be back Friday full-time hopefully. seicer | talk | contribs 01:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have been back and have made some edits today, so I look forward to hearing your replies soon. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but you should probably stalk people less. You are coming off as either a wannabe administrator who is bragging about every badge you can earn like a scout, or just someone who is obsessive and creepy. But sure, "crap" maybe wasn't the best word of choice, but so be it. It's out there and I can't remove it. Is that good enough? This will be archived later this afternoon and I hope that you won't continue to stalk my edits. Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 13:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I understand, you have no interest in discussing the comments I made at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Seicer of questionable fitness as it appears that you don't think administrators should be responsible for their actions and while this saddens me, I respect your choices. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Thought you might be interested in this: [1]. I advised him to consider taking it down [2], his response was this [3] and this [4]. Thanks for your help at the Bobbi Kristina Brown article (and everything else peripheral), by the way. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More power to him :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Have a good one,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for taking care of the IP from AN/I. BMK (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem :) seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection of ISIL

Just checking you are aware you just shortened the duration of the semiprotection for ISIL. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Odd. It also didn't set my pending change modification via TW, so I've fixed both. The page protection now extends to the original duration, and the pending change modification lasts for one year. seicer | talk | contribs 14:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternate account?

Is this User:Herr_Seicler you with an alternate account? I noted this edit [5] and found it to be a bit suspicious considering a previous conversation we had here yesterday. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I thought alternate account at first except when I viewed the diff it didn't make sense Seicer would intentionally change a working image to a non existing/broken one. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I note someone else took care of the edit and the account actually doesn't belong to you. A vandalism report has been filed on Herr Seicler (see here:[6]) and they have been blocked. The report also includes a connection with User:The word randal with a v.. It's up to you, of course, whether or not you want to pursue it, but I have a feeling both accounts belong to a certain sockmaster, someone in particular who is not letting go of an incident that occurred a couple of days ago. A perusal of their edits gives an indication as to their continued anger over the incident. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not me. I can take a look at it when I'm near a computer later today. seicer | talk | contribs 18:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that block

What a nice way of putting it: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of forever." It's nice to have grown-ups in charge. FourViolas (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Forever and ever. seicer | talk | contribs 18:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider your block

[7] The editor was correct, not unconstructive and no one informed them of sourcing, edit warring, etc. Edit summaries are not the way to communicate to newbies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, please lift it. I'm not in the best mood, not fit to edit, but I did it anyway. I'm pretty new, 7-8 months editing, and just tried to find a random warning template. Actually, at first, I thought it was vandalism. The editor was new, and if you see on my page, I'm not doing too good in real life. So I was influenced by that. If you're gonna block someone, block me. Unblock this editor please. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done. Apologies. seicer | talk | contribs 04:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry for incorrectly warning an editor. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it was my error for being too hasty. Cheers :) seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Japan Jam

Can I get the Japan Jam article somehow, so I can work on it, so it's good enough to be reinstated? Evangp (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• I put a lot of hard work into that article and now I've lost it! Evangp (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've pasted it on your talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 17:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• • • Thank you kindly dear sir. Evangp (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Graeme Moore - Bay of Plenty Rugby

Hello, I have recieved an email that this page has been deleted due to (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject).

I have tried to show in the article that Graeme Moore is significant for his acheivements in rugby, our countries national sport. He has acheived excellence in this field being the highest try-scoring player in Bay of Plenty rugby union history, has been nominated as elite by his inclusion in the Bay of Plenty Rugby Dream Team, and has performed at an international level for example scoring a try against the British and Irish lions on 10 August 1971.

These acheivements have references linked in the deleted article.

Can you please advise me why he is not significant?

Best Regards,

SeanA.NZ (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC) SeanA.NZ

Hello, Can you please help with this. I have put a good amount of effort into making the page and do not have another copy of the text. Can you please give me access to the text so I can place the article on another website.

Thanks. SeanA.NZ (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)SeanA.NZ

Hello, Any answer/reply will be appreciated. Bump. SeanA.NZ (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)SeanA.NZ

Please undo your closure at AN, as you are an involved party

Please undo your closure (diff) of the discussion at AN regarding the username of Sturmgewehr88 (discussion). As someone who voted in a contested discussion, it is entirely inappropriate for you to declare consensus and close it with your preferred outcome. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's happened before. Listen, we can have this debate run for two weeks and we would have Irondome complain about other people's ethics and lack of knowledge about this and that, and we would still be in the same position. There is a broad consensus (17 over 5) to leave the name as-is. We've had plenty of folks granted adminship with 70% consensus. Now, if it wasn't so broad - sure it might be improper, but other administrators can always review the closure, but having it open for another 24 hours won't change the consensus if history is any indication.

Plus, Irondome's comments are getting quite pointy and directional. There isn't a need to respond with contention to every single comment that comes his way.

We've had folks close debates before that they participated in. It's not a huge deal unless the closing comments (or other known conflict other than a vote) are a source of contention. seicer | talk | contribs 01:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) Also heading off for a few days, so if I don't respond and it's reopened, it's not personal and I'm totally fine with that. Just drop me a note here to let me know. Thanks! seicer | talk | contribs 01:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I can understand why Irondome is getting hot under the collar, and his attitude shouldn't be an excuse that you use to try to deflect attention from the fact that you closed a discussion while you were WP:INVOLVED and damn well shouldn't have. Speaking as an administrator, it's irritating that actions and attitudes like yours reflect badly on all of us.

The right thing to do, if you're confident that you're absolutely correct, is to reverse your close – no matter how certain you are that it's right – and let an independent admin make the call without prompting from you. You get an absolutely untainted result then. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid I consider User:Seicers comments above as bordering on personal attacks. I have merely stuck to the point of the discussion. I have never in the course of discussion, questioned any colleagues "ethics". Thoughout I have stuck to the cardinal principal of WP:AGF. Also I would appreciate that I be allowed the courtesy of being pinged if I am being mentioned in a discussion. Thank you colleagues. Irondome (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As someone who took the same side as you in this debate I want to say I am a bit annoyed that you closed it after participating in the discussion. You took a clear consensus and muddied the waters by acting with a conflict of interest. It really did not help. Chillum 02:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(On mobile) never said I was never wrong Tenofalltrqdes, but I would be fine if you had reverted or someone else had reverted (I guess it has been?). But I do apologise for being hasty in the closure and I suppose it did middle up the debate and just caused drama. Let's move on - and I'll consider this a learning experiences (implying that I'm not always right). seicer | talk | contribs 03:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Seicer, your close was right, and so what if you were involved. IAR is just as much policy as anything else. It was the right decision, heck, if it weren't for the fact that I'm under an unofficial agreement to not archive anything, I'd reclose it again same way you closed it, and yes, I agree, with your comments about Irondome. KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 12:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Modified your statement

[8] Hope you don't mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN! seicer | talk | contribs 15:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored speedied article

I have restored Tropic sun - and translated it. The history would have shown you edit warring between the creator and others over tags, one of which was a foreign-language tag. It was perfectly coherent Danish (although I have tagged it as likely non-notable), and foreign-language text is explicitly stated not to be subject to speedy deletion unless it is on a topic covered in the foreign-language Wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yngvadottir Says an inclusionist (on their user page). And I have edit warred over the tags with the creator? You are looking at the wrong person. And yes, you can delete foreign language articles (A2) and for being unsubstantial. It still is, and I've renominated it. seicer | talk | contribs 12:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood me; you would have seen edit warring over the tags (but not by you!) - my implication being that you would then have seen that one of them was a tag stating that it was in a foreign language. i.e., not gibberish. As I stated, yes, there is one foreign-language speedy deletion criterion: if an article exists on the Wikipedia in that language (if one has since been created on da.wikipedia, it is indeed A2able; I checked before undeleting and there was none at either capitalization.) But as is stated in a couple of places on the page listing the criteria, being in a foreign language is not in and of itself a speedy deletion criterion. Yes, I tagged it for dubious notability because it may be speediable under another criterion, and I emphasized that in my note to the article creator. That's an understood part of working at WP:Pages needing translation into English - to assist those who can't read the language in determining whether the article merits keeping. But please don't delete anything just for being in a foreign language. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Jose Landi

Can you please userfy this page for me that you deleted. [9] I will work on it from there. Thank you.

CrazyAces489 See User:CrazyAces489/Jose Landi. seicer | talk | contribs 19:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Thank you! all the best!CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Donald Lem resuming

FYI, immediately after his block expired, we get this. Perhaps a longer block is called for here. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that account go anywhere any time fast, so I blocked it indefinitely. Let me know if that article gets out of hand with other accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to more of the same

In case you're interested, Sliver is back to editing disruptively and with extreme pointy-ness. It's all so reminiscent of what happened with him at the Bobbi Kristina Brown article (and likely a repercussion from that whole debacle). See current disruptive editing history here: [10] as well as at the article's talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My only comment: check the article's edit history. I'm not the owner of Leonard Nimoy, and all the selective reading of guidelines and assumptions of bad faith in the world are not going to help Wink on this one. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Winter 2015

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2015

Volume 8, Issue 2 • Spring 2015 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Route description 101 The nitty gritty of in-depth research	State and national updates Editor updates In other project news...
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 12:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:East Htgn Bridge Rendering.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:East Htgn Bridge Rendering.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: Summer 2015

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) delivered on behalf of Imzadi1979 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: September 2015

Volume 8, Issue S1 • September 2015 • About the Newsletter

Happy 10th Anniversary!

• • USRD through the years
• • A goal for success
• • From the first spinning cogs to controlling the power of the moon

• • Article assessment over time
• • How to measure a WikiProject's load
• • Conflict over article titles

• • Arbitration case closes
• • Collaboration
• • Our valued contributors

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 23:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What's New in WikiProject Louisville (Nov 2015)

WikiProject Louisville		What's New in WikiProject Louisville? (Nov 2015)
		Thank you for your continued membership in WikiProject Louisville! Our project is still alive and mildly kicking after over 9 years in operation. If by chance you're not up-to-date with what's going on in the project, here's some of the more recent goings-on: We have over 6,100 articles included in the project and almost 17,000 pages (including talk pages) overall. Our list of project tasks have been moved to a project subpage. This was done because the project's main page was getting rather long and perhaps difficult to digest. "One-stop shopping" for our project's tasks! Our Membership department has been revamped. A lot of membership-related things have been clarified. Did you know: You can patrol recent changes to any page included in our project? Great for stopping vandalism and more! You can see which of our project's pages are the most popular? You can easily focus on and fix specific kinds of problems (such as cite date errors) within our project? If you would like to opt out of receiving WikiProject Louisville newsletters, please add your name to the "Opt out of newsletters" list on our Active participants page.

Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Center Line: November 2015

Volume 8, Issue 4 • November 2015 • About the Newsletter

Departments

• • Assessment roundup
• • Portal selected articles and pictures
• • KML Corner

Features

• • Constructing a road junction list
• • WikiConference USA 2015
• • The Junction template and you
• • Harnessing map archives

State and national updates

• • State updates
• • In other project news...

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 (talk) on 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)