User talk:Seicer/Archive 4

......

I want to stop but I can't. I don't know why I'm doing this anymore. I don't even care about the article. I just want to stop this and forget about it. I don't know why I allowed it to go this far.

An important letter

Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

• Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
• TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats}
• master son^{T - C}
• Son^Talk
• (→O - RLY?)

16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...

Bummer that you are leaving. Of course, we'd like it if you stayed :). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 11

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 11	18 August 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State and national updates Project news Cleanup system revamped Assessment Deletion debates Stubs renamed New York Featured member IRC channel goes global From the editors Minnesota bridge collapses One year after SRNC: A reflection
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 12

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop it

Stop reverting all my edits. I am from WV and I hear all of this in the time I have been around and read them. I know Im right. Nevilledad 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Iraq in Fragments.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iraq in Fragments.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 13

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Byrd

I removed the Thurmond part for now and left somethign about Byrd renouncing his views. I can see where the other editor is coming from, and it is a bit snarky at ol' Strom. It is probably best to keep the article focused on Byrd, since keeping npov has been quite a tricky task. youngamerican (wtf?) 17:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I added a bit at the Strom Thurmond page, since it was conveniently left out (among other POV edits that tilted it towards his "moderation" later in life). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Including your ip edit, I count 4 reverts by you. You have been blocked for 24 hours for the violation. I have speedy deleted the sock catagory. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For continuously corrupting citation templates. I suppose that my revert of the citation template could have been avoided, but reference errors are generally a pain to repair later on. If seems as if the user has done it again, only further up the page. Thanks for deleting the sock category, but could a comment be left at Strom Thurmond regarding the citations that I believe are reliable sources? One is from a notable newspaper, the other from Slate whose source is derived from the noted newspaper. I feel that the debate over the citations has dragged on long enough. Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Seicer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My reverts, as cited at ANI#Wikistalking and possible WP:COI, I felt were justified because they were corrupting citation templates and rendering the references unusable. They were later not reverted for content but for the corruption, as stated in the edit summaries, and I took up the discussion at the respective talk pages. Other editors at Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond agreed with my edits as well. I am looking for an opinion on the subject, because quite frankly, I'm up against a wall: I added in two reliable sources and they are continuously reverted, deleted and/or corrupted. I am being Wikistalked, as evidenced by the numerous edit summaries the offending user has placed. And I have confessed to using the IP address here, so I am not attempting to hide anything. I'm not upset by a 3RR block, as I did revert four times, so it is of no consequence if the block continues. Granted that I didn't check the exception list before editing, which is an error on my part, I won't repeat the mistake again.

Decline reason:

This seems to be a content dispute about whether or not an assertion about Strom Thurmond should be added to an article, associated with a source citation. Revert-warring about it violates WP:3RR. — Sandstein 05:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've asked for other moderators to review the situation at Strom Thurmond, but after posting this at WP:AIV and mentioning it at WP:3RR with nay a comment, and making references above, I'm fairly certain that an WP:RFC would generate little to no traffic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fort Knox

• Thanks for the cleanup on the Fort Knox article. If you could please help me watch the article for a little while. There has been an increase in vandalism and my request for semi-protection was denied. Jahnx 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report

Resolved

 – Active again!

Hello, Seicer. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

1. Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
2. There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments req

Perhaps it is the best move for now. Are these IPs proxies as they keep shifting at every edit? But frankly, I despise specialized tags such as {{gamecleanup}}. If an article doesn't conform to a WikiProject's MOS, then it should be flagged through their talkpage banner instead of a project template that masquerades as a cleanup tag, which reeks of WP:OWNership. --Farix (Talk) 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They are attempting to build consensus through various zombie / proxy IPs, as what 207.210.230.210 (talk · contribs) once tried but was indef. blocked for. I suspect the same here and commented about that just now at WP:AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's gotten to the point that it needs to be reported to WP:AN/I, both the edits the article and the AfD vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Reported: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#GameTZ.com‎ and IP sock-puppetry --Farix (Talk) 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

GameTZ.com

SPAs/checkuser/open proxies are outside my field of specialty. However, I can spot a pattern of abusive edits, and the AfD nomination looks disruptive. Accordingly, I speedy-kept the article and closed the current AfD, and I protected the page. Keep me advised if another angle of attack is tried on the page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

re: User:Getaway

You might also have a look at User_talk:Keetoowah. It has been alleged that the former Keetoowah is the current Getaway (at least by User:Eleemosynary). Ossified 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reagrding your message on DCooper's talk page, I don't think that Keetoowah is a sock of Getaway, I think that it is Getaway's original account which he abandoned, perhaps as a result of accumulating a number of warnings and generating some ill will. Ossified 22:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You should see Getaway's current warning list... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 14

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 01:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:UK ref

Is http://www.uky.edu/OPBPA/whytop20.htm the site you are claiming supports the ranking info? Because it doesn't mention it. -- John Reaves 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The prior citation (#8) to that last statement directs to this: "UK was recently ranked 28th among all public universities in sponsored research." I felt that if the citation was provided the sentence prior, that it would be fine on the sentence proceeding it. There is nothing in WP:FN that I can find that states the citation must be repeated for every sentence, or otherwise every sentence would literally be having a citation applied after it -- and would make editing the page a nightmare. (Hence why I was a bit offended when I was called out by it by the trio of IPs -- since I did not revert all of his edits (only removing the ((cn)) tag, and later had my edits reverted again by another IP.) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To add, the current citation placed is #8, which directs to http://www.uky.edu/Home/AboutUK/facts.html where the statement can be found. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Urban exploration

I note that you appear to have "reverted" my changes to your entry entitled "Urban Exploration".

I am an engineer involved in the utility industry which is being adversely affected by this so-called hobby. There are individuals out there who care nothing for their own safety by entering sewers, and expect firefighters and paramedics to rescue them should they encounter trouble. Furthermore, there are accounts of "urban explorers" forcibly gaining access to drinking water reservoirs - surely I do not need to elaborate on the problems that these people are causing by their activity?

If Wikipedia is to permit links to websites which support this type of activity, then I can only assume that they are willing to share the responsibility for the resulting death and injury that is bound to result if it is not curtailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scumspawn (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding uncited materials and original research is grounds for removal. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Interstate 64

I hope this was just a misunderstanding, and you have no problems with the categories being removed given that they are on the state articles. If you do, you may wish to "reopen" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Browsing on multistate articles when state-detail articles exist (which is about browsing but easily applicable to categories too). --NE2 18:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 15

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Getaway's new sockpuppet account...

I noticed you had to deal with this abusive editor in the past, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Apparently, a few days after a Wikiquette civility report was filed on Getaway, he -- true to form -- abandoned his account (as he formerly did with Keetowah), and created a new account a few days later: JobsElihu. He's ramped up the incivility by a power of 10, is engaging in the same 3RR threats/wars, and appears to have gone over the edge. It also seems he is using this sock account to evade his block history. See his edit summaries here compared with his ones here. There's also overlap editing by both accounts on the Sam Brownback page. I think it's long overdue for an RfC or RfA on this guy. Any suggestions where to go from here? --Eleemosynary 14:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link I think you're looking for. --Eleemosynary 15:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 16

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

South Charleston Information Deletion

Hi, Seicer! While I agree that there was some unnecessary written in the South Charleston, West Virginia article (and good job spotting it), I don't understand why you deleted a large chunk of information regarding the area's transportation system and infrastructure. After looking at what was deleted I think I know how I would like to reinsert the information a bit better than it was, but I would like to know what your reason for deleting it was, beforehand.

Thank you! TarrVetus (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No information was 'deleted', it was moved up to the introduction because there was too little detail and text to include its own section. Some information, including a tidbit about Yeager Airport, is already covered in Charleston, where the airport is actually located at. Since the city is not directly served by the airport, and has its own airfield, I left it out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it, now. That was my mistake. That'll teach me to edit wiki articles before my first cup of coffee.

--TarrVetus (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bah! If it isn't Holiday Blend with creme, it isn't anything!

Really, though, I'm keeping that image there. If there's anything I should be identified by, it's coffee.

--TarrVetus (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

West Virginia

Hey Seicer,

I originally crafted that list last year and somehow two communities keep getting added to it. I remember now that I had added Spencer and Shinniston as part of the original list. Now if only I could figure out the two that do not belong.

--Caponer 14:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Seicer, that sounds quite reasonable to me. Thanks! --Caponer 15:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I love Hillbilly Hot Dogs

They got a 5 star review from wvhotdogs.com. Too bad I'm too damn cheap to shell out for cable or dish. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

They had one of those in Culloden, but it shut down. I guess they tried to extend the chain, but I have no idea why they didn't open it somewhere with a larger population. I always wrote off the one in Huntington as a gimmick, though, in favor of Stewarts. Hillbilly is actually pretty good, though?

--TarrVetus 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. But not as good as Sam's, IMO. I also think that Stewart's is GROSS. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah. Stewart's is all about utility. You could get a box of those things with sauce for a few bucks and feed a group for a day. And when you say "Sam's," you mean "Sam's," Sam's?

--TarrVetus 15:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sam's Hot Dog Stand most likely. I have been to Hillbilly Hotdogs once and LOVED it. I think the next time I am through Huntington (which is like, once every two months anymore), I'm going to try for their hamburgers. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there's a Sam's in Hurricane, so I'll have to hunt them down when I go up for the holidays. Still, though, I'll have to stop by Stewart's for the root beer. Looks like I'll have to extend my visit to Hillbilly Hotdogs, as well. So many hot dog stands, so little time!

--TarrVetus 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Sam's in is more in Teays Valley than Hurricane, near where Teyas Valley Road and Rt 34 split off from each other. youngamerican (wtf?) 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Thanks for informing me of this discussion, I've stated my two cents there (both wheat-leaves, dated 1957-S, good condition). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob :-) I think I found my new "what to do at work" folly. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Threats

This one nearly made coffee spray out of my nose.

"We are all a gang devoted to killing stuck up users." That's a... pretty pathetic gang you have there, friend. Drug trafficing, prostitution, illegal arms sales--just to name a few options--and they chose domination of Wikipedia as their uniting goal? How do you even make money with that?

--TarrVetus (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you're a controlling troll?

You're certainly not in authority, but keep doing such the confusing behaviors rather than doing like just ordinary editors. You changed the cuisine template order by your "own" judgment without any consensus from people. The template had been placed at the top for over 6 months! Besides, you erased my comment to Melon and accused me of being a troll with the such insulting. Reflect yourself before insulting people and hammering your own thought to the dispute. Believe it or not, as soon as I left the comment, Melon appeared at the wiki. You never provide any good and reasonable contribution or try to meditate the situation. "Please" don't act like a "controlling troll" again.--Appletrees (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but comments regarding certain classes of people "dragging others" in is not a very civil comment, per [1]. I don't offer solutions to the continuing dilemma, I just keep tabs on the article to ensure that WP:NPOV is enforced and that edit wars cease. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The nonsense with User:Pcarbonn

I'd thought I'd remembered to count, but now I see that I may have run over - depending on what is counted and what is not. I'm afraid I don't understand Pcarbonn's statements: he seems unduly partial to various forms of pseudoscience - in particular hydrino theory and cold fusion and keeps editing the article to give them false legitimancy. I have been trying to enforce WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and generally ensure that scientific validity isn't compromised - I've talked to Pcarbonn about this at great length and he refuses to accept policy. Please see the full discussions at Talk:Hydrino theory and Talk:cold fusion and let me know if I have exceeded acceptable bounds. I recuse myself from editing until this is decided. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being civil in this manner. I'm not wholly for sure on the schematics of the two articles, however, I will review the articles tonight on the basis of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and comment on that. I'm sure that we can all come to a consensus on this that everyone can agree upon. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Korphai

Please read the edit history of the article before making untruthful accusations. Corvus cornix_talk 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Then provide diffs so that I can better understand, because currently your case is quite weak. Slapping tags after tags is not an acceptable use of time, I hope. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide diffs of edits I didn't make. That's the point. You're accusing me of "slapping tags after tags", and I did no such thing. I only put one tag on the article, the afd tag. The source tag was there for over a year before I ever came across the article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis-From-Accounts

Howdy. I'm the guy who initially noted Dennis-From-Accounts disruptions on the wikiettiquette page. Rumors of his demise were, it seems, somewhat premature. [2] He has apparently decided to go on a vandalism spree. After warnings from other editors, what's the next step in the banning process? 138.23.246.52 (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I was bored lol. Dennis-from-accounts (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bored or not, he's been blocked indefinitely (read: forever). Good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A Little Help?

He doesn't seem to have listened to you - he immediately readded the unsourced info on Cantonese people. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello, Just briefly, I wanted to thank you in regards to your comments and participation in what will likely turn into a burgeoning Edit War (one which *I*, however, intend to back off from at this point...) regarding Wikipedia's article on radio personality and imho genuine human being Bernie Ward. Regardless of whatever opinions or decisions you may personally come to in the matter, I just wish to express my appreciation for your timely response to my question/request under Wikiquette (User:DionysiusThrax). It may be premature or even inappropriate on my part, but I really would like to suggest a careful review and even an editing freeze on this high-profile, long-term-controversial topic (Bernie Ward, currently on leave from KGO Radio in San Francisco).

Before I sign off, I just want to repeat what is probably obvious to you -- that due to the man's outspokenness on politics and religion, he has amassed a considerable number of sworn enemies who do not even actually know him. This is clearly reflected in the tumultuous history of the Wikipedia article about him.

Thanks for your time and patience, (Ken Pruett) DThrax (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! I am continuing to work on the article to ensure that any unsourced negative comments are removed and that it is brought in compliance with WP:NPOV -- both of which are non-negotiable. Throughout the edits, which were sourced with only three or four links and were all similar, I found many misrepresentations and creative snipping of quotes, so I decided to review the sources instead of just performing a general cleanup.

I'm not an administrator so I cannot apply page protection, but it seems that if the page can remain in the current state, with sourced additions added appropriately, then the page can remain in good condition. If it does escalate, I'll do my best to protect the page's integrity according to WP:BLP. Let me know if you need any help. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Prove of panda's plagearism

http://www.geocities.com/anti_pxndx/

http://www.apestan.com/cases/grupo-panda-plagio-canciones-ciudad-de-mexico-distrito-federal-mexico_1588.html

http://www.mychemicalromancemexico.com/p/pruebas-de-que-panda-le-copia-a-mcr-4446

.. ITS TRUE, so im going to put this on the article

love --GuTTy-YC (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC) =)

Admitted to WP:AN3 with a case of edit warring, unsourced/uncredible information and original research. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis-from-accounts returns

Thought you might want to be notified: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

he's back

hi Seicer, 81.154.205.12 is back, right after his one week ban, and begun to be abusive to me again, this time on Talk:Hakka. It's getting quite tiresome... InfernoXV (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide DIFFs? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Begging your pardon, what are DIFFs? InfernoXV (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I found what you were looking for. What are DIFFs; generally give the URL of the (last) reverted version. Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

*tip of the hat*. i find being accused of porky pies to be distinctly annoying, and his tone leaves much to be desired. i've never seen this chap editing constructively, and being accused of racism is unfair, as i've contributed more to articles on Hakka food and culture than he has! InfernoXV (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I followed every rule..

... And it was I who was dismissed and attacked.

I'd always wondered about the value of Wikipedia and its loose sources. Now I see that it's a me-first community where justice and common sense take a back seat to whoever was here first.

Just tragic.

It's reasons like this that Wikipedia is a punch line in modern media, a locale where geeks and wannabe know-it-alls pontificate from self-made pedestals.

You can have it, sport.

I can sell my writing elsewhere.

Can you?

Don't bother responding. I won't be back.

But hurry up and delete it before one of your buddies sees it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtScribe (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette

You marked this [4] resolved but I brought up a point that was not addressed. His username screams RUDE with all those caps. Should I report it to the usernames issue board instead? KellyAna (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such policy against usernames in capital letters. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I would have sworn there was. KellyAna (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not according to policy. It's a non-issue and it just reeks of beating a dead horse with a stick; let him live with his past mistakes. No need to continue dragging the stick through the mud. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but it wasn't beating a dead horse, it was a question. No need to be like that. Beating a dead horse would be bringing something up more than once, not asking to understand a policy. I don't know what any past mistakes may be, all I know is his user name showed up on my watchlist and it was immediately perceived as rude. That's why I asked about it. Your interpretation of the beating a dead horse euphemism is incorrectly interpreted. Quite honestly, all your euphemisms are being applied incorrectly in this conversation. KellyAna (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For a user who has made no contributions to the overall discussion of WP:WQA#User:I AM JOHN SMITH, to bring up a total non-issue seemed to be a little suspicious. You continued to press for censure based on a very tame excuse. But it's a moot point. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, I pressed for censure? Where did I do that? Do not put words or threats where there are none. I asked simply about the name, the all caps in an area deemed "wikiquette" implying etiquette. You seem to be seeing zebras when all there are are horses. KellyAna (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No title

haha, thanks for your concern but i can keep my userpage tidy on my own! Maxgleeson (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I thought it was a random IP adding randomized links... until I noticed your username :-) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 08:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WIKIPOP

is my idea -Zana Dark 68.8.144.42 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just popped through. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you can unban me? -Zana Dark 68.8.144.42 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not an administrator. If you are a banned or temporarily blocked user, I would suggest to stop editing with the IP address immediately so that the block is not extended. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

QPEL

I object to editors like User:Dark_Shikari repeatedly re-adding grammatically broken English, when the old version of the page had good English, even after the errors have been pointed out. Then when I point out the problems, he goes and complains. As if his lack of English is my fault. Timharwoodx (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And it's content that is not only valuable to WP, but necessary as it adds credibility and references. Although this is the English Wikipedia, it is not a requirement to be fluent in English. You are merely being incivil in your edit summaries and comments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at AN/I

Why did you remove your comments at the AN/I thread opened by Perspicacite (Jose Joao)? They were right on the nose, and he needs to hear it from more than just me. Mr Which??? 04:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll rewrite it, but I had confused some of the editors involved in the talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that I am not rudely ignoring the comments made at the noticeboard, but rather under a self-imposed embargo not to interact with P on article's or his talk page, etc. This was done as a favour to an admin that I respect and in an (unsuccessful, it now appears) effort to "cool" the situation.

Thanks for your input. Alice^✉ 05:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Cave Clan links

Resolved

 – IPusers should seek dispute resolution for the "historical" links.

Hey, would you mind leaving the Cave Clan links in. That link to the historical page can hardly be considered spam.

Infowants2b3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.43.213 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth imagery of drains is hardly what I would consider a valuable external link. Those can be saved for a personal Cave Clan web-site, per WP:EL. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine, well what about the link to the historical web site? Surely that is relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.43.213 (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How about you come up with a good reason to remove the links? They are relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.43.213 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You must have failed to read the comments left on your talk page and in the edit summaries. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the talk page please. The summary said te links were irrelevant. I don't see how they are. May you please explain. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.43.213 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty sad you can't recall the pages you just added links to, but here they are: Cave Clan and The Tunnel Rats. A review of the links:

1. In the Spirit of Adventure fails WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided because it does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article; is a link used to promote a web-site; is a link to a personal web-site or blog.

2. The second link is just a list of Google Earth locations.

This is a style guideline and the links should be discussed on the talk page for inclusion, given that they fail several of the general characteristics of WP:EL. If there is no further discussion, the links will be removed per guideline at 13:00, 27 December 2007. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The external links were removed at 02:56, 29 December 2007 from Cave Clan because the "historical" texts were not incorporated into the main body of the article and were merely advertisements, per the above statements. If you wish to re-insert the links, please seek the dispute resolution process. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa!

Resolved

 – All users have come to an agreement on what turned out to be a large misunderstanding all-around.

Would you mind doing a little homework before you go about admonishing responsible editors? The person has been adding completely non-notable pieces of everyday news to the article and seriously damaging its quality. I was entirely justified in reverting his edits to an article which had just beginning to have some decent shape. The person has been repeatedly abusing my on my talk page, calling me "slave of sonia gandhi" and a "congress party worker", edits that I have had to deletle every time. What does that say about his wikiquiette? Inder315, Mimic2 and Nkulkarn are probably sockpuppets of the same person. I've got to say I am really dissappointed at your attitude. Amit@Talk 08:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's something you should post (politely) at the alert board. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He was far less polite to me in his "caution" message. He said I've been deleting content without edit-summaries whereas I had provided an edit summary in EVERY case. I had ignored Nkukarn/Mimic2/Inder315's repeated personal attacks against me. And this is what I get in return for following wikipedia guideline of ignoring recalcitrant editors. Amit@Talk 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For all of us not in the know, what are you talking about? Sorry, which person, what article? Or is it just me without ESP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.249.212 (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is Sonia Gandhi and the person in question is User:Inder315 a.k.a User:Mimic2 a.k.a User:Nkulkarn Amit@Talk 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is bluntly refusing to acknowledge the error of his edits. He is removing mass amounts of sourced, structured and fairly well written material, contrary to his edit summary. He has not gained consensus or even discussed his edits before revert-warring. This is posted at WP:WQA#ReluctantPhilosopher's dominance on page "Sonia Gandhi". It would be nice if he could assume good faith and tone down the comments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

All future discussions relating to this will be removed. Please keep content at WP:WQA and prevent future cross-postings. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24

I've asked more questions. I thought you may want to read his answers. The Transhumanist 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again -- Please help me understand...

Resolved

 – Bernie Ward has been corrected and revised to remove all BLP concerns. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again,

We communicated before about the "Bernie Ward" article and the aftermath of his having been charged with a very sensational crime. I remember how fair and helpful you were in dealing with my concern that in light of these very serious charges, the article could (once again) be transformed into a vehicle for venting hatred of Bernie Ward by his detractors. I was very appreciative that you did not allow that to happen. That is why I am so confused now: Perhaps you can help me to understand how a link to the official "Support Bernie Ward" web site (http://home.comcast.net/~supportbernieward/site/), a site which was set up by Susan Prather, head of Fresh Start (one of the four Bay Area charities which benefit from Mr. Ward's annual Thanksgiving Charity Drive...), and which pertains directly to the charges against him and the efforts by his friends to defend him against defamation and to build a legal defense fund to help him, is to be considered a "spam link"? -- There is plenty of material that has been cleverly linked into this article by his enemies, which amounts to little more than slanderous innuendo. (Take for example Reference #12: Kava, Brad. "Ward opens up about child porn charges", InsideBayArea.com, 14 December 2007. http://www.insidebayarea.com/bayarealiving/ci_7720756. This is a carefully-written, very biased and very personal attack piece, which *implies* a great deal that is very damning, but in actuality is highly misleading in its presentation of "facts". It is "spam" if I ever saw spam. Yet this hatchet job is allowed as as a legitimate reference, while the official site sponsored by Susan Prather of the Fresh Start charity [which, with Mr. Ward's annual support, gets many homeless and working poor back on their feet...], and is personally approved and participated in by the Accused himself and his attorney, is "spam"...?) Please sir/ma'am (Excuse me, I don't know your gender...), I think there must be some kind of misunderstanding here. If so, please restore the link? Or at least help me to understand why it is not considered legitimate while a link to the Kava innuendo-attack piece is permitted? -- Thanks as always for your time and your patience. DThrax (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up to my concern -- I appreciate that. You are right that after reviewing the article from InsideBayArea that it does have a heavy leaning towards stating rumors as true facts -- nothing has been certified yet. When I parsed through the sources, I carefully read through the articles and only cited what was actually verifiable. If the paragraph or statement even began to generalize or waiver, I ignored it and only attributed the core section of article -- e.g. Bard was indited on child pornography, not Bard might have had 100 GB of pornography on his computer.

Generally, per WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view, support sites and etc. are generally not allowed, but feel free to incorporate it in the article as a counter viewpoint. Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Prather support site is listed under reference number 2. I would argue against it's inclusion in the External Links section, as by definition it is POV (it is referenced to cite his current status at the radio station, not mentioned elsewhere). I read Kava's piece, and did not find it overty unbalanced - he criticised both Michael Savage's wild prose, and KGO radio's on-air silence, but that article doesn't add enough information to the subject to warrant a link beyond the footnote either. Seaphoto^Talk 07:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If it can be cited in some shape or form, then it doesn't need to be in the external links section, given that it can influence readers with biased content -- either for or against the child pornography allegations. Note that a decision has not yet been reached -- he has merely been accused of, but it will be a while until the courts reach a final conclusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Leyla Pınar

Resolved

 – User has stopped pasting copyrighted text onto pages. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have a problem. I opened a page at here. Anymaterial have licence problem at this page. Biography is erasing by someone. If here is a web encyclopedia how can i introduce a person less biography. Its not to long. I want you to delete this page pls. I didn't edit the page again after someone edited. Look the page and think "what did I see?" URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla_Pınar —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRWebmaster (talk • contribs) 09:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you just cannot delete a page based on the reason of "I don't want the page." The person is reasonably notable, but the insertion of copyrighted material is the reason why the article is so short. Continuously blanking the page is vandalism and will be treated as such. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok but I m the assistant of the Prof.Leyla Pinar. I added this page to wikipedia. We have not a copyright problem because used all materials made by us. This page became a problem to me. Ok show me a way how can I add a picture and short biography. I m waiting your help. Success thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRWebmaster (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Amit@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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey there! It was unfortunate some hard words were exchanged the between us; I believe you chided me the first time only becuase you weren't all that familier with the subject matter of the Sonia Gandhi page, and then some misunderstanding happened. Anyway, I've got to find some way of fixing the article still. Ciao! Amit@Talk 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

When I have more time to devote to editing WP articles, I'll try to assist in the page. Thanks for the WikiLove, makes editing WP all the more worthwhile! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)