User talk:Seicer/Archive 9

User talk:ItReallyDoes

Apologies. I saw that on ANI and I was under the impression the "Arrogant ..." username was an admin. It seems I didn't revert myself like I'd intended too. Thanks. Qst (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) seicer | talk | contribs 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Dmitry Medvedev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't like you very much. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gee :) That can be like anyone on Wikipedia basically! seicer | talk | contribs 03:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe. Anyways, thought you would get a chuckle out of it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:20, 24 May

2008 (UTC)

Hindu terrorism

I have question about this article and its AfD. From my perspective proctecting it is a good call (selfish reasoning here: since it also keeps me from breaking the 3RR rule), but the article is also in AfD and its current state is poorer than it need be, given the sources that exist (A block quote from once such un-included source can be found on User_talk:Firefly322). Since editors who are not administrators can no longer contribute to the article,yet the nominator of the AfD still can. Doesn't this admin-only block make its AfD process a bit twisted? --Firefly322 (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I should have noted that in the first place. Thanks for bringing it up to my attention. It's been unprotected. seicer | talk | contribs 04:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the blocking of ScreamAimFire

I have talked to ScreamAimFire a couple of times in the past and ScreamAimFire seems like a person who wouldn't do that I was wondering if you and a couple of admins. could conference talk about and review his case and maybe reconsider because I know that my account has been hacked into a couple of times and there were some inappropriate edits made without my knowledge but thankfully I reverted alot of those edits before alot of noise was made. So, I would like to kindly ask you if you could review ScreamAimFire's case and maybe reconsider. Thank You. Have a good day! Chrismaster1 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can, but not until Monday when I will be freely available. If he sends me an e-mail (I'll notify him), I can get to his case quicker. seicer | talk | contribs 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he said that he can't email you because your email address wasn't by ur name but I did say that you probably meant your talk page, was that what you meant by emailing you? --Chrismaster1 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is an "e-mail this user" link under Toolbox on the left-column of Wikipedia. I do not share my e-mail address publically. seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What's Going On?

I just edited an article and I clicked in Preview, but now all my stuff is deleted! How can I get it Back?-- Ginnina (talk) 8:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

Please do not continue to introduce a child pornography conviction into the introduction, such as your edit here, as it introduces undue weight early on and provides an unfair balance for the remainder of the article. It is covered with extensive details below. This issue has been brought up at BLP/N, but as an uninvolved administrator who frequently oversees various cases there and elsewhere... seicer | talk | contribs 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What uninvoloved administrator are you talking about? Also, there is no concensus there, as you proclaim. Ward's career has been ruined by his self-admitted child porn. It belongs in the lede.--InaMaka (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Me. I'm an uninvolved administrator who noted the Bernie Ward article months ago when the text was nothing more than BLP violation after BLP violation, which was taken care of through about a week's worth of editing. The policy, viewable at WP:UNDUE (and elsewhere on the page), specifically states the following,

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

It's clear that you are using the introduction as nothing more than a POV-fork. To prevent further edit warring on your part, please take it to the case open at WP:BLP/N. seicer | talk | contribs 02:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No. That is not true. You are an "involved" adminstrator. You have stated that you have an interest in the topic. You have admitted that you "noted" the Bernie Ward article months ago. Also, you have jumped to a conclusion about my motives, of which you have no idea. I'm not going to continue to edit the article because you are an admin who has an axe to grind and I know that in the world of Wikipedia admin do grind axes. I'm moving on. But before I go I'm just pointing out, for little it will do, that you: (1) are NOT an "uninvolved" admin, but a participating editor in the article, and (2) have jumped to conclusions about my motives and intent, of which you know nothing other than a what you are guessing based upon a couple of edits to Wikipedia, which, of course, is a very, very, very thin reed on which to place your incorrect assumptions, and (3) there was no "edit warring" going on other than another editor disagreed with your position and you have decided to use your admin hammer and call it "edit warring." Good day!--InaMaka (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. I have no constructive reply to give, so I'll just finger-point and blame the "administrator axe." seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles

Could you please cite chapter and verse the Wiki Policy supporting your unilateral move of the "Nationalist" page? Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] seicer | talk | contribs 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

link

Just a courtesy call to note that I fixed a link in your post and wanted to make sure that was really what you meant, so as not to be putting words in your mouth.

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 00:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for catching that! :O) seicer | talk | contribs 00:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just checking

Just in case you weren't aware, you can check the tor status of any IP by going to the IP's talk page. It's one of the links in the "WHOIS" bar at the bottom, and my experience is that it's as accurate as any other tool I've used; because of the nature of tor, there are always the occasional false positives and false negatives. Hope that's helpful. Risker (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

oops

Sorry, didn't mean to remove your comment :) SirFozzie (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not upset about it in the least bit and i'm thankful that you stepped in but can you please explain to me so I will know in the future how I violated the 3RR rule? From what I understand I am allowed to make more than 3 edits if the following is true..."Addition of libelous material or biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons." I believe that the edits made to the page in question def fit this description. Either way thanks again and hopefully the two week period will allow all editors to cool off.Dirkmavs (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Graham (pastor)

Thanks for the full protection. Maybe now the edit warriors will be forced to negotiate. Personally, I'm recommending they get together and invite several 3rd parties in to review things. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DRV

Hi, just letting you know I put up File:ArrowTre1.jpg, which you deleted, up for review here. I think the deletion was in error. -Pete (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:USEDfan

Can something please be done about this user? He is highly disruptive, refuses to listen to reason and insists his view is always correct. He is currently insisting on the following additions [2] and [3], which I have tried to explain are not necessary until either they are released or at least have articles, yet he insists on adding them. I do not want to end up in an edit war with this kid again, but frankly the majority of their edits are disruptive and counter productive. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

UE Article Images

Hey, just to let you know the reasoning behind my removal of some of the images and text from the article is this: The Danvers image was not a UE image as much as it pertained to the construction at Danvers. If it had been an inside shot, or some other type of UE shot of Danvers then I would have kept it. At my count there had been over three drain shots. Two were from the same person and even one of the shots the user had submitted even had himself in the shot. I think one drain image is enough to give the reader the impression of what it looks like in a drain. The reson I removed the user's images was because they did not add to the article and were posted to advertise what the user had explored and even to advertise the user himself and his shots. I then removed the Kentucky image because it also did not pertain to UE and was only there to advertise that the place gave tours. Lastly I removed that bit of text because it was a personal opinion and had no references to back it up.

I looked up MOS and I don't think you meant Manual of Style, which does not pertain to what I did.

It would be fine to have an image per portion, like one of an abandoned asylum, tunnel, drain, etc. We don't need repetitive images and also unrelated images in the article.

The one thing I have noticed is users penchants to advertise their actions, photos, and web sites in the UE article. I removed those photos under that basis. Brothejr (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I was hoping that there would be more rationale behind it. I don't mind having some photographs of relation up, but you also removed an image of the Ninjalicious book cover -- which may not be acceptable anyways per the fair use rationale (which may cover only Ninj's article). I have a lot of images that I can use there that pertain to abandonments, and may place one or two related images on there to give a representation of what's covered in the text. I'll run it by you first, though. seicer | talk | contribs 02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All I had been trying to do was clean up the article. I was not trying to cause edit warring. Apparently Ninja's book must be some holy grail to you guys? (As I mentioned in the talk page, I met the guy over three years ago and I was not to impressed with him, though I mourn his death like any other Explorer. That book was meant more as a guideline then some UE rules.) As far as the Danvers pic, I tried to replace it with a more appropriate image that would keep Danvers on the page. Then, one guy comes in and reverts the comprise I tried to make and I get slapped with a WP:3RR warning from the same guy to keep me from reaching a comprise. Brothejr (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's no issue, but you really do need to get consensus for such a large change to the article. People do feel strongly about the article-- which is good because I thought a lot of the activity had died down a lot. Just propose it on the talk page and see where it goes -- and it looks already as if people are willing to compromise, which is a big plus. seicer | talk | contribs 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Just to let you know, I have absolutely no connection to the previous edit warring which was committed by another IP. I have attempted to discuss my changes on the talk page, but instead have been reverted twice without any participation of the other user in the debate. I believe this clearly shows I was not the one edit warring, so perhaps you could retract your accusations that I was continuing an edit war. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware of the situation and yet you continued to persist in an ongoing edit war that resulted in the block of one IP address. Take it to the talk page, make a statement, gain consensus. Revert-warring is never an answer, and piled on top of the previous IP address' contributions, I semi-protected the page for one week. Can't be any more clear than that. seicer | talk | contribs 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on this administrative action at WP:RFPP. A reply there when you have a moment would be appreciated. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 05:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No I was not "well aware of the situation", I was informed about what I perceive to be original research on another wiki, I was not told that there was an edit war on the page. I believe that the other IP found out about it at the same place, however I have not communicated with them nor do I have any conenction with them. What you seem to be failing to realise is that I am more than willing to discuss the situation, I recognised that removing information is always controversial and posted on the talk page before I was reverted. It is Allstarecho who refused to participte in discussion, even after I informed him about it through an edit summary he continued to make claims that I was edit warring. You seem to have protected the page despite my assurances that I would not edit war and the blocking of the more hostile IP, perhaps you could reconsider this decision. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note on Cold fusion

...because I realize that, somehow, I left this very important bit off the talk page. I was very happy with the mediation process and its results; on the other hand, I noticed that the article (both in the form I found it and in the suggested from from mediation) needed numerous edits to comply with style guidelines, and it at least needed a little more clarification or discussion in order to protect it from possible ravages at GAR and FAR. I am not the expert on Wikipedia policy, but I know something about style guidelines and about common objections at GAR and FAR. The bit I forgot to say was that my goal in my review was to accomplish the minimum changes necessary to show the GAR and FAR people that I was doing an adequate job, while still respecting the mediation process. I'll go make that clear now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm more knowledgeable in the mediation process, but as far as editing for style, I usually leave that up to others. Thanks for your assistance in this! seicer | talk | contribs 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. I hope you'll be around for future conflicts concerning this article; "cold fusion" is a difficult topic, and you got up to speed nicely. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I will soon give the final GA checkmark at Cold fusion, if no new issues come up. I'd like to add this paragraph to the "neutrality" section of my GA review on the talk page, but please tell me if this is too strong or too provocative:

• Finally, to chemists and physicists who might say that it's pointless to represent the points of view of the cold fusion proponents: the Chubb and Van Noorden references show sessions on these topics at recent ACS and APS yearly meetings, the 2004 DOE review was equivocal, DARPA and the Indian government are currently funding studies, and one of the fathers of hot fusion in Japan (Arata) just gave a live demonstration of his excess heat experiment in the hall named in his honor to the Japanese press. Wikipedia can't take a position that you're not willing to take; as long as chemists and physicists keep the subject alive and unresolved, Wikipedia must do so as well. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very well written and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I don't find it to be all that heated or strong. Cold Fusion isn't dead, but it's not exactly the hot topic that it was once was, but there is still no reason that it can't be continuously maintained on WP with some vigor. seicer | talk | contribs 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks much. I look forward to helping the article towards WP:FAR. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Need your help at Cold fusion

Please tune into the last section at Talk:Cold fusion#Regarding last night's changes. Feel free to weigh in there, or on my talk page, or email me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this soon. I've been out of town a lot and I haven't been able to get too involved in anything as of late. seicer | talk | contribs 02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a post on the talk page at WP:CHEMISTRY and see if there are non-supporters still interested in maintaining the cold fusion page; if not, then future options are limited. I can't and don't want to maintain it myself, but I'm interested in the subject of what can be salvaged, and which version of the page Version 0.7 and Version 1.0 should be most interested in. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about speedy delete

Dear Seicer, This article is full of gibberish and made-up stuff about a middle school. I searched back through several versions and could find no article-quality version of the article so put a speedy delete on it. Is this the right thing to do in this case? If not, please feel free to modify. I'm not sure what to do about such articles? Renee (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Because some people bitch and moan about their precious school being speedy deleted because it may hold some unfound notability, it has to go through AFD. seicer | talk | contribs 02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the quick response. I replaced it with an AFD template.Renee (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse by Omegatron

Seicer. Can you please put a stop to Omegatron’s vendetta against me? He started an Administrators’ noticeboard against me here. Numerous editors weighed in that the issue wasn’t one of my being uncivil (though I admit I have a sharp tongue—or fingers). Rather, except for Omegatron and one other editor, all the rest took time to come to my defense and opine that it is really a content dispute. Most of these other editors were very familiar, involved editors, and one was an uninvolved editor who takes an interest in what is going on over on Talk:MOSNUM. The vast majority of us editors believe this issue is simply over Follow current literature, which would deprecate the use of the IEC prefixes. This is a guideline that Omegatron rammed through, admittedly without a consensus, it has been the subject of a record-setting amount of dispute (twelve “B” archives dedicated exclusively to bickering over the use on Wikipedia of the IEC prefixes).

Then, after hours of responding to him, and after much effort from many other editors, Omegatron started up a parallel complaint via an RFC here. This is an absurd amount of hoops to have to jump through; particularly after so many editors already made an effort to weigh in on this and put an end to it. Can you help?

P.S. Omegatron is undoubtedly watching what I am doing here. He is an administrator and I am not. I am at a disadvantage here. He will complain that it is entirely about my behavior. I do hope you will click on the Administrators’ noticeboard complaint here, and read what the other editors are saying. The consensus is clearly that this is nothing more than a dispute over content. Greg L (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to check this tomorrow at work, but I'm in the process of some big internal changes here. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I just checked the RfC:Outside view and saw something from User:Fnagaton that I didn’t know about. Omegatron broke some very important rules over the last 24 hours in choosing who to alert about his actions. Omegatron posted his original Administrators’ noticeboard (here) and never notified me about his complaint against me; User:Gwen Gale did. Then he took up the issue again with his RfC on me. I didn’t begin to respond to his allegations there until 02:39, 4 June 2008. However, as Fnagaton discovered, Omegatron had notified User:Thunderbird2 51 minutes earlier, at 01:48, 4 June 2008 [4] and User:Aluvus one minute later [5]. It is especially important that I explain the significance of Aluvus being contacted at all. Note the contents of Talk:MOSNUM at time of this writing:Talk:MOSNUM @ 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC). You won’t find the Aluvus’s name there once. Note also the contributions of Aluvus: Contributions. It is highly notable and relevant that Aluvus has clearly been totally inactive on Talk:MOSNUM and any issues pertaining to the IEC prefixes. Also note that Aluvus has been relatively inactive on Wikipedia altogether as of late. So why would Omegatron contact such a relatively inactive and uninvolved editor at all?? If you look at his contributions, you will see that Aluvus took the time to contribute four times to a complaint page about suspected sock puppetry by Fnagaton ([6], [7], [8], [9]). Thus, Omegatron perceived that since Aluvus had a passionate distaste for Fnagaton, he might also be inclined to join in a bash-fest on Greg L. Note again that Omegatron notified these two editors of the RfC nearly an hour before I started responding there and yet couldn’t find the time to post a notice on my talk page of his RfC.

  While I am certainly prone to plain-speak in my dealings with other editors and “tell it like I see it”, I do take pain to not be uncivil to the individual; I try to focus my ridicule so as to point out the logical holes in others’ specious or fallacious arguments. It’s nothing one wouldn’t see (often) in college-level debate classes. And I do try (hard) to adhere to the rules of Wikipedia. Further, my value system places high importance on conducting oneself with honor and integrity; most editors at Talk:MOSNUM know where I am coming from and have no reason whatsoever to mistrust my word. I am a realist though. I do not expect reciprocal conduct from all other normal editors; I have truly had a bellyful from a certain subset of editors who will consistently say one thing and do yet another. This is life. But I really do have a much higher expectation of administrators, who have been entrusted with special powers and are expected to resolve conflict, not create it and game the system. As an administrator, Omegatron should have known better than to post Administrators’ noticeboards and RfCs against me and not alert me to that fact. He should also know better than to solicit an editor who isn’t involved on Talk:MOSNUM just because he knows the editor is predisposed to playing follow-the-leader in his bash-fests. I ask that Omegatron be severely sanctioned for this.

  I’ve seen Omegatron’s method of operation now for quite some time and have honestly seen no other behavior from other administrators that demonstrates such an questionable lack of judgment and lack of desire to conform to conduct expected. That we are here at all is all due to the fact that Omegatron, three years ago, played an instrumental role in posting to MOSNUM, a policy to use the IEC prefixes here on Wikipedia (unfamiliar terms like “kibibit” and “mebibyte”). Judging from the twelve “Binary” Talk:MOSNUM archives on just this single issue, this policy has been the most contentious and least successful policies in MOSNUM history. There was significant opposition in the voting on it three years ago, and Omegatron admitted that there was no consensus (“There was no consensus in Archive [B0]…”). Back then, in July of 2005, other editors weighed in with comments like this: “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an instrument for special interest groups (like IEC) to try to push the way they would like the world to work. We should reflect in the encyclopedia what the world is like, not what we think it should be.” Or this one: “I had never heard of [the IEC prefixes] before it was raised on the Pump, and I've been downloading countless gigs of who-knows-what since 1996. Come back in 2008 when it's an accepted term, or, rather, at which point it's stagnated.” But Omegatron posted it to MOSNUM without a proper consensus anyway. Well, here we are in 2008 now and the use of the IEC prefixes has far less support today than three years ago. The record-setting amount of debate and bickering that has occurred over that period speaks to the damage Wikipedia can incur from a single administrator who routinely exercises poor judgment and flouts the rules.

  I haven’t been timid in the past about pointing out the above to Omegatron after his periodic deletions of “Follow current literature” (FCL)—a policy that uninvolved editors have said truly gained consensus. In the last few days, a new policy that would replace FCL recently took a sudden turn towards a consensus to accomplish what FCL already does. I lead this change after another editor—Thunderbird2—reduced his vote after we gave a try with deleting some wording he opposed. After his reduced vote, I restored the wording. From Omegatron’s point of view, that was a big turn for the worse. Omegatron’s obsession with those who would correct his goof is the only reason we are here today on this issue. Greg L (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the first time Omegatron has made reports against editors and has failed to notify those editors he has made reports against. Omegatron was pulled up on this mistake before so the fact he has done it again implies he is trying to unfairly game the system against those he makes reports. I don't have much to add that has not already been said in the linked RfC and ANI except to say that I definitely think Omegatron needs a severe talking to about his actions, with his admin rights being suspended until Omegatron promises not to be disruptive on MOSNUM in the future. Fnagaton 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I was told on AN/I that AN/I was not the right place, and it should be on RfC, so I started to create an RfC.
2. The RfC's not finished yet, so why would I be notifying Greg?
3. I mentioned it in the thread about him on AN/I anyway, and he obviously saw it there.
4. I notified Thunderbird2 and Aluvus because I named them as people who have also unsuccessfully tried to resolve the dispute, in the hopes that they would co-certify it and help me finish it.
5. I haven't posted it to the list on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct yet because it hasn't been finished or co-certified yet. Aluvus is apparently away on vacation, so I don't know if it even will be finished in the next few days. Greg and friends have already added comments attacking me, of course. I expected nothing less, though I would expect them to at least wait until it was posted on RfC first... — Omegatron (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't finished then why did you place messages on the talk pages of Aluvus, Thunderbird2 and include a link on the ANI but neglect to put a notification on Greg's talk page? Evidently you thought it complete enough to notify everyone else except Greg. Hmm? You are not following correct RfC procedure and you have tried to use the same tactic of not notifying editors you are complaining against before. The time limit of 48hours for the page starts from the creation of the page (as it says at the top of the RfC) and does not start from when you decide it is "finished" or have finished trying to canvass other editors who are likely to agree with you. You are shown to be guilty by your own edits. Fnagaton 23:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• No kidding. My very next post on ANI was at 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC). You couldn’t possibly have known I would see that you had gone to yet another forum at 00:49 that same day until that 02:08, post. Yet at 01:48 and 01:49, you’re busy soliciting hit-men for hire and telling them about the RfC and still didn’t see fit to alert me to it; your first confirmation that I could have had a chance of noticing your RfC is when I finally added another post to ANI twenty minutes later and took the time to read your prior posting. And why did you not notify me that you had started the ANI in the first place? Do you realize that two editors e-mailed me that you had done so? I had only discovered it on my own about ten minutes prior to their e-mails. And that was only because User:Gwen Gale left me a note on my talk page. Three other editors were looking out for me on this one because you ignore what you are supposed to do. Do rules not apply to Omegatron? Greg L (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm not getting the procedure exactly right; I've never filed an RfC before. Seicer, can you advise me on this? — Omegatron (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron, you are an admin, you have been told about not notifying editors you are complaining against before and you are certainly not new to the RfC process. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Fnagaton 23:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh… for Pete’s sake. You’ve at least filed ANIs before. And you—and administrator—didn’t know that was the improper forum for this little stunt of yours?!? Besides, your whole complaint is totally bogus. The only editors who are going to back you that this is a “civility” issue is Thunderbird2 and Aluvus. The record is clear as glass that the vast majority of the involved and uninvolved editors view this as nothing more than a content dispute. It’s clear to me that you purposely took some of my quotes w-a-y out of context in hopes at least something might stick to the wall. No one should have to put up with this garbage. Oh, and dito what Fnagaton said about your familiarity with RfCs.Greg L (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. I'm gone for like a most of the day and I find all this :P I'll give a third opinion on this tonight. seicer | talk | contribs 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

then why did you place messages on the talk pages of Aluvus, Thunderbird2 and include a link on the ANI but neglect to put a notification on Greg's talk page?

Because... that's what I'm supposed to do? Aluvus and Thunderbird2 are the ones I listed as "attempting to resolve the dispute", who are also the ones who are supposed to co-certify the RfC. So I notified them. So they could co-certify it. Which one of them did. I'm not seeing the problem here. (I guess Aluvus is away for a long break. He told me he took the Manual of Style off his watchlist out of disgust.)

you are certainly not new to the RfC process

Indeed, I am not; I've participated in them and been the subject of one, but I've never started one before. If I'm not getting the details right, I apologize. Please show me what I've done wrong so I can fix it. — Omegatron (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I said what you're supposed to do, that is to show good faith by notifying Greg directly on his talk page of your RfC and to do that before or at the same time as requesting votes from the two editors you contacted on their talk pages. Fnagaton 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Your writings above sort of come across to me like you're trying oh-so hard to do the right thing and conform to Wikipedia's expectations of administers' conduct. Yet, you've innocently come up short and are so confused now. Uhm... sorry, I'm not buying it.

  So... you contacted Aluvus. Why? Because you listed him as an editor who was "attempting to resolve a dispute". And how exactly is that? Aluvus's connection with anything to do with current affairs on Talk:MOSNUM are absolutely non-existent because he's been totally inactive there for so long. He couldn't possibly have any first-hand experience regarding what's going on there except to take your word for it. Hell, his last hundred edits takes him back to mid-January, he's been highly inactive in all of Wikipedia! Admit it Omegatron, you simply solicited Aluvus for an "I agree with Omegatron" validation on your ANI because of his (very) recent, wholesale support in your most recent effort to bash Fnagaton. That I'm trying to do exactly the same thing as Fnagaton (get Wikipedia in line with the rest of the world on binary prefixes) makes it sort of a no-brainer that he'd be happy to bash me too, doesn't it?

  All your conduct comes across to me as that of just any other editor who regularly gets into disputes that need to get cleaned up in mediation, arbitration, or something else. As an admin, other editors look to you for leadership as to what is appropriate to do or not. When you refused to accept consensus on "Follow current literature" and deleted it from MOSNUM the first time, you set everything back and started editing wars where other admins had to step in and lock MOSNUM down. And all this battling is over a terribly unwise policy that made Wikipedia a laughing stock in the computing world because we are (soon, were) the only general-interest publication in the world using these weird units of measure; a policy which you knew (and admitted as much) never had a proper consensus when you posted it to MOSNUM. It's been three years and twelve "binary" archives dedicated exclusively to laborious attempts to reverse the results of your having broken the most fundamental of rules three years ago. It's taken three long years to undo this because of your willingness to ignore and twist rules (and bash opponents) in order to get your way. Why in the world hasn't someone stripped you of your administers privileges yet? Now that would fix things. Greg L (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. You don't see me going to Thunderbird2's talk page to argue with him for taking sides with you now do you? So how about not badgering Headbomb when he states his honest opinion on your RfC? I note that you wrote this to Headbomb: "You said that I should be ashamed of my conduct, but I'm not at all." That's the problem Omegatron: You took a spat where tensions ran high and questionable behavior was exhibited on both sides of an issue and chose to make a federal case out my "harsh style" in a bald faced attempt to game the system to your advantage. Greg L (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I was just about to point out that Omegatron's extremely bad conduct has been pointed out by Headbomb's and SWTPC6800's recent comments in the RfC. Fnagaton 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm not ashamed; I don't believe I've done anything wrong. Greg L and Fnagaton make lots of accusations, but don't back them up with facts. If you think I have behaved badly, please (concisely) list below this comment actions of mine that violate a policy, guideline, or essay, either in spirit or in letter. You can attack me for "abusing admin powers" all day long, but if you can't even back it up with evidence, few people are going to believe you.

I'm not trying to "game the system"; I'm trying to prevent Greg L from gaming the system. He knows perfectly well that his proposals do not have consensus, but tries to push them into the guideline anyway. This is not how policy is made. His conduct and attitude drive people away from participating in the discussion and prevent it from reaching any real consensus, so instead of wasting my time on the Manual of Style talk page arguing the same points over and over, I've gone after the root of the problem: his conduct and attitude. — Omegatron (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to back up Omegatron's point about Greg_L's conduct being at least partly responsible for driving good editors away from WT:MOSNUM. Apart from Omegatron himself, three examples I can think of are LeadSongDong, Lightmouse and Tony1. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, Aluvus and SMcCandlish both tried to be informal mediators, but gave up because of the incivility. — Omegatron (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• It would be better for you if you relied upon “evidence” that was remotely founded in reality. Aluvus never served as an “informal mediator”. He was as much a proponent of the IEC prefixes as you are. I’m not sure about SMcCandlish at the moment and don’t intend to research his role since the central points of your arguments are without foundation and aren’t worth my time. How in the world did you become an administrator? Greg L (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• (Ignoring T-bird, who should take it up at the RfC) Omegatron: Well, the fundamental thrust of your complaint does not enjoy that necessary virtue of being supported by fact. The majority of involved and uninvolved editors commenting on your RfC don’t see the root of the problem as my being uncivil and disruptive; they see it as a dispute over content and policy. I was struck this morning by these little jewels on Talk:MOSNUM from User:Tony1:

1. “I don't think I give a shit about CGPM, NIST and the NPL.” and…
2. “If anyone persists in using them in MOSNUM, I'll revert immediately.”

And that’s just what’s there this morning after the page has been stripped down after a massive archiving. I know for a fact that I could come up with a more persuasive list than what you produced, and which is equally as expansive were I to devote the same time as you did for me. Why the double standard? Why haven’t you complained about Tony? I’ll answer those questions. Because Tony is an ally of yours. He’s a proponent of continuing to use the IEC prefixes and had been voting against proposals to reverse that. Water under the bridge anyway. The contents of MOSNUM have been replaced and the IEC prefixes are no longer allowed. Editors are now free to get Wikipedia into compliance with the rest of the computing world as they see fit. You should have voted “support” on my “Third hybrid proposal”, which called for a rational, measured approach to this. It stated as follows:

Existing articles that use the IEC 60027-2 prefixes should be brought into compliance with this policy. Two imperatives must be met when revisions are made: 1) all changes must be correct so the articles remain accurate, and 2) courtesy should be afforded to editors who are currently shepherding an affected article or had recently greatly expanded an affected article. If you abide by expected etiquette and treat other editors as you would hope to be treated, all should go smoothly.

As regards, point #1 above (accuracy), read the existing text and research your material before making changes. As regards point #2 above (courtesy), post a message on the talk page of the article as well as the talk page of the shepherding editor. In that message, bring this MOSNUM policy regarding proper use of IEC 60027-2 prefixes to the editor’s attention and allow him or her a reasonable opportunity to update the article. Observing this second point has the dual virtues of keeping editing Wikipedia a fun hobby for all of us, and best ensures articles remain factual and correct.

Here we are months later and the current committee-written policy is silent on upgrading current articles. Perhaps you might like to copy my above text and add it to MOSNUM? I don’t mind.

So… enough with diversionary smoke screens and on to getting back to the central issue here: You. Funny how an editor complained this morning about your selectively “not following Wikipedia guidelines” to achieve your goals. Further, that editor said “I think I can help to demonstrate that Omegatron needs disciplinary actions.”. I’m beginning to see an ever-clearer pattern here as to how you like to unfairly use Wikipedia’s rules and resources to advance your personal desires and ignore those rules that prove “inconvenient.” You should not be an administrator; that much is clear now. Greg L (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

This may take a while to fully flesh out, but my findings of Omegatron is that,

1. Omegatron, while not fully completing a prior RfC, has participated in the RfC process before.
2. Omegatron has been notified previously of not notifying any involved administrators or editors regarding an open RfC, ANI, and/or AN case.
3. While Omegatron notified certain involved editors of the RfC, not all interested parties were given notice. This may have been because of incivilities in prior mediation attempts (see point 5).
4. There has been confusion on both sides, partly as a result of miscommunication due to a lack of notifications.
5. Some editors have been mired in controversy as a result of heated discussions. Two uninvolved mediators, using an informal mediation process, resigned following incivility, among other issues.

Possible remedies,

1. Omegatron should verify all interested parties before filing a RfC, ANI or AN case, and give advance notice. If a user has used mediation, informal or not, as a vehicle to complain about a user or administrator rather than to try to engage in mediation constructively, then their involvement in mediation can become limited.
2. Complete the RfC and utilize that tool as a method of dispute resolution.
3. Finger pointing on both sides should cease. Using various talk pages as a vehicle to fuel a case against Omegatron is rather discouraging and only adds a layer of crud to sift through at mediation or RfC.

seicer | talk | contribs 05:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seicer: Well, thanks, and… sorry. My coming here to vent, while discouraging for you, was at least somewhat therapeutic for me. And I think it got Omegatron in a different frame of mind. It appears his RfC will soon die a natural death. And now that the MOSNUM dispute over the IEC prefixes has (finally) been settled, tensions have eased. Unless someone comes to my talk page to state that someone has demanded I forfeit one of my kidneys or something, I’m quite done with all this and fully well plan to move on. Thanks for your patience. Greg L (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Action on above Omegatron issue

Seicer, what is your opinion on the above? Is there anything you can do about this? Should this be kicked to a more formal venue? It is becoming ever clearer in my mind that perhaps Wikipedia would be better off without Omegatron as an administrator. I’m seeing a pattern now of “rules don’t apply to Omegatron” here that goes beyond just what happened over on MOSNUM. That’s no good at all for Wikipedia IMO. Please advise. Greg L (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Greg L

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Greg L (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greg L. -- — Omegatron (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — Omegatron (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

wtf

why did u jsut remove all of the used official extenal links jack? USEDfan (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your smiley

I love your smiley, may I have permission to shamelessly copy you and add it to my user space? :)

Just credit East718 (talk · contribs). seicer | talk | contribs 03:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Green Beer Day

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Green Beer Day. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tikiwont (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit slow here, but I overturned it. Please send it to AFD :) seicer | talk | contribs 03:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I saw this request for unprotection, and thought you should be made aware of it, because it is in your userspace and because the user requesting unprotection is alleging improper use of tools on your part. I asked for more information, but I think you might want to have a chat with the editor in question. Horologium (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to give me some time to look over to see if I could gain consensus on having it in your own userspace if it was to categorize your image contributions, and given that I did take it for one of my projects, and ha(d) a signed contract for that, I am curious if it would fall under an exemption -- which would require consensus. I'm moving, changing jobs and all that, so my time at the compy is limited but leave me notes if anything happens. seicer | talk | contribs 02:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NFCCE

First I'd like to apologize (without sarcasm this time), I gravely mishandled this. I should have contacted you to see your reasoning first. In the mean time I've added the page to the NFCCE category to stop BJBot from (in theory) removing the image. The other 4 or so bots may remove not have the check in place but they should. BJ^Talk 04:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for sure if I was in compliance with NFCCE, either, so I'm going to see if I can gain broad consensus. I know that David Shankbone had some issues with it for a while, since he categorized his images, but he resolved his (I'm not sure how, though). There are exceptions to NFCC#9, but having a public, self listing isn't one of them, oddly enough. It's no biggie, thanks for the comments though! seicer | talk | contribs 12:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD:Pioneer Conference

This AfD has gotten long and it's sometimes hard to see the relevant opinions for the extraneous discussions. I tried to solve this by asking people to, in a few words, summarize how they felt about the topic. I called it a poll. That was a mistake, as words like "vote" and "poll" are red-flag words. I restored the edit and added language to clarify my purpose. If you think it needs to be removed, please open a discussion on the talk page. I'm going offline for the night, please do me the courtesy of not deleting it while I'm asleep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll isn't a bad idea at this point. Why don't you put your vote in. --FancyMustard (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did. When I restored summary-of-what's-above, I left his comment below it. As such, it doesn't need to be in the what's now a summarization of what's above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll's are always a bad idea, especially in an AfD. They discourage discussion and while they can gauge consensus in a more uniform fashion, many of the original commentators that originally voided their support/dissupport do not return. seicer | talk | contribs 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I trust the closing admin is very much aware of that, as am I. It's a tool. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Please see Talk:Cold fusion#New proposal; I'm proposing to split the page in two. Since you did the mediation, you're my first stop, but I'll be happy to go elsewhere, maybe you have a suggestion. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion over notability of Ohio high school sports conferences

Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Edit warring"

I only made three revisions, but that was two hours ago, and the page is stable :S --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any dispute, I just think the warning is out of place. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Three reverts in 24 hours -- giving you a standard warning notice. Dispute resolution may be required if the reverting continues. I'm not taking any sides on this, but the constant edit warring gets old... seicer | talk | contribs 02:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

wtf

why are u asking for citations for what is on a dvd on the used discovery page, watch the dvd or look at the dvd track listing, u dont need citations for that.USEDfan (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cite your sources or the text will be removed. seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am effectively banned

Hi,

Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link

For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section.

Thanks ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, but yeah, it's pretty much a pissing match now. If you are receiving such severe sanctions, that you cannot comment in any threads that SA happens to pop in, then it is effectively a much stronger version of a topic ban. Is SA facing such a topic ban? seicer | talk | contribs 04:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving

I saw your note on the Mediation Committee's talk page and just thought I'd welcome you to Ohio! I would like to take this chance to extend a welcome to [WP:OH|WikiProject Ohio]] if you have any interest. Having an active contact in Cincinnati would really help the project. I understand moving is a lot(of time, energy, patience, ect.) and was just placing the offer on the backburner for you to maybe think about. Have a safe move and a happy wikibreak! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :O) I am moving to Cincinnati, although I've been up there a lot (having lived only an hour south in Lexington). Looking forward to the move! seicer | talk | contribs 04:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kentucky Museum of Art and Craft 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kentucky Museum of Art and Craft 2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Urban Exploring

Hey, when you get a chance, can you take a look at the article? Brothejr (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ninjalicious Book Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ninjalicious Book Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but is included in an article that does not describe the book as indicated in the rationale. Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion state that non-free images or media that are used in at least one article and that fail any part of the non-free content criteria (except criterion 1) may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. The image is included in an article that does not discuss the subject depicted. You are hereby notified that the image has been tagged.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you know, the big, bold Fair Use rationale below the image isn't rationale enough? Don't template the regulars. seicer | talk | contribs 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That essay has nothing to do with the fair use violation, and the 48 hour rule requiring notification. Thanks for your attention. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does. You know I'm a long-standing contributor to WP and don't need templates to explain your mistakes. There are numerous fair use rationales on the page, and you chose to ignore it. Perhaps this has to do with your losing arguments at urban exploration? seicer | talk | contribs 14:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Pezzoni

Hi, there. May I asked why the article was deleted ? Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes professional and league (it's not football NFL or wrestling, its german soccer also not my field of sports ;) I'think there was also a {hangon}. sorry for the inconvenience, but this is not the right way. could this be undone? Thank you Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review is where you need to go. seicer | talk | contribs 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't know. But a fast scroll of the page shows a 'hatnote: Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. ' Is the 'discussion' done now? *g* I don't know which content was on the article. Maybe a good tagging would have been better, because this was created by a very new user (testing in the sandbox before) and if the content of the sandbox ([17]) was the content of the article, it would have urgently needed help. But I remember my way to get started here, it was like this and after a speedy deletion of my first article, I don't think I would have done more. Sorry for sounding a little harsh, I'm not a native tongue. Thank you again for your time and good work and have a nice day Sebastian scha. (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There are so many articles that are created in a day, and many turn out to be utter crap -- not notable in the remote sense, or pure vandalism or BLP vios. There can be some that can be misinterpreted, but because so many are created in one day, and because so many are nominated in one day, there is not enough time to do background checks on every editor that creates an article. A shortage of manpower if you will. I'll restore it myself so that more time can be given to flesh it out -- sorry if there are any misunderstandings. :O) seicer | talk | contribs 01:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Old WA Shields

Image:I-705(Washington).PNG

Do you have any comments to whether these images should be delete or not. Because if I was the admin, and I made it thn I would've deelte this, since these images vs. i-xx (WA).svg looks exactly the sameimage, both white fonts is same in diameter, to me it look nearly 100% duplicate. This does not meet csd so once 10 days is up admins can take action. I will like to see what you think.--Freewayguy ^{Discussions Show all changes} 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Now Orangemarlin has ventured into personal attack territory

Color me unsurprised. Here's the edit summary he just made regarding his revert my and others edits to the American Family Association article:

Reverting anti-semitic whitewashing

So I'm an anti-Semite, now. I'd say that was a personal attack, wouldn't you? 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Teardrop Trailer page protection

Unfortunately, the protection of the teardrop trailer page protected the user who was being disruptive. The page now is locked showing a trailer that is not a teardrop trailer and has the link farm spam as Liftarn was warring over. If you look at the major history of the page it is apparent. Wikiwerks (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

UE Page

Is there a way to get the protection lowered/removed? Brothejr (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

NO, because neither of you has even tried to make a solution. Removing protection is *my* decision. pschemp | talk 12:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Urban exploration

I'm absolutely aghast that an admin would so blatantly violate the protection policy. Do it again and I'll take you ANI. YOu know involved editors may not remove protection, and there has clearly been no solution or compromise made on the talk page, therefore, the reason for protection still stands. Your reason for removal is bogus since people can't edit war on a protected page because it is protected. Bottom line...you violated the policy, and refused to even try to solve the problem. This is not behaviour we expect from admins. pschemp | talk 12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed the consensus achieved on the talk page against the offending editor. Please do your homework before coming here and ranting. seicer | talk | contribs 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

cold fusion again ?

Seicer, would you consider helping us on cold fusion again ? There is a dispute brewing. Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SA and I are reverting each other's edit. I've asked him if he accepts mediation. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your contributions. The edit you restored on the article does not coincide with the sources provided. I'm going to restore the last edit with the correct one providing that is what the sources support.Webster121 (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Prester John

There is an interesting discussion playing out at User talk:Prester John. If I'm reading it right, PJ has been evading your 3 month block by use of the sockpuppet User:C.Marsh b.Lillee. But I could be wrong. Hesperian 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they got to it before I could :) Good job! seicer | talk | contribs 03:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Block Log entry

I'm requesting that you amend the Block user log entry to indicate that there was a misunderstanding between us regarding the Star Trek reversion issue. I reverted a deletion of content I created that imncluded two references and found it deleted summarily twice rather than finding efforts to rearrange the information or have any discussion or diplomacy. I was not engaged in malicious activity and removal of vandalism (which is what I thought it was) is not subject to the reversion rule (there is an exception stated for that.) Another admin has pointed out to you that the timing of warnings vs. block were not what is customary on Wikipedia. I think it is reasonable, therefore, to amend the block entry. Since the block, I've added the references (sources) to the companion article and assisted in the Talk page by initiating a discussion of what is or isn't a fan movie. Thank youfr your consideration. Raryel (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no way that any administrator can do that. I'm not going to amend it or factor in an apology of sorts since 3RR is really best interpreted by an administrator on a case-by-case basis. While it may be a bit harsh, given that I had accidently overlooked the fact that a final notice was given only minutes before I blocked, 24 hours for pointless edit warring is pretty mild in most cases.

Take this as a learning experience. It's also not appropriate for you to start posting rants of this nature, complaining about my "abuse" on various talk pages, and will only water down your arguments. Another administrator reviewed your unblock request and denied it as well. Take this in good faith and move on. seicer | talk | contribs 05:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yer makin' me blush

Thank you for your kind words at Orangemarlin's talk page. FWIW, the answer to this is, yeah, probably. I recently changed my mind, since I am finding that not being an admin is occasionally limiting my ability to mediate at WQA and ANI (not so much because I don't have the mop, but more because occasionally people will say, "You're not an admin? Piss off then!" heh...) I put in a request for admin coaching, as I am worried that my current relative lack of article-building and reference-finding contribs would torpedo an RfA. Anyway, I was flattered. Thanks for the kind words :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) I'd assist you in the admin coaching but I have no reliable Internet access for now. seicer | talk | contribs 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Seicer/My Images

I removed this page from Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions. Consensus is needed to put a page into that category. If you want to have a list of your images, you could just have links to the non-free ones instead of displaying them, for example Image:Example.jpg instead of actually displaying it. Listing it is ok (if it were fair use) while displaying it on a user page is not. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was installed temporairly until I could find some time to write up an exemption for userpages when the images were self-taken. Granted that I have no Internet access at the moment (typing from a cafe), I failed on my part, and I find that listing them without displaying the image is an acceptable compromise. seicer | talk | contribs 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

You need a bigger smiley face. :) I just sent you an e-mail, but probably won't see your answer until the end of the workday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Lav90...

...is asking for an unblock, seemingly claiming ignorance of the concept of copyright. I've declined the unblock, but take a look anyway, let me know what you think. –xenocidic (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He says in his latest request he agrees. Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)