Open main menu

Contents

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2Edit

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a ReviewerEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz talk 02:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

VPCEdit

— raekyT 23:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You messed upEdit

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/43

Please don't make me tidy all that up :P. Hope you're doing well - AGK 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Query over active/inactive arbsEdit

Hi Seddon, I'm posting here because you're listed as an active ArbCom clerk, and I don't know which clerk is assigned to the Date delinking amendment request. Both current proposals are marked with a majority of five arbs required, since there are nine active (8 plus 1). But the Arb list shows that Rlevse is inactive, and he has voted for the first motion. Does this effectively mean that there are 10 active arbs (9 plus 1), and does this change the majority required? Should his inactive status be changed at the AC page? Thank you. Tony (talk)

SAQ mediationEdit

Hi Seddon. I see you're the mediator for the Shakespeare authorship question mediation. What's next? I have no experience whatsoever in this, and my few perusals of old cases hasn't helped much. (I tried to search closed cases for WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, but either the search engine is not working or I'm doing it wrong.) Tom Reedy (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings - I have some of the same questions as Tom above. What's next? If there are any past cases that you are aware of that involved repeated Deletion of Content, Deletionism vs Inclusionism, or proper weight of Minority Viewpoints, I would appreciate being able to peruse them. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the reply. I look forward to working with you. Smatprt (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Got your note.Edit

Will try to respond this afternoon. I appreciate the trouble you've gone to to review the relevant pages, large and somewhat tedious threads, particularly from myself. I'll try to keep it short and sweet. regards Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Seddon. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courtesy noticeEdit

A discussion between the parties has developed here, on Science Apologist's talk page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Seddon, Xover (talk · contribs) has not posted an opening statement and seems to be on holiday or otherwise out of pocket. Is there any way we could move this down the road a bit? Tom Reedy (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

SpelengeEdit

That is not how you spell superseded. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

RFAR clerkingEdit

pssst...supersede. You might want to fix that spelling. :) Horologium (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't remedy 1.2 pass? Guettarda (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Climate change" Implementation notesEdit

Hi Seddon, I've noted some possible corrections needed in the "Climate change" Implementation notes. See Paul August 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

communicatEdit

Thanks your note. I was actually in the process of completing the application form, and then was sidetracked by other editing issues, but have now changed my mind about arbcom. Have decided instead simply to wash my hands off the whole sordid affair, viz., partisan editing by the well entrenched World War II article clique. I doubt if arbitration would have got me anywhere, anyhow. But thanks for your interest anyway. Regards. Communicat (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Kirill requestEdit

Please see Kirill, the arbitrator's page, and please file an arbitration request. Please do not make me fill out all the forms as I am not a professor protestor. Milowent may be able to supply other information.

Basically, if someone were to be a paid political advocate for a politcal party (there are these people), they would act exactly as Tvoz is for the Malia Obama article. I am not saying that Tvoz is paid but that his behavior exactly mimics those biased people. This hurts wikipedia by censoring articles.. No not censorship but complete destruction of articles.

Basically, take it from here. I hereby file a complaint. If you want to create a lot of hurdles so people won't complain, then do so and have it your way. If you truly want to help Wikipedia, process this. Thank you. Presidentmalia (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TestEdit

This is a test.....

Im an omnivoreEdit

  This user is an omnivore.

DYK for Lottie KimbroughEdit

The DYK project (nominate) 06:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity RFARBEdit

Thank you for your prompt attention to my request. I am one of the first to be hypercareful about outing, so I have now linked all the editors who self-identified to real-life identities here, to demonstrate where I obtained the info. You will note the immediately previous edit to that page, which I summarized "Self-undo", contains one name that may be judged as technically not a self-identification, and you may wish to address the revision history of that page, as well as the one other page on WP "Everything" search that comes up with that name, where I got it from. Or not. At any rate, I trust that, since the section I just added these links to is linked from the top of the list of parties, I may now add the names back to the arb request as they have self-identified, along with a note "Personal names are per self-identifications linked from that section" ("COI list"). I appreciate your consideration. (You may also have some clerking input as to Risker's comment on the party list; it appears to me that all the named editors either are well-motivated to contribute to the case (first set) or are ripe for review by the case (other sets) under reasonable standards, so I don't know how they would not be parties.) JJB 01:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, you will also need to hide Risker's revision as well; OTOH if you take the "or not" option you might just unhide my revision. But no problem whatever you decide. JJB 01:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Well, the history mysteriously switched from one hide to two without a new log entry. If somebody judged this so important as to be oversighted without logging, they should also have hidden a large number of revisions to the COI list page and the other findable page mentioned above. There are other explanations but I don't know them. Since I'm still waiting for clerk assistance on party-list length, and on whether I should reinsert the self-IDs, it would be helpful to know how the revision hiding will work out. JJB 19:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

military history POV-bias caseEdit

Hi, I'm not sure whether or not you're the appropriate person/clerk for this, if not, I'm sorry to bother you. My Military history POV-bias case application appears to have become ambiguated and/or joined with an unrelated application. According to Clerk Note, the case was to be renamed "World War II", but I can't find such case name. Communicat (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your botEdit

Shouldn't it be posting on talk page not user pages? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Is your bot approved? I was under the impression that approved bots had bot as one of their user rights, which yours doesn't. Was I mistaken? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Regradless of approval status; the bot posted in user pages; and not talk pages as it was meant to. And the template message it sent was blank anyway! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply on my talk apge to my query. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I have blocked it - that was an excessive number of errors. Please let an admin know when you have fixed the code. You should also redirect the bot talkpage to this talkpage. You should also create a userpage for the bot similar to User:7SeriesBOT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked now, as per your message (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

UK Community Notice - IRC meetingEdit

Dear Wikipedian,


This is the first of what will hopefully be a regular notice to help bring together the UK community so that you can be involved in some amazing things. To kick things off, there will be a UK community IRC meeting at 1800 UTC, December 7, 2010 to discuss the future growth and developement of Wikimedia UK. Without huge community support and involvement, the chapter cannot be successful and to get the most out of it, get involved.

For information on the community IRC meeting please go here


More to come about:

  • Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Events
  • 1st Annual UK Wiki-conference
  • Trustee interest meeting - an event for those community members with even just a fleeting interest in becoming trustees of Wikimedia UK.


Many Thanks

Joseph Seddon
User:Seddon

Delivered by Seddon talk|WikimediaUK on 05:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I was going to wait until he replied to his own message :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

19 December Fundraising PartyEdit

Joe - If you have any questions about the 19 December fundraiser, could you point them at me? I'm handling it from the Wikimedia side of things. Thanks, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meetingEdit

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks
Joseph Seddon
User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

DerbyEdit

Joseph, Derby Museum seem keen to go. As proposed I think we need a yearly schedule. I'm being bold and proposing we announce a plan in January. Derby would go to do a GLAM thing in March April. "ANOther Museum/Gallery" would take May/June etc in a rolling programme. I'm writing a draft of what I propose and I expect we'll need buy in from Wikimedia. I think this rolling schedule can also be the training session(sd) that other likely ambassadors may need. Do you feel like the man to discuss this with? I would like to use our marketing person and get wikimedia support this year. Victuallers (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC) See here Victuallers (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the seasonEdit

CardiffEdit

I don't actually live in the area any more, but that's very kind of you to invite me. Thanks Welshleprechaun 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for the invitation to the Cardiff meeting, as you can see from my contributions, I am unable to spend as much time as I did on Wikipedia matters due to family concerns, which I will not go into...but thanks again. Who knows, in the next few months things may be different. Thanks again. SethWhales talk 12:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

ITNEdit

I'm afraid your removal of the Strauss-Kahn story goes against consensus. Short of an appropriate policy-based reason to remove it, I'm asking you to restore it. Every major news outlet has this story. We're not saying he's guilty, merely reporting the charge. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 16:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to co-operate. Thanks for restoring it. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 17:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbPol voteEdit

I'm a bit puzzled by your oppose. If it's not a conduct issue, what is there for us to get involved with?  Roger Davies talk 19:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • As it turns out, the situations where such an ability has been needed all involve personal and private information of individual users (or potentially article subjects), so I can't countenance giving specific examples. I'm surprised, however, that you'd not be at least vaguely aware of such circumstances. Risker (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

My RfAEdit

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

I love myself

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 00:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiativeEdit

Hi Seddon,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU InterviewEdit

Dear Seddon,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar ([[User talk:Jaobar|talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.34.167 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution surveyEdit

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Seddon. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Seddon.jpg listed for deletionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Seddon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

MedCom email not workingEdit

Greetings Seddon, I tried to send an email to MedCom but if you select "Click this text to contact the Mediation Committee" it takes you to a dead end. Thanks.Momento (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey momento, could you send me a link to the page your talking about? I wont be able to take a look today but Ill be back to the wiki on friday. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 06:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The announcement on my talk page says "Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear". Clicking "contact the Committee" takes me here [1] where I'm invited to click "Click this text to contact the Mediation Committee" which takes me here [2] which is a dead end. Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I also get "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address." If you guys can't remember the password to change the email, let me know and I'll rename that account out of the way and you can re-register. MBisanz talk 23:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


Prem Rawat 6Edit

Is there a delay in getting this started? Just wondering. -- Maelefique(talk) 03:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Also wondering same PatW (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedural issue, safe to assume it has to do with M's email I think. -- Maelefique(talk) 09:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Seddon, thanks for your time and effort anyway. -- Maelefique(talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

EvidenceEdit

I'd rather you moved it back. I am informed Arbs do not read the Workshop. Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

And it would be fairly trivial to add diffs. Though I'm sure the committee have enough trust in me that it's not necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

WarningEdit

I was not expecting your warning for this edit. Perhaps I was unclear in that I was summarizing his argument, rather than actually saying that specific editors did something, but as I named no names, and indeed was speaking of the "admin" in the abstract, I did not think it would be at risk of complaint. (Note that when I said "witch-hunt" I was simply quoting the above comment) I should check however to be sure that your objection is what I thought it was. Wnt (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(This conversation is continued at User talk:Wnt#WP:RFAR/Fae) Wnt (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me this editor has not heeded your warning.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words.[3] Even so, I have to say that I feel that the statement you've just "culled" reached to the very central issue of this case. I would very much have liked to hear Tarc's response to my last question there. If adding content about homosexuals to articles is specifically unwelcome - whether uniquely so, or as part of some notion of what is unwholesome sexual content - and if people can be denigrated on this basis as "pro-gay" without sanction, while their response that their counterparts are "anti-gay" is grounds for sanction - then Wikipedia itself becomes biased so far as I see it. I would like the Arbitrators to think about these specific content decisions, and how arguments about them will play out across Wikipedia, when they are considering the consequences of their decision in this case. Wnt (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Seddon, as a member of Wikimedia UK, you have what one would politely call a conflict of interest...and what one might impolitely call running cover and protection for Fae and his friends. I have undone your reversion, as it was seriously out of order. If a clerk or an Arb chooses to chop or hat the material that is in their purview. Not yours. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have requests for you on the workshop talk page, if you want to stop by when you have some free time. NW (Talk) 21:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)Edit

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

 
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stopEdit

Please stop removing my comments. IP comments are allowed and welcome, otherwise the page would be semiprotected. Feel free to request semiprotection, but don't remove permissible comments. --87.78.52.71 (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

UK Wikimedian of the Year 2013Edit

The Wikimedia UK AGM will be held in June, and nominations for the UK Wikimedian of the Year are currently open. If there is someone who you feel has made an important contribution to the UK Wikimedia movement in the last year please go ahead and nominate them here by 09:00 (BST) on Monday 20th May at the latest. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Manning caseEdit

I see it is titled "Manning naming dispute", but as I recall there was just as much a dispute over the change of pronouns. Perhaps there is a more accurate name that could be used to reflect that fact.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Seddon. I noticed that the PD page says that there are 12 active arbs, but the talk page lists only 11. Is there a discrepancy there, or am I just missing something obvious? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

ConfusedEdit

Re [4] it boggles the mind to think what the world reaction would be to Wikipedia calling Mohammed a transgendered individual -- you might wanna update those links .... NE Ent 23:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Chin up, old bean. Hope nobody complains too much, and you've got my permission to poke them with a big stick if they do. Nick (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

TalkbackEdit

Hello, Seddon. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 23:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP Boomer! 23:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning case evidence pageEdit

Would you look at this section? Not sure how anything there is relevant to a case about editorial conduct.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Why?Patroit22 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning caseEdit

Thank you for the heads up. I've provided a brief statement, but I'm probably not going to be in the case much beyond that; not because I don't think it's important, but because it's too hot-button for me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Explanation for dropping my input on ManningEdit

Seddon- My input on Manning naming title was dropped by clerk as not verifiable . It had been improperly deleted by an editor earlier and restored and may have been in wrong format for the complicated procedures. As you can tell, I am a novice at this but need help from some kind person on how to link to facts.Thanks.Patroit22 (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Seddon I am awaiting your reply.Patroit22 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Manning Case and TransphobiaEdit

Thanks for the heads up. I have some notes already, and plan to do more research and submit it. However, although I try to keep up with the case, I for one find it exhausting to deal with the transphobia in some of the discussions, and the likelihood of encountering more. Ananiujitha (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Possibly misplaced commentEdit

I noticed you added a comment to a sub page of JzG's user page: [5]. You probably meant to hit his talk page. Cheers, meshach (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of commentsEdit

Hi, I'm wondering why you removed comments in this diff? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/WorkshopEdit

If you happen to wander past the Workshop talk page, have a look at the section regarding Morwen's answer, if you could. We have an IP editor misgendering Morwen by referring to her in the masculine - when her userpage and talk page clearly identify her as female. Given the context, it's a concern. I've asked them to stop, and maybe they will - but wanted to make sure someone knew about the issue, since I'll be gone for the next day or so. FYI. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems that the misgendering was inadvertent - and that I may have overreacted. You can disregard this. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/WorkshopEdit

I don't know how the arbitration procedure usually works, but both the evidence and workshop pages could use a few people willing to facilitate discussion and keep the flamewars from heating up. Ananiujitha (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

ManningEdit

I'm interested in knowing what I've said that you consider to be "clearly inflammatory". I strive to debate things calmly, and believe that I have been doing so.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just seen that you have removed contributions of mine, so I assume that you consider them "clearly inflammatory". How is objecting to using the word "transphobic" "clearly inflammatory"? The argument that it isn't a word meant to cast people as hateful and fearful is nonsense as is Gerard's assertion that I'm committing an "etymological fallacy"? The people that coined the word know full well what "phobic" means,

Bear in mind that I am one of the three admins that had the unpleasant job of closing the RFC. When people say that the action was transphobic, they are saying that I, personally, hate and fear transgender people. I don't. I find the accusation insulting. Determining that the community had not come to a consensus on a topic does not make me fearful and hateful. —Kww(talk) 15:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This removal, in particular, I find highly objectionable. Read the section: that is a common legal citation for the case where people use words that clearly mean one thing and then attempt to claim that they mean another.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Added as Manning party?Edit

I am not aware of being a party to the dispute other than expressing opinion or philosophy and participating in discusions. I'd appreciate understanding what reasoning there is to add me as a party as there is less than a week for evidence and there doesn't seem to be anything in particular to respond to. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Considering one comment that was made prior to reliable sourcing such as AP and NY Times [6] and was made based purely on notability grounds as well as prior to wide discussion, I find it rather difficult to believe that one statement is enough to add me as a party to arbitration. I don't believe I have ever had a conflict that wasn't resolved with discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is up to the committee to figure out what's going on. Being listed does not necessarily mean you will get sanctioned. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I would hope not. The concern/question I have is that I am not aware of any unresolved disputes with editors so I am not aware of exactly what I need to do as a party. I have no complaints about any editors that require sanctions. Likewise I am unaware of anyone making a complaint asking for sanctions. I wasn't involved in any of the edits or moves to the article/s that lead to arbitration. Evidence closes in three days so guidance is what I am requesting. --DHeyward (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
@DHeyward:: Were you involved with the discussion or rfc involving the move at all? Seddon talk 10:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe I made a comment for the RFC on 8/26 and result of the RfC matched my position. Has everyone that commented on the RfC been added? --DHeyward (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
@DHeyward: Parties are added based on evidence submitted in relation to their conduct. Seddon talk 09:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

About the Manning name changeEdit

I'm out. I'm not going to get involved in the case anymore (I haven't gotten involved for weeks now). Sorry about the 10-day delay. Hitmonchan (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passedEdit

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

  • By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army mediationEdit

Hello, just received a message confirming that a mediator has picked-up the BA dispute, and would like to confirm that I'm able to start the discussion. --COD T 3 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Seddon. Since I'm new to the process, just wanted to confirm that the mediation board for the BA is still open, and that the topic was not closed out. --COD T 3 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Update on List of secret police organizationsEdit

Hi, this is the editor who originally raised WP:NPOV and WP:OR concerns about the article List of secret police organizations, before other users came in to save the article from deletion. Just to update you that in line with your recommendations I have filed a request for indefinite-semi protection today, so as to reduce the number of editors adding of US organisations without proper citations (in my opinion, only printed citations would be reliable).

I have also updated the article to provide two newspaper citations for most of the entries, from established titles, so as to reduce the appearance of it simply being "a list of countries that we don't like". Just to be sure, not all citations are solely from US newspapers. However, I will still need to tackle the excessively long "See also" and find a replacement for the "Gooya" reference. If you have any extra ideas to improve the article further, just contact me on my talk page. Thanks! --Marianian(talk) 21:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Re-inclusion of the talk page Rajesh Shah.Edit

Couple of days before a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rajesh_Shah was deleted from Wikipedia. I feel that the page was a genuine page highlighting the research in the field of homeopathy. This person is a homeopath, so I don’t feel that whatever referral links were included in the page were pointing to some genuine research page. Due to that page I found some genuine websites that highlight the research work, any informative and genuine should be live for sharing, so kindly consider the page for re-inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksghadagemca (talkcontribs) 05:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for [7]Edit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of [8]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Wikipedia Science Conference in London next yearEdit

Hi JS! With your geology hat on, I thought you might be interested in this event happening next year (at a date yet to be agreed). wmuk:Wikipedia Science Conference. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

MailEdit

You've got email. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!Edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

About BS.PlayerEdit

This software is notable, since I've found two reliable sources guaranteeing its notability. They are: [9] & [10] (in Chinese). So please restore the article. By the way, there is an article with similar title, which corresponds to the same product: Bs.player.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Space barnstarEdit

  The Space Barnstar
For your quick involvement in the development of the article Gravitational-wave observation which is noted on Wikipedia's main page In the news section! --Pine 20:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


Gravitational waves GANEdit

Hello, Seddon. You have new messages at FT2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The page formerly known as User:Polimerek/Permanent Representatives of Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic RepublicEdit

is now User:Seddon/Permanent Representatives of Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.

Feel free to do things to it (and a big thank you to User:Polimerek for letting us play yesterday!) --Palnatoke (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

TestEdit

Test Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protectionEdit

 Hello, Seddon. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please consider reactivation at MedComEdit

This is being sent to you because you are listed as an emeritus member of MedCom and an examination of your contribution page suggests that you are still active at en-Wikipedia. MedCom is currently down to three or four active members (there are more than that on the active member list, but some of them have not edited Wikipedia in quite awhile). We have a current case awaiting a mediator which is receiving no response from the request for a mediator sent on the MedCom mailing list a couple of days ago, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians. Would you please consider reactivating your membership, taking that case, or both? If you're interested in doing so and are not still on the MedCom mailing list, please just let me know and I'll reactivate you and add you to the list. Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) 19:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (current MedCom chairperson)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for adminsEdit

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page PatrollersEdit

Hi Seddon.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit

 Hello, Seddon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your inactive bot(s)Edit

Hello Seddon. We currently show that you are the operator on file for at least one bot account that appears to be inactive. Please see the discussion and list of bots here: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Inactive bots over 5 years. If you are no longer operating your bot, no action is required - your bot will be marked as retired and have the bot flag removed. Should your bot be retired and you wish to revive it in the future, please request bot authorization at WP:BRFA. If you are still in control of your bot (including knowing its hopefully strong password) and wish to maintain the bot flag, please sign the table on the linked discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016Edit

  Hello, I'm Psychonaut. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2016 Berlin attack, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed that you've been here for a while, so sorry for templating you. But really, you should know better than to add so much unsourced material to a developing, high-visibility article. Please don't re-insert this text without providing a reliable source. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Psychonaut: please show some patience or be constructive on the article itself. Five or six people are trying to edit the page every minute and when all you do is revert people on such an active page, you cause more disruption by causing unnecessary edit conflicts. The article is evolving and will get there soon enough. Seddon talk 21:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Removing unsourced or incorrect information is being constructive, so please don't blame me for edit conflicts. I'm sorry your edits got reverted, but when you don't provide sources, they're hard to sort out from all the other speculation, wishful thinking, and deliberate misinformation that anonymous IPs and SPAs have been adding all night. Anyway, I'm done for the night. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
  BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

STOPEdit

STOP please.--I'm on day 4 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The history of Benin Kingdom facts and the real stroies of gods on earthEdit

Yes I got a research that you meant like , it about the Benin kingdom In Edo sates Nigeria. People will like to know money about the empire that was so great, it had the great system of government, the remains of the Benin empire , there ways of killing to worship there gods and the late Obas and accident stie that are hidden to the world , the new Benin Kingdom . There so many untold stories that world will like to know and the facts to show for then Rexwaten (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of commentsEdit

I saw here you removed two IP comments. The first IP seems to have quite the contribution history 70.44.154.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), not sure it was appropriate to delete that one. PackMecEng (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Seddon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

PreciousEdit

tribute to their struggle

Thank you for quality articles such as Hurricane Lorenzo, and 1988 Atlantic hurricane season in collaboration ten years ago, for suggesting for featured image, such as Hurricane Felix from the International Space Station, and for sound, as "a tribute to their struggle and to all those who face risk in spaceflight", for Remembering Leonard Nimoy, with the cover, for "non sibi sed omnibus", - repeating (16 November 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bristol meetupEdit

You have previously attended or expressed an interest in attending a meetup in Bristol. I am organising one for this summer - provisionally Saturday 1 September 2018. For details see m:Meetup/Bristol/3 to join the discussion, including expressing preferences about dates and venues, see the talk page at m:Talk:Meetup/Bristol/3. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Seddon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

New info on Initiative Q talk pageEdit

Dear Seddon,

I noticed you contributed to the Initiative Q page a while back. I put some new info on the Initiative Q talk page you may want to consider. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Initiative_Q

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reydelhumus (talkcontribs) 08:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Seddon".