Open main menu

User talk:Seraphimblade

Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Please do be nice.

Please read before postingEdit

  • Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.


  • If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
  • If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
  • If you are here to discuss edits made to an article, please use the article talk page, not this talk page, to discuss them. If I made the edit and the question is specifically directed at me, you are welcome to ping me.
  • If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
  • If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
  • While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
  • I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

PainfulEdit

It bizarre to me just how painful this comment was...rather "is". Question, when there is an OR/There-must-be-sources issue, how can we tell if others are jerks or teachers? If we saw the Socratic method at work, how could we tell if it was teaching or "snark"?

You got it wrong, and I'm not reflecting on what I did in the precursor events, I'm pondering just why your comment continues to hurt. Not to mention the other ed kicking me in the teeth and being defended.

I must really be a piece of shit, not a teacher.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, certainly my intent was not to call you a "piece of shit". However, I find the "Socratic method" translates poorly indeed to text-only communication, and often comes across as snarky or disingenuous. If you have something to say or ask, it's best to just say or ask it directly, not beat around it. "Do you have sources for that?" works just fine, and is a neutral question that shouldn't offend anyone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Like everyone, I'm a volunteer. My time is important. An experienced ed who interprets an image, declares we should have text changes, assures us that even a plebian search will show [{WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCS]].... ok.... so a person does all that. I read it. (My volunteer time has been spent.) I then ask "Got sources?" (My volunteer time has been spent again.) Also at play is confirmation bias. The other ed interpreted meaning from an image. It turns out to probably be a correct interpretation, but this is besides the point. They called for text without sources, and the whole process of going back and forth asking them to GET sources also trains the other ed to approach this work with confirmation bias instead of research. Excellent editors study sources, then decide what to say. We have far too many eds who decide what to say then try to justify it. Operating under DONTBITE I would explain all this. (I have boilerplate in my sandbox for this purpose.) But talking to experienced eds who know better, I'm going to challenge them to think. If YOU apply good faith to what I wrote, I believe you will change your mind about calling my remark "a fair amount of provocation". My volunteer time is valuable. Experienced eds should not just declare THEREMUSTBESOURCES, they should offer one up front. That's a matter of respect. But this editor, being called out on this, declares a relationship with me worse than dental surgery without pain meds. I've had some nasty rejection in real life. In a word, I expected admins to have my back, but no, I'm the bad guy becuase I expected an experienced ed to think and start with sources, instead of abusing my time by starting with their own personal image interpretation. And my expectation that they show this care and respect makes me out as the bad guy?????????? Something is amiss, and it's not me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Please modify your comment at AE about my actions. We appear to agree that socratic method can be done in good faith. You have opined that it it "often comes across as snarky". In other words, a problem can arise if the reader (or admin) fails to assume good faith. You've opined I did a great deal of provocation. If one assumes bad faith or one has a CIR-related inability to receive civil socratic method asking them to think, the problem isn't with me, and the AE report should be revised to at least admit the possiblity that I was doing good work and there was a misunderstanding. And I really can't believe the horrible thing the other party said when they failed to assume good faith and failed to back up there desired text with sources was so trivialized. Yet I'm the bad guy, when you admit what I said is open to interpretation? Please consider modifying your comment at AE about my actions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

AEEdit

AE, not my talk page, is the place to discuss AE requests. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Seraphimblade. I hope you don't mind me posting on your talk page, but threatening to take an admin to Arbcom is a serious thing to do, and I wanted to explain myself and my comments more fully, away from the "spotlight" of AE. I know you're a longstanding editor, admin, and former Arb; the community holds you in high regard, and so do I. I don't have any "beef" with you, nor am I looking for a fight, but I very strongly believe that your proposed action would cause serious harm and that you haven't explained or justified it, and that per adminacct you are required (or would be required) to justify it. What started as a 2-way IBAN was appealed as a 1-way IBAN. That was six months ago. Sashi hasn't violated it since. He's been brought to AE over a single revert, with the filer falsely claiming there is a GMO TBAN and that the revert violates the TBAN. There was and is no GMO TBAN. To institute one now, following six months of compliance by Sashi, would be incredibly unjust. It would be punishing good behavior (compliance with the IBAN by Sashi) and rewarding bad behavior (using AE to win a content dispute). It seems to me a basic, fundamental truth that for any editor to be TBANed from a topic area, there must be recent examples of the editor being disruptive in that topic area. Otherwise, there is no ongoing disruption that requires a sanction, and so any sanction would be punitive. To impose this, unilaterally, without explaining yourself, without pointing to diffs, or links to talk page threads, or even identifying the articles at which the disruption occurred, strikes me as wildly outside what is expected of an admin. Asserting that it's "clear" there has been disruption–in the absence of any examples of disruption for six months–doesn't meet adminacct requirements in my eyes. Using the behavior in the AE report as justification of a GMO TBAN also makes no sense, especially if the AE report is not justified in the first place. Anyway, I hope you reconsider your proposed course of action, and if you do institute sanctions against Sashi, that you fully explain and justify your actions. Thank you for reading this. Levivich 20:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I really doubt that any rational explanation would satisfy Levivich. And I fully expect that ArbCom would agree with me. And I'll be watching closely. In any case, I want to say thank you to Seraphimblade, for stepping up and doing the right thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding this closure, which diffs showing disruption to article space is the topic ban from GMO's based on? Why did you choose to ignore the feedback given after your closure proposal? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe the AE request shows substantial evidence of such disruption, including both the conduct at the request itself and the threats of disruption such as the one in May. I did not, as you assert, "ignore" the feedback, but I am also well aware that no AE result is generally going to be without objection or make everyone happy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, ok, so please pinpoint the diffs then. If there is substantial evidence of disruption to article space you shouldn't have a problem specifying it. Looking forward to the diffs from you, because I couldn't find them myself. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
No, they're at the request, which you are welcome to read. I am not interested in endlessly arguing over it. If SashiRolls would like to appeal, they should be familiar with the process of doing so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
As I said, I can't find the diffs of disruption at the AE. I am requesting you specify which diffs you based your sanction on, please. Thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The answer was "no", and will remain "no" no matter how many times you repeat the question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I don’t want to cite adminacct or anything. It’s a simple request. Admin actions require diffs. Please present them. Thanks. Just noticed you lived in Denver. I have 3 sister in laws there. We go a couple times a year. I always have a really good time. Maybe next time we can grab a beer. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
ADMINACCT requires I provide a reason. The request provides plenty and I've already said why. That's the answer, and you're not going to get a different one by repeating the question. ADMINACCT requires that I provide an answer, not that I continue providing different ones until there's one to your liking. Appeals come from the sanctioned party; third-party appeals are not considered. If SashiRolls wishes to appeal, they know how. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I’ve been reviewing the history of this, with a focus on the previous sanctions cited in the AE. I don’t think you looked at those closely, especially those who have been repeatedly involved and why. I have a much lower opinion of you because of all of this. I thought you were a community leader during the FRAM incident, and am saddened to see this downturn. Thanks for the responses earlier. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade (thank you again, by the way), could you please take a look at this: [1]? An earlier and different version was just deleted here: [2]. I want to emphasize that all the edits took place before the enactment of the sanction, but on the other hand I have concerns about keeping it now that the sanction is in place, because it is clearly about the GMO topic area, so there is no way the so-called "Wiki suit" could be pursued. I'd hate to open a new AE request so soon, so I hope that it's OK to raise this with you here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, will you please let it rest with Sashi? You have commented voluminously at every single noticeboard request concerning them that I've seen. They have no ability to speak back against you now because of the IBAN. You've now aimed your aspersion caster at me too, based on your hatted comments at AE. Enough is enough. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Because the "SWAPP" page was originally about me, it's remained on my watchlist. I'm under no restriction, and for the brief time that it was 2-way, I obeyed it scrupulously; every subsequent discussion came to my attention because someone else pinged me. If you think I'm violating something, go ahead and make a complaint about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
As the page does not mention you in that version, it is not a violation of the interaction ban. Since the edits were made prior to the topic ban being enacted, they are not actionable (though of course further ones would be). Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes very good sense to me, and I'll certainly just leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

TepapiEdit

Just FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tepapi. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure looks it to me too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Fizzarotti PalaceEdit

Hello! I am confused and disappointed by your deletion of the Fizzarotti Palace page. It was not spam or advertising; the building is of historic import. There is very little information about it in English and I genuinely thought a Wiki page would be useful to architecture students and tourists who might want to visit. Also, I see that you moved the Giosuè Poli page to draft. Can you please reinstate the Fizzarotti Palace page in draft form and direct me to resources to help me improve it? I generated and edited pages several years ago and so am rusty at it, so a little help rather than the guillotine would be appreciated. One final question: there are some resources on both of these topics in the Italian wiki. How does info translate/migrate between wikis in different countries/languages? Thanks! Shannon.wianecki (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)shannon.wianecki

Shannon.wianecki, I don't have to go a bit farther than the very first paragraph to find promotional language: ...one of Italy's finest examples of eclecticism in architecture.. Superlatives like that are not appropriate for encyclopedia articles; facts only, and each fact must be verified by a reliable source. One very minor piece, a restoration project, is reference bombed, including even a YouTube channel link, which is generally not appropriate at all. YouTube is not a reference. There's more "talking up" throughout: though most samples of this style are made from chips of quartz and other stone, these samples are superior, made from powdered stones laid down in intricate, sophisticated patterns. Superior to what, according to whom? "Intricate, sophisticated", according to whom? In addition to its remarkable architecture.... "Remarkable" according to whom? ...mitted themselves to restoring the building and its art, that kind of language is straight out of a press release. Language like that is never appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Since the article was promotional, before we proceed, please clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before you continue to edit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade Thanks for your response. Point taken re: promotional language and YouTube not being a reference. Sometimes I am overly effusive. I am not being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia. I created pages for Fizzarotti Palace and Giosue Poli for because I was having trouble finding any references in English about them. I thought other people might find the pages useful and they might collect new info that I haven’t turned up. I am researching Poli for a future art/history exhibit that may take place at the Fizzarotti Palace, the site of his archive. It’s an unpaid project that I’ve taken on because Poli’s role in the Olympics a fascinating, little known piece of history--as is the palace. Isn’t that the heart of Wikipedia? Sharing information like this? Genuine question: I am not related to the Poli family, though I do know them. Does this constitute a conflict of interest? Also, point of order. Am I supposed to ask questions like this here on your talk page, or somewhere else? Thanks! Shannon.wianecki (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Shannon.wianecki, no, disclosure is only required if you're being paid. If you're doing it as part of a volunteer project, that doesn't require it. That being said, Wikipedia's goal is to share information on notable subjects when that information has already been published by a reliable source. If you're finding those sources as part of your research, and can cite them in such articles, that's great! If, on the other hand, you're finding information as a result of your own research that's not already published in a secondary source, Wikipedia would not be the appropriate first place for it to appear. In any case, I've placed the previous version at Draft:Fizzarotti Palace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade Got it. Thanks so much. Can you point me in the direction to find answers for my earlier question: there are resources on both of these topics in the Italian wiki. How does info translate/migrate between wikis in different countries/languages? Shannon.wianecki (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that. It's possible to translate articles between different projects provided that the required attribution is provided to satisfy the CC-BY-SA license terms (a note in the edit summary of where it came from is fine), but each project has its own rules, so an article that is acceptable on the Italian Wikipedia may not be here, or vice versa. It is the translator's responsibility to ensure that the translated article meets the requirements for an article on the project onto which it is being translated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Canary Connect IncEdit

All I did to Draft:Canary Connect Inc was substitute the submit template that the author, Beermonk34 had already placed but not substed. Apparently the AfC script has me listed as the author, and therefore the person to notify of declines etc. Can we correct that so Beermonk34 is notified in future? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, that script isn't mine, it's the standard AfC one. It looks like it notified you since you subst'ed the "submit" template. I'll check who the script authors/maintainers are and see if the logic behind who receives the notification can be improved; I'm sure that's not the first time some uninvolved party has helped with doing the submission template properly and gotten a notification that should've gone to someone else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

User:YukeshrbsEdit

Hi Seraphimblade. I see you blocked Yukeshrbs in 2017 for sockpuppetry. I know that was a while ago but twice today a page they created Yukesh Chaudhary has been recreated by seemingly new users. Does their MO seem similar to Yukeshrbs? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4, it's an interesting thought. Both seem to have the habit of inappropriately capitalizing words like "entrepreneur", so it at least seems plausible. Regardless, this seems to be a long-term spamming campaign, so I'll apply a dose of salt. Hopefully that will keep the lid on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
HickoryOughtShirt24, never got that one before  . RoySmith took care of it but thank you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Page deletionEdit

Hello there, I just noticed that you deleted a page titled Falalu Dorayi. This is a page for a popular Kannywood actor which I believed should future on the English site and it was not created for anything personal, rather than reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubairudalhatu (talkcontribs) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Zubairudalhatu, that article was promotional, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Some examples: He is widely regarded as one of the most successful and critically acclaimed filmmakers of today's Kannywood Movie Industry. "Widely regarded" by whom, according to what reference? Dorayi is best known in Kannywood for his imaginative approach to film-making. "Best known" by whom? "Imaginative" according to whom? He made his directorial debut with these series and made him to be regarded as one of the best Directors of all times. The article is absolutely packed with promotional fluff like that, most of it unreferenced and none of it neutral. If you can write an acceptable article in a strictly neutral tone, sticking only to facts verified by reliable sources and avoiding any kind of promotion (including fluff or "talking up"), you're welcome to do that, but advertising, promotion, and fluff pieces are absolutely not permitted here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, if that is the case, then the article can be rewrite not deleted. There was no notice to this as it was deleted immediately after it was marked for deletion. If it can be restored, then it can be corrected and have those unreferenced removed. Zubairu Dalhatu 21:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Promotional material may be deleted under section G11 of the speedy deletion criteria, and will remain deleted. Your option is to start a new article free of promotional material or language. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"Disruptive editing" Re: Patrick TigheEdit

Please stop undoing my edits to Patrick Tighe's page. I am head of business development at Tighe Architecture and the page has not been updated in some time. If you looked however briefly at the edits I made you would see they are very clearly cited sources, there is no reason for you to keep removing not only the changes I made, let alone all the awards and selected works that already existed on the page as you did. Please stop, it's very annoying to have to keep checking to see if half the page has been deleted or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Simenc (talkcontribs) 17:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Seraphimblade".