User talk:Seicer/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Here is the Source

As I recall you asked for a source to confirm Kentucky's numbers from the Southern Focus Study (which for some reason you didn't believe) which in tern confirms Kentucky's Southernness.

John Shelton Reed

Percent who say their community is in the South (percentage base in parentheses)

Alabama 98 (717) South Carolina 98 (553) Louisiana 97 (606) Mississippi 97 (431) Georgia 97 (1017) Tennessee 97 (838) North Carolina 93 (1292) Arkansas 92 (400) Florida 90 (1792) Texas 84 (2050) Virginia 82 (1014) Kentucky 79 (582) Oklahoma 69 (411)

West Virginia 45 (82) Maryland 40 (173) Missouri 23 (177) Delaware 14 (21) D.C. 7 (15)

Percent who say they are Southerners (percentage base in parentheses)

Mississippi 90 (432) Louisiana 89 (606) Alabama 88 (716) Tennessee 84 (838) South Carolina 82 (553) Arkansas 81 (399) Georgia 81 (1017) North Carolina 80 (1290) Texas 68 (2053) Kentucky 68 (584) Virginia 60 (1012) Oklahoma 53 (410) Florida 51 (1791)

West Virginia 25 (84) Maryland 19 (192) Missouri 15 (197) New Mexico 13 (68) Delaware 12 (25) D.C. 12 (16) Utah 11 (70) Indiana 10 (208) Illinois 9 (362) Ohio 8 (396) Arizona 7 (117) Michigan 6 (336)

All others less than 6 percent.

Well here it is [1]

Louisvillian 17:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Giving up

I'm getting really tired of this. I just give up on the GTZ article. Maybe we can let it slide this time and overturn it later. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the above comment was not left by Nihonjoe, as indicated, but rather a sock impersonating him.-Chunky Rice 06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

......

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

An important letter

Dear roads editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...

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

WP:CVU status

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

USRD Newsletter - Issue 11

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

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

USRD Newsletter - Issue 12

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

Stop it

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

Fair use disputed for Image:Iraq in Fragments.jpg

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

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

USRD Newsletter - Issue 13

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

Re: Byrd

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

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

3RR

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

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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

Fort Knox

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

USRD Inactivity check and news report

Resolved

 – Active again!

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

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

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

Comments req

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

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

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

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

GameTZ.com

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

re: User:Getaway

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

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

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

USRD Newsletter - Issue 14

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

Re:UK ref

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

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

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

Urban exploration

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

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

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

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

Interstate 64

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

USRD Newsletter - Issue 15

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

Getaway's new sockpuppet account...

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

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

Here

Resolved

 – Taken to AE.

I watch the Arb enforcement page- for some reason, and you might want to inform about this:

[2] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure he saw where I and others said that he'd brought it to the wrong place. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was more of a civility issue, and a pretty minor one at that. It seems that there may be a possible COI... seicer | talk | contribs 02:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know the history here, but there is another diff, an attack directly against Butler by name "making things up on his site." I would hate to have to post on the Arb enforcement page, but what you're missing is that the real PA was this [3], which is much harder to deal with. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of it. I've kept a watch on SA's edits in the past, as he seems to crop up at WQA and elsewhere quite frequently; plus, he's involved in a discussion at mediation regarding Cold Fusion. But stating someone is "making things up" is a very far reach for a personal attack. seicer | talk | contribs 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Seicer, this isn't my fight, I was at the Wiquitte page to complain about the general environment. But come on. First, you can't take things entirly out of context, and if you monitor the situation at all, you know at least a small part of it. Second, you have his first comment, that he struck through. Then, you have him saying that TB makes things up on his website. Put it together. Or don't, because you don't have to. If you say something or write something you believe to be true, and I tell you that you are making things up, it is a direct insult. It would not be more insulting to say you were a moron or a liar or deluded. Not in the least. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

After hearing private responses from not only SA and other parties, and after reviewing the edit histories of all parties involved, I feel that my comments may have been a bit misdirected. While I feel that the "moron" comment may have been taken out of context, and that it was not applied towards another editor but instead to a source or other individual, it has the direct effect of criticising those who acknowledge the source -- yourself and Tom, for instance. In other words, while it was not a direct uncivil comment, it was still one that was directed towards a group of individuals that includes those who hold belief in EVP. Please accept my apologies.

As a side note, SA's block was reduced to 12h. seicer | talk | contribs 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, seicer (-: Trouble is one never knows who believes in it and who is just trying to be NPOV, and who is taking umbrage in general, or whatever. You assume I believe in it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know or let AE know if more issues crop up. I've left Tom a note via e-mail as well. seicer | talk | contribs 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but...

Resolved

 – I'm not digging into this.

What is the the other editor is a nazi? Boodlesthecat (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC) What about the incessant Jew-baiting this editor spewed at me personally. do you want the diffs? Is that OK, or do only I get a "warning" because I called this despicable anti-Semitic Nazi a Nazi? Whats the deal? I'm very interested to know what WP's policy is on anti-Semitic attacks and rants. Boodlesthecat (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

You mentioned in the answer to my first question about checking up on BritandBeyonce. This is what you need. Acalamari 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! He seems to be a very prolific editor, and I am really liking his contributions. seicer | talk | contribs 03:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GoneHH

It's a shame that people who say they're here to improve Wikipedia never do. JuJube (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See his first contributions to my talk page. It's just a trolling account. If he continues, refer to AIV. seicer | talk | contribs 05:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(please remove) HAH! Man, I love a good gag like that. Well done. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits suggest this guy might be a sock of Blotto adrift4 (talk · contribs). JuJube (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

voting Re: Regarding my RfA

Resolved

 – I've asked the user to be more clear in future responses. Discussion will continue at the other user's talk page for continuation.

If you can clarify, was your comment at my RfA meant as a general comment, per the note "Bullet is deliberate. Not a vote, ta", or a vote in oppose? I moved it to discussion, but feel free to move it back if I was in error. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seicer, thanks for enquiring. It is an oppose, and a summary of my reasons. The comment (in the comment out) was intended to explain that it was deliberately placed in the oppose section and should not be regarded as a vote. This is a bit odd discussion to be having, perhaps some else should have refactored the page!? Regards, cygnis insignis 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't for certain what was meant by "[...]not a vote, ta" which could have easily been construed as not being a vote. As per comment, I'll move it back. seicer | talk | contribs 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so, it was not a vote. This was your edit summary:

• m (→Oppose: As you explicitely noted it is _not_ a vote, moving it into general discussion above).

I had hoped the 'comment out', editing the oppose section, and my summary: (→Oppose: some concerns are outlined - bullet point, not vote) would explain it, though apparently not:

• m (Per discussion, it was. Please be more explicit in the future)

I would have found this discussion easier with a third party, thus my emphatic question above. To avoid any confusion in the future, please use my talk page and not an edit summary to communicate with me. cygnis insignis 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am having a very hard time following along with your comments in general. The sentences are fragmented and your comments are generally misleading or just flat-out confusing. For future reference, this discussion is now resolved on my talk page -- please keep discussions centralized on one talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to put a space between 'inflame' and the end of the link in your edit here. cygnis insignis 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lighten up. It's humour that's badly needed at Wikipedia, and I cannot fathom anyone who would actually take a labeled humorous template seriously. But I egress, Wikipedia is serious business, after all... seicer | talk | contribs 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

_{And do you think that a Druge Report siren would look good on the template? seicer | talk | contribs 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)}

Thank you

For your attention to Tudor Chirilă. Well done. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if anything transpires. I have it on my watchlist as well. Seicer (t | c) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, they are at it again. Seems there are two issues here: subject notability and edit warring between rival contributors. Do you want to kick this over to administration noticeboard? Best, JNW (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Replaced the CSD G1 tag that was removed in prior reverts. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap my talkpage makes me thirsty

It's 11am in my frozen tundra world. Friggin jerk. Now I'm thirsty. Just saw your RfA. Looks good. Remember my support #55, which will probably be the one that finally tips the scales in your favor. Don't delete me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So now you've seen my userpage. Yep, huge roadgeek. I could read an atlas for hours, you know, for fun. Love how everything connects. Love planning "the trip", love "taking the trip". My last biggie was a 7000+miler. Hit every state east of the Mighty-miss, plus 4 provinces up nort'. Few freeways. Took three weeks, never staying anywhere longer than a day or two. Great fun.

Anywho, take a look back on my userpage and read the "Administrator-y stuff" subsection for your IRC answer. Truth is, I can't. Blocked from my corporate PC that I exclusively edit from. (Ironic,I know). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But I stay up into the wee hours of the morning chatting with people from California mostly, at home, alone, with beer in hand. Seicer (t | c) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Understood and please accept my apology. Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. seicer | talk | contribs 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tudor Chirila

Resolved

 – Taken to AFD.

Spent some time reviewing the history of the article and the redirect, Tudor Chirilă. I'm prepared to let the article stand as it is but have obviously watchlisted it. I'd recommend forthright use of protection/deletion if more nonsense ensues - unless you have a different recommendation. CIreland (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it up to AFD to let others decide. seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nuts, just noticed you're not an admin (ever considered it? I'd be happy to nominate given you haven't done anything ridiculously daft in the recent past), I thought you were. Still any advice would be most welcome as you're obviously more familiar with this than me. CIreland (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seicer. :O) seicer | talk | contribs 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well guess that's one more support then. :) CIreland (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

user:Arisedrink

Hi Seicer, I may have misread things but I got the impression that you answered a question on behalf of user:Arisedrink at the BLP noticeboard. Are you both the same person? My apologies in advance if I have misread something as it is late and I've had a few beers. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seicer != Arisedrink. I thought I had made a reply at BLP/N, given that Maddox is on my watchlist and that I have made edits to it on behalf of BLP/N. It may have been removed by a rogue editor or vandal at one point or another. seicer | talk | contribs 04:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Maddox

Some anon restored the discussion by Peapee which had nothing to do with Maddox [4] WhisperToMe (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Research on the RFA process

Hello, I am an anthropology student researching the Wikipedia Requests for adminship procedure. As you are currently going through this process, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few quick questions.

• Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?
• Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?
• Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?
• Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?

If you are willing, please leave your answers on my talk page or e-mail them to me.

This research will not be published academically, as this research is primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of doing online ethnography in online only communities such as Wikipedia, though I intend to make my findings available on Wiki. Your name will not be associated with any information you provide in any published work. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. --Cspurrier (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you a response by Monday. seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert referral

Resolved

 – Taken back to WQA.

Hi, Would you be able to tell me where you referred the wikiquette to? I would also appreciate if you could explain why? Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I can't find any breach of civility; the discussions should stay on the respective talk page. If it escalates further, let me know on my talk page and I'll take a look at it. seicer | talk | contribs 02:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is calling someone a troll without substantiating the accusation not uncivil?! The other user/s refused to participate, except in the case where it was implied that all English users of Wikipedia were ignorant for failing to learn Polish. Every one of the accusations made against me is untrue. The users that supported me being labeled a troll had known of the discussion for days, but have said nothing. In any case, despite being urged to end the discussion (for lack of objections) I had waited until the end of the weekend everywhere in the World before concluding it for lack of arguments or facts being presented to the contrary. I see from you user page that you have some knowledge of guidelines, and I welcome any reasonable discussion. You are welcome to review the discussion that preceded the proposal (I went back to 2003), and the proposal discussion and its points. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to offer them on the talk page. Regards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What diff were you referring to? I believe that I scrolled down to the approperiate comment but I may have overlooked it. I've reopened it, but if you could, please provide a diff to help us out more :) seicer | talk | contribs 03:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Its still there!

Consensus does not work like this. I ignored the discussion because I felt you were just trying to disrupt Wikipedia and I said that sterile discussions with a troll are useless. I disagree with the proposal and I am sure that virtually every wikipedian from a country which uses diacritics will be against this. I'm sure that if someone announces the Eastern European noticeboards, you'll get plenty of people with whom to argue, but what's the point? bogdan (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused. First I open an alert, you were the initial individual to attend and closed it because you could not see a diff. Then DanielEng comes in and asks for a diff which I provide. Meanwhile he supports Bogan for calling me a troll. You reopen the alert. The you depart and DanielEng comes in and closes the alert, informing me essentially its ok to call people a troll for conducting a discussion in which Bogdan refused to participate.

If indeed being called a troll does "not constitute impartiality and incivility" then what does? If I am "exhausting the patience of the community and being disruptive", then I would like to know how.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

my position

OK, so my position remains, "no vote"; and I'll explain. IIRC, in the (ongoing, eternal) matter between me and Ronz, you were the one who commented (to my Wikiquette, see the RfC) that the matter was too complex. The RfC never got even that much response. The battle is ugly, and the material is spread over many pages and camoflaged with superficialities, so I can't blame anyone for not solving it for me; but I was disappointed. Now, your nomination seems to be doing well, and I had intended my comment in the "con" side to ameliorate the animosity from the Anti-anti-science camp (which probably has the strength to squirrel a nomination against mere consensus, much less a mere majority). I don't think you are a purveyor of quackery; I myself am just sympathetic to widely held public views, which should provoke education, not animousity. Recusing yourself on the grounds given is reasonable too; but again, it's not brave. It's not the courageous choice IMO. So I remain no-vote; I'm in the market for courage currently, not mere patience. But I certainly don't oppose: most soldiers are yeomen, not heroes, and the wiki needs plenty of soldiers. And maybe if you mediate Cold Fusion you are a hero. Pete St.John (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I may provide an answer in the future, but I would like to have the chance to bring it up to MC to see if it would be appropriate to answer. seicer | talk | contribs 20:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gandhi Barnstar

		The Gandhi Barnstar
		For creating community on Wikipedia, which is always sorely needed. You are a valued contributor and it is good to have you. --David Shankbone 17:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

I replied to your nice message. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Taiwan

You recently chastised me about some unsourced information on the History of Taiwan page. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Perhaps you could point out the particular revision.Readin (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. This edit inserted in unreferenced texts, which is not consistent with the cited paragraphs preceding and proceeding the statements you had entered. Adding in citations would satisfy the CITE requirement. seicer | talk | contribs 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason the links were acting funny, or I was mis-clicking. I ended up looking at the Taiwan page. The edits in question for the History of Taiwan article were not addition of new information. It was putting back in place long-standing well-known useful information that had been anonymously deleted without explanation. It was not the only information in the article that is lacking a source. Normally before deleting something that has been around for a while and presumably not controversial and isn't thought wrong by others, you flag it with a citation-needed or even a dubious tag to give someone a chance to defend it. If you're really dubious about the information and think it needs deletion quickly, it is polite to copy it to the discussion page and explain why you deleted it. Instead the anonymous deleter picked two paragraphs out of many unsourced paragraphs on the page, a paragraph whose facts happen to show a particular political party in a bad light. All this looked to me like someone trying to make a political edit or whitewash rather than someone trying to make an honest improvement. So I undid the change and requested an explanation for the deletion. My note on the edit read "reverting removal of useful content. If content should be removed, please say why". Should the two of us make an effort to immediately delete all unsourced information on the page, or just those two paragraphs?Readin (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:BernieWard.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BernieWard.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Addhoc (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avanti Construction

Resolved

 – Refactored vote.

Hi, I wonder if you would revisit this discussion, please? What was a hopeless article has been rewritten and its credentials as a government sponsored programme have been sourced here and in the article there are several good sources. BlueValour (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Savannah State University/Userbox

My speedy tagging of this userbox had nothing to do with the MfD. The userbox is unused, and is located in the main article namespace. Were it used, it would make sense to move it to template space or to a subpage of User:UBX. But, it isn't. Please have a look at [5]. It's not transcluded anywhere. Template:User SavSt DOES exist and is actually in use as transcluded [6]. So if you would please delete [[Savannah State University/Userbox]]? By the way; [7] I've stood exactly where you're standing in this picture. Wonderful place, isn't it? Did you have opportunity to eat dinner there? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I've been wanting to eat at Boone Tavern for a while but it is under renovations right now. Will be reopening in April as a certified LEED building. When were you last there? seicer | talk | contribs 14:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I was there was in 2000, I think it was. The simplicity of their life is appealing in some regards. They had their challenges too, but their society compared to our general society now is a stark contrast. Thanks for deleting. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Query

Resolved

 – Blueberrypie12 indef. blocked as sock of indef. blocked user; images were recreations and were CSD'ed by numerous other administrators. seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Seicer, I saw you deleted images uploaded by Blueberrypie12 on the grounds that he's a banned user. He isn't banned. His accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry, although it's not clear why -- he used one account after another, not in violation of WP:SOCK, so far as I know. But regardless, he is blocked, not banned, so there would be no reason to delete his images, unless they violate the policies in some way, which I believe some of them did, but not all. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but if he used one sock after another to evade a block, and the images lacked or had confusing licensing information, then they were grounds for CSD at any rate. Some of the images were already CSDed previously for block (/ban) evasion. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the images he uploaded are in the public domain, so there are no grounds for deleting those, and it's not clear what the user was blocked for in the first place. His first block, as I recall, was for sockpuppetry, even though he had used the accounts one after another, not in violation of SOCK, and it can't have been for block evasion the first time he was blocked. Having said that, he was making a nuisance of himself by adding logos and POV all over the place, so I don't intend to intervene on his behalf, but I think if his images are being used in articles, and if they are PD, they shouldn't be deleted simply because he uploaded them. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

One image was tagged as self-taken, and used the following as the permission field: "Permission=Yes, I hold not licence." Another was a non-free logo taken from Spirit of Freedom. Others had no rationale, or were lifted from various web-sites that were not in public domain. You can't go in and steal images and claim that you took them, without providing evidence or claim as such. When one user claims that he took the image and under permission it states otherwise...

At any rate, the user has now been indef. blocked for abusing socks. Several other admins have been using the CSDG5 template regarding the user, and it appears that as a result of the SSP case, that any future contributions from socks will only be CSD'ed. seicer | talk | contribs 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, he wasn't abusing socks. He was simply editing from one account after another, and making no effort to hide that it was him, which is not a SOCK violation. That is no reason to delete all his contribs. Many of the images he added were from the ALF, and they are in the public domain. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As a note, if you can provide any links to deleted images, I will be happy to review them. Have you notified other admins who CSDed the images previously? (Some of these were CSDed more than once.) seicer | talk | contribs 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I've lost track. I'm only going to notify people about the images that I know were being used legitimately. I have no inclination to go through them all. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Was the blocked user someone you got banned for being an an edit disagreement with you, SlimVirgin, like the others? 63.24.27.24 (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet Content Syndication Council

Resolved

 – Notability not established after my CSD; article deleted. seicer | talk | contribs 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I posted the Internet Content Syndication Council item. Why was it deleted? It's a non-profit that deals with the syndication of content online. The companies mentioned in the entry are using their time and money for the good of the industry. No one is advertising here. Please advise on how I can change this entry and have it posted up again. I'll change whatever comes across as "blatant advertising".

Thanks,

NetManMediaSourcebook —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetManMediaSourcebook (talk • contribs) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CSD#Articles, no notability was established, and there were no reliable sources. And per WP:CSD#General criteria, it appeared that the article was promoting only your company; it would require a total rewrite to become encyclopedic. Just having a company or product does not assert notability. But I'll give another chance; if you can rewrite the article to assert notability (something important, etc.) and introduce reliable sources, it can stay. I'll restore it in a few minutes. seicer | talk | contribs 19:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Remote Area Medical

Hello. What were the reasons you deleted the article about Remote Area Medical that I created this morning? I created the stub, left to take my wife to the doctor, returned and the article was gone. 60 Minutes did a 20 minute segment on the organization last night - a surefire sign of notability. Please explain. Thanks. --AStanhope (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored. seicer | talk | contribs 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Why not keep your dick in your pants the next time and spend 20 seconds reading the article the next time before you delete? --AStanhope (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with our policy on personal attacks. Comments like that are highly inappropriate, and could have easily been phrased in a constructive way. This kind of conduct may result in your being blocked. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, he does consider himself to be an inclusionist. And seeing that he has many other articles that were CSD'ed, perhaps another administrator or editor can take a look at the article after a day or two to see if there have been any improvements. seicer | talk | contribs 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoodwrecked

This is a film, almost certainly non notable, but we cannot delete films for that,accord to WP:CSD. Nor can we delete hoaxes, unless the descend to total nonsense. Please restore, and return to prod, or send to AfD. DGG (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Left the prod in place. I did a query and could not find anything that can validate the film. I can't rule out that it is patent nonsense. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seicer

Hey Seicer - I've just sent you an email :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 23:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please smack me hard with this trout.

• As promised, here's your noms - It was an honour to nominate you. Just fill out the questions and transclude at will :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ready to rock and roll so I can go to bed :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you like me to transclude it? Ryan Postlethwaite 06:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • To where? And much thanks on the nom. It is very much appreciated. It's time to hit the hay myself, a very long day of classes and work tomorrow! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Hehe, it has to be transcluded onto Wikipedia:Requests for adminship which I've done now, so we're live! Best of luck! Ryan Postlethwaite 06:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, nobody has voted oppose on your RfA. I believe that you are clearly manipulating other editors with mind control, and demand that you stop it at once. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes on your RfA! I have already cast my vote—best of luck when the time comes for everybody else to do the same ;) Regards, AGK (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea what to say. I'm quite speechless actually, and I never imagined that I would receive such unanimous support from other editors and administrators. I find it really quite heartening that so many feel so strongly about my positive contributions that they are willing to forgive for my prior mistakes, and that they have a lot of vested interest in seeing me succeed as a potential administrator. Reading over the comments at my RfA has put a large smile on my face, and has reinforced the notion that my contributions for the past year and a half have been worth it, despite the adversity, personal attacks and harassment that I have endured over the years. Thanks for the gracious comments, they have been very well received, and I will do everything in my vested power to ensure that I uphold the role of an administrator to the highest standard. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On your adminship! I know, you've got an hour to go, but I have this called. Cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Congrats, admin. Ronnotel (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Congratulations, man. Well deserved. Stratosphere|Talk 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly well deserved. Seicer, here's to you and the wider sense of meritocracy. Avb 00:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. You are now an administrator (and a Pokemon haven). --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't get enough barnstars for the crap we have to take...

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I'm awarding this to you and Vegaswikian for helping out with the massive protections of the entire Orlando business. It was a mess, and it took all of us to clear it out. I hope I never have to deal with that sort of thing again. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I just realized you have a shiny new mop. Quite a way to get it broken in, if I do say so myself. Congrats and welcome to the cabal, er club... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Much appreciated. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Thank you for your assistance. SpikeJones (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of IMPACT

I was curious as to why you deleted an article that was obviously in progress. Although it was by no means finished, is there not a certain amount of time afforded to nascent articles? --Community service (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

It was already semi-protected indefinitely. Will ^(talk) 17:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But indefinitely? seicer | talk | contribs 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing an indefinate block. The prior note was to reverse protection due to "IP addresses will be blocked" comment. seicer | talk | contribs 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if you take a look at the page log, you'll see it's been semi protected for quite a while now - you actually only knocked down the move protection from full to semi when you semi protected as it was already protected.Might be an idea knocking it back up to indef because the problems aren't going to be sorted soon. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah. Thanks for pointing that out. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz N <--(N+1)

You may recall a wikiquette item I had brought regarding Ronz; the only comment was yours, that it was too complex for a WQA. I created an RfC but that go no comments at all.

Now in response to Ronz's complaint (posted at my talk, where it was unwelcome as per the above) I moved the complaint and my answer to a new wikiquette. Presumably, since it reflects Ronz's complaint against me as much as mine against him, it might get more attention this time. Pete St.John (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at it possibly later tonight when I am back from dinner/night out. seicer | talk | contribs 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And here is his reply: [8] =/ — Save_Us † 05:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WQA

I don't want to have to bump this up to the AN/I or anything, but I think an admin's magic mop might be necessary. It's a pretty clear-cut case of intentional use of racial slurs, and I think it needs some moppin'. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. He's been given a final warning for disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

AjaxWindows

Seicer, you just deleted a page I just created. I think the page should be expanded instead. The reason of the deletion was because it looks like balant advertising. It's not. I just was seaching about web desktop solution as part of my daily job tasks (IT) and found this one. I was surprised by the fact that Wikipedia was lacking an article on the subject, so I decided to create one. Even before I finish, when I hit the save button to see how it looks, the article was tagged {{db-spam}}. That was quick. I didn't even finish and someone else was guessing that I was advertising something. Don't give me wrong, I admire you all guys for your effort to keep Wikipedia reliable, but I also think that sometimes some of you just exagerate. Finally, i was just trying to create an article for a technology and it was deleted. Please check WebOS to see what I mean. --Rosant (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please follow direction found at WP:AGF

Your comment here did not assume good faith. It is common courtesy that we all (myself included, I'll admit) assume the best. It is common practice that editors not edit one anothers comments, I simply reverted back to your original edit. Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 06:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm glad that you've included the quote (above): "ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior". I wish your comments directed toward me would not be sniping nor confrontational, yet they have been since you've very first communication with me. Please note, that this is the first stage in the mediation process, for which I hope we will both show a WP:CIV resolution. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. You jumped into something that you have clearly and unequivocally no connection to, in order to revert me fixing a typo of Seicer's even though he was fine with it, I had already told him, and he acknowledged it. Your behavior is highly inappropriate, but saying so cannot be declared equally inappropriate by association. Your edit (reversion, rather) had no purpose, and was an unnecessary prod against two people you have a history of serious issues with, having filed inappropriate/frivolous complaints against both of us. Seicer is an admin and may have a more diplomatic response for you, but I'm just going to tell it like it is: your nonsense reversion of my typo-fix was way out of line, not to mention wiki-stalking. To come here and continue to fuss about it still? What a joke. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

PS the "WP:CIV resolution" would be that you back off. Telling you to back off is not uncivil. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see Netkinetic is continuing to stock not only my edits, but Chesser's. Refactoring an edit for spelling is not in vio. of WP:TALK as Net asserts, and it is clear that, from my RfA (four votestacking vios.) and from his rant at WP:MC (which it was agreed upon that I had no vio.), that he is only continuing to use his account to harass and disrupt other editors. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

First, this will not address Cheeser1's rantings, as this conversation was not directed towards him. Seicer, understand that on multiple occasions prior to and during an RfA, a nominator will request individuals participate in an RfA. That too would be votestacking, my I digress. Once there was a protest, I recused myself further. That you would fail to have the fortitude to at least admit that your first dialogue with myself was of an uncivil nature...and that you persist in not WP:AGF clearly shows that despite your prolific aptitude towards website creation...eventually such a demeanor will spill over into the general community. I do not forsee your administorship being indefinite or even of a significant term, if you continue down this path. Please accept some friendly counsel do exercise WP:CIV in your future mediations, or it will ultimately catch up with you. Regards. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So, will you continue to stalk not only my edits, but Chesser's? seicer | talk | contribs 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Miamiboyzinhere socks

He's at it again 74.225.10.154 Momusufan (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So what are our options? Indef protect all of central Florida? seicer | talk | contribs 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That would help during the nasty hurricane season. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could assist with something. I'm starting to wonder if there's someone else behind all this. I'm seeing similarities in edits and M.O. within another article, this one for sunset. The same IP-hopper occasionally tries to add a new picture (one from Miami, go figure), but it keeps getting reverted because it doesn't add anything new.

Well, I looked at the photo credit. The photo is credited to a registered user, who happens to be in the Miami area. Why would an anonymous IP be so hell-bent on adding a photo from this person ... unless it was that person? I know it's all circumstancial evidence, but it's really got me wondering.

That aside, what tools are available to assist, outside of constant vigilance? Thanks again for your assistance. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm stepping out for a bit, but there was an ANI case about this not too long ago. seicer | talk | contribs 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miamiboyzinhere for more action. seicer | talk | contribs 23:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should post about him at Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse since this is getting way out of hand. I see 2 of his IP's vandalised my talk page when I was gone. This is insane lol. I requested Semi-protection for my talk page again. I had it protected prior. Momusufan (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that now he is creating sockpuppet accounts? I noticed this username User:Bandamorales going to users who were involved in reverting his edits and went to Miamiboyzinhere userpage and the talk page. I figured I bring this up. Momusufan (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

other speedy deletes?

Dear Seicer, I saw that you speedy deleted this page. I am in agreement with this decision. I am thinking that this page and this should also be speedily deleted. The latter was the talk page of G4-speedy delete page (actually, the third speedy delete of pages with slight name variations). There was nothing new discussed on the page -- same old rehashing of discussions from the previous delete with the addition of a purported "new" user who got blocked today for 1 week due to personal attacks. Advice welcome. Renee Renee (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha :) I'll continue to watch for more nonsense pages at CAT:CSD. If you find any, tag them with CSD templates. Thanks seicer | talk | contribs 03:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responsiveness and advice. Much appreciated. Renee (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo wars 2

Would you mind closing this? I already shot my mouth off. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone got to it before I could :) seicer | talk | contribs 15:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion mistake

Oops. Accidently tagged the wrong thing: User:Kaiba/Award is supposed to be undeleted and User:Save Us 229/Award should be deleted.

P.S. If you could deleted User:Save Us 229/monobook.js it would be much appriciated. — Save_Us † 13:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Birdpop

Hi. I went to place a username block on this user talk page and noticed that you had deleted it as an orphaned talk page. I presume this was an automated response (ala Twinkle) following the deletion of the userpage as promotional. Since I expect that you didn't intend to delete a user talk page under this rationale (user talk pages being excluded under WP:CSD#G8) and since the user might (if he comes back) benefit from seeing why the userpage was deleted, I've taken the liberty of restoring it before placing the block notice. I would prefer to ask you first, but you seem to be gone at the moment, and I expect that this restoration would be uncontroversial. If I'm wrong, I heartily apologize. :) It's not my intention or desire to step on your toes here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't a user page for all intents and purposes. There was a flurry of CSD noms. that were all at "user pages" that were nothing more than advertisements for various companies from various users. I'm not 100% sure why they were left as is for so long, or why no action was taken long ago about it. But as far as it all goes, I was treating it more as an article, given that it was blatant advertising and deleting the talk pages as orphaned, but I see your point. Thanks for bringing this up to me and I'll go back and restore the various talk pages from a few of the articles I CSDed today, and perform a username block (if not done already). seicer | talk | contribs 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally we do get a flurry of those, generally when User:Calton sleuths them out. (A knack for that, evidently; I don't know how s/he finds them. Check out the deleted contribution history: impressive!) Anyway, since it wasn't an accidental deletion I am sorry for not waiting for your response. It's no emergency, obviously. Assumptions can be dangerous. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page of deleted article

Please do not re-create talk pages of deleted articles, as these will be speedy deleted. See WP:CSD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See above under "User talk:Birdpop". seicer | talk | contribs 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VI (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

U1 Deletion of User:Save Us 229

After renames, deletions of the previous user and user talk pages are generally not performed, unless exceptional circumstance exists. Keeping these as redirects increases transparency. Would you mind restoring this page? seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they were renames, if we are talking about the same pages. They were requested by the author and there were no redirects in place to a new page, but let me check in about 30 minutes to see if this can be redirected to a new user (as the user was not outright deleted for privacy concerns). seicer | talk | contribs 02:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The user had been renamed to User:Kaiba, and had requested the deletion of his user and user talk pages Here is the diff. seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of user pages under CSD, where it states, "Personal user pages and subpages, upon request by their user. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page." However, I will redirect the talk page based upon UP, "user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reason." Unless I am reading this differently, I don't see a reason for every page to be redirected, sans the talk and possibly the user page. I'd like to here more about this though. seicer | talk | contribs 02:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On 5 March, WJBscribe moved the user's talk page to the new Kaiba (per UP above), and renamed the user "Save Us 229" to "Kaiba", indicated here. ~30 mintutes later, it was nominated for CSD U1 deletion and the page was deleted five minutes later... but not by me. As a note, I'm seeing some of his other user pages being CSDed previously as well. seicer | talk | contribs 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally the user and user talk pages that exist as a redirect after a rename are not deleted for U1. It makes it difficult for non-admins to figure out who people are. There are hundreds of links to his userpage; now there are hundreds of redlinks. seresin | wasn't he just...? 03:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I recreated the account and noted that Save Us 229 = Kaiba in an edit and all the edit histories now display the name Kaiba if they choose to see what happened. U1 still applies, it was my userpage, and I request deletion of it. — Κaiba 03:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I guess I was being far too strict with the operational definition (from what I cited) to not notice that it redlinks potentially hundreds of pages. I'll take that into consideration in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 03:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Styleslut

Hi Why was this page deleted?

Styleslut is a Trademarked brand that has received worldwide press and I have legitimate refrences for all achievements/qoutes/statements etc. Thanks

HD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector douche (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All I'm seeing is a MySpace and blog web-site, and having both does not necessarily make a band or group notable. I haven't been able to find multiple non-trivial published works regarding Styleslut that are independent sources and any independent awards from well-known organizations/groups. It's also more of a personal blog and is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." See WP:WEB for further criteria and information. The page that existed was,

Styleslut is a cult London-based blog that takes a cutting look at music, fashion and lifestyle issues, often with a satirical or ironic edge. Popular with the underground 'scenester' community, the blog is often cited as one of the many catalysts for the 'nu-rave' scene. (Although, the blog has since renounced the movement and often mocks it.)

seicer | talk | contribs 02:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are links to 6 'non-trivial' articles regarding Styleslut from respected publications and websites such as 'The Guardian' 'NME', 'RWD', 'Time Out' 'Dazed and Confused' and 'myspace.com'. http://music.guardian.co.uk/urban/story/0,,2204182,00.html http://www.dazeddigital.com/incoming/item.aspx?a=340 http://bp1.blogger.com/_ABdF67EWGBc/RwFOnT35AuI/AAAAAAAAAIA/w3AP4P9Rp6I/s1600-h/donald.jpg http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c227/styleslut/styleslutmyspace.jpg http://www.rwdmag.com/articles/5094.html http://www.timeout.com/london/clubs/events/395236/styleslut_presents_hood-stonbury-07.html

The site was also voted as one of 'the top 5 blogs in Europe' in 'the peoples choice' category at the 2006 BT 'Online Music Awards':

www.btyahoo.com/dma06/top50blogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector douche (talk • contribs) 10:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The blog can also be found at 'www.thestyleslut.com' and has numerous contributions from writers, graphic designers and photographers from all over the world, so it is not a 'personal blog'.

The page was still 'under construction', which is why the links had not yet been added.

Please restore the page as the site meets the core requirements.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector douche (talk • contribs) 10:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Hi, there is a backlog at the SSP page and i was just hoping you can take a look at this case i made, [9]. Seems no one has yet looked into it, no one i have contacted has been of help, and the user has used yet another I.P. as a vandalism-only account. One of the users IPs has just vandalized multiple page again and i am seriously getting tired of having to revert all of his mess everyday. Please look into it. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  LaNicoya (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do the Las Vegas area casinos say they are in Paradise, Nevada?

If that is the guideline then why don't the Orlando resorts state the specific city that they are in? 74.163.224.123 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the category Category:Casinos_in_Las_Vegas, you'll see that regardless of the casino's mailing address, they're still listed as being in Las Vegas for sake of the category. If this is not what you are looking for, then you will need to be more specific with your question. I also recommend that if you have a specific question that it is better to ask it on a single appropriate page rather than to post the same question on multiple user's talk pages. SpikeJones (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time read the question. I didn't ask about a category. Read the 1st sentence in all the Las Vegas area casinos articles, they all say in Paradise, Nevada. 74.163.224.123 (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is another Miamiboyzinhere IP sock evading his block. Momusufan (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. seicer | talk | contribs 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI re Ronz

As what may be the final consequence of your "this issue is too complex for a WQA", I've finally made an AN/I. But no, it probably won't be :-) Pete St.John (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not have time to look over this all too much unfortunately. I will be heading out of town this weekend and will mostly be away from my computer all next week. I'll keep tabs on it though. seicer | talk | contribs 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Son of Stimpy

Please restore the article Son of Stimpy you deleted, it meets all our core policies. Catchpole (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas, the page was one of many included for deletion. The result was delete all and of all the pages deleted, Son of Stimpy was recreated and deleted per CSD G4. seicer | talk | contribs 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to open a deletion review, but I noticed that your deletion may be in violation of this injunction - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision. Catchpole (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Will this mean that the other episodes will be undeleted as well? If it's in vio. of the injunction (which I was not made aware of until now), I'll revert. Let me have some time to read over this first. seicer | talk | contribs 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the proposal, and the fact that none of the other episodes have been reverted, I'm going to hold off until there is an agreement by arbitration on what needs to be done. seicer | talk | contribs 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If I might jump in: I would recommend DRV and/or some sort of discussion central to the AfD (maybe on its talk page). The closing admin is really the one responsible for assessing whether to delete these articles. Seicer was just deleting things that had been AfD'd as delete. He might have realized that the closing admin had made a mistake (if indeed s/he did), but it's really not something to bring up with Seicer. Have you brought it up with User:Secret? --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

After a self-imposed hiatus since the unpleasantness of a few weeks ago, I just now checked back to see how the mediation was going. I'm impressed with your progress. Ronnotel (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) I hope that you can join back into the discussion. Without the polarization of the two opposing factions going at it (not pointing at any specific editor) with pointed jabs or off remarks, there is actually an very extended and productive discussion on-going. seicer | talk | contribs 22:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Compuware TestPartner

I disagree with the deletion of this topic. The product is mentioned in several articles past and present in Wikipedia and is one of the three or four most widely used GUI functional testing software solutions for Windows. Several other products of similar functionality and market usage have wikipedia pages (IBM Rational Functional Tester, HP QuickTest Professional, Winrunner, SilkTest). Rather than simply referring readers to a Compuware webpage that has marketing information only, I thought it appropriate to begin a page that talks about the product in a manner similar to others listed on Wikipedia. Granted, the initial article was very brief, but isn't unlike the article for IBM Rational Functional Tester (for example).

Moreover, now for the pages where I have taken the static (unlinked) references to TestPartner and redirected them to the topic, I am now receiving complaints that there's no page...

In short, I would like the text of the original article restored or, if not, I would like a copy of the original text in order to appeal elsewhere and/or create a more extensive initial article that, again, would be consistent with those of other similar software that have pages here on Wikipedia. Pfhjvb0 (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know why you want it restored, as it is blatant advertising, but I copied it over to User:Seicer/sandbox. Copy it, rewrite it, and please remove any instances of spam by rewriting it from a neutral point of view. It will remain in my sandbox for two days. seicer | talk | contribs 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:PAmplex, Template:PAunbuilt, and all OHint legend types

I thouhgt I put the (pink) speedy deleteion tag on those templates seven days ago. This is past seven days approx. when will they all be delete?--Freewayguy (Webmail) 01:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Other admins will eventually take care of it. I can't be everywhere at once :P seicer | talk | contribs 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Petri

Thanks for this. Did I do it appropriately with the note in talk pointing to the AfD under the other name? I'm keeping an eye out for this one to pop up again, I think we're going to be playing whack-a-mole. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep :) That's what tipped me off. I've also deleted the talk page as it was orphaned. Thanks for your watchful eye! seicer | talk | contribs 03:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I chuckled when I found it. It had been copied *with* the AfD tag and all. Would that be a 'stave off AfD' fork as opposed to a 'POV fork'? Was so odd. I've got a couple versions on my watchlist in case it comes back to life. Surprised me because it wasn't *that* controversial of an AfD. Not snow but not particularly heated either. Have a good night. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)