User talk:Seicer/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

User talk:ItReallyDoes

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

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

FYI

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

Gee :) That can be like anyone on Wikipedia basically! seicer | talk | contribs 03:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hehehe. Anyways, thought you would get a chuckle out of it. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:20, 24 May

2008 (UTC)

Hindu terrorism

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

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

Regarding the blocking of ScreamAimFire

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

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

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

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

What's Going On?

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

Undue weight

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

What uninvoloved administrator are you talking about? Also, there is no concensus there, as you proclaim. Ward's career has been ruined by his self-admitted child porn. It belongs in the lede.--InaMaka (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Me. I'm an uninvolved administrator who noted the Bernie Ward article months ago when the text was nothing more than BLP violation after BLP violation, which was taken care of through about a week's worth of editing. The policy, viewable at WP:UNDUE (and elsewhere on the page), specifically states the following,
"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
It's clear that you are using the introduction as nothing more than a POV-fork. To prevent further edit warring on your part, please take it to the case open at WP:BLP/N. seicer | talk | contribs 02:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
No. That is not true. You are an "involved" adminstrator. You have stated that you have an interest in the topic. You have admitted that you "noted" the Bernie Ward article months ago. Also, you have jumped to a conclusion about my motives, of which you have no idea. I'm not going to continue to edit the article because you are an admin who has an axe to grind and I know that in the world of Wikipedia admin do grind axes. I'm moving on. But before I go I'm just pointing out, for little it will do, that you: (1) are NOT an "uninvolved" admin, but a participating editor in the article, and (2) have jumped to conclusions about my motives and intent, of which you know nothing other than a what you are guessing based upon a couple of edits to Wikipedia, which, of course, is a very, very, very thin reed on which to place your incorrect assumptions, and (3) there was no "edit warring" going on other than another editor disagreed with your position and you have decided to use your admin hammer and call it "edit warring." Good day!--InaMaka (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. I have no constructive reply to give, so I'll just finger-point and blame the "administrator axe." seicer | talk | contribs 02:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles

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

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

link

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

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

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

Just checking

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

oops

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

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

Jack Graham (pastor)

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

DRV

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

User:USEDfan

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

UE Article Images

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

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

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

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

No problem, I was hoping that there would be more rationale behind it. I don't mind having some photographs of relation up, but you also removed an image of the Ninjalicious book cover -- which may not be acceptable anyways per the fair use rationale (which may cover only Ninj's article). I have a lot of images that I can use there that pertain to abandonments, and may place one or two related images on there to give a representation of what's covered in the text. I'll run it by you first, though. seicer | talk | contribs 02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
All I had been trying to do was clean up the article. I was not trying to cause edit warring. Apparently Ninja's book must be some holy grail to you guys? (As I mentioned in the talk page, I met the guy over three years ago and I was not to impressed with him, though I mourn his death like any other Explorer. That book was meant more as a guideline then some UE rules.) As far as the Danvers pic, I tried to replace it with a more appropriate image that would keep Danvers on the page. Then, one guy comes in and reverts the comprise I tried to make and I get slapped with a WP:3RR warning from the same guy to keep me from reaching a comprise. Brothejr (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's no issue, but you really do need to get consensus for such a large change to the article. People do feel strongly about the article-- which is good because I thought a lot of the activity had died down a lot. Just propose it on the talk page and see where it goes -- and it looks already as if people are willing to compromise, which is a big plus. seicer | talk | contribs 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

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

You are well aware of the situation and yet you continued to persist in an ongoing edit war that resulted in the block of one IP address. Take it to the talk page, make a statement, gain consensus. Revert-warring is never an answer, and piled on top of the previous IP address' contributions, I semi-protected the page for one week. Can't be any more clear than that. seicer | talk | contribs 05:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have commented on this administrative action at WP:RFPP. A reply there when you have a moment would be appreciated. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 05:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No I was not "well aware of the situation", I was informed about what I perceive to be original research on another wiki, I was not told that there was an edit war on the page. I believe that the other IP found out about it at the same place, however I have not communicated with them nor do I have any conenction with them. What you seem to be failing to realise is that I am more than willing to discuss the situation, I recognised that removing information is always controversial and posted on the talk page before I was reverted. It is Allstarecho who refused to participte in discussion, even after I informed him about it through an edit summary he continued to make claims that I was edit warring. You seem to have protected the page despite my assurances that I would not edit war and the blocking of the more hostile IP, perhaps you could reconsider this decision. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)