User talk:Sean William/August - November 2007

H

I don't want to force him back, just ask a question. --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 00:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What might this question be, then? Sean William @ 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop it Defender. The issue is resolved. Viridae ^Talk 00:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this, Sean; the user has been indefinitely blocked for trolling, disruption ... the list goes on. Just my thoughts ~ Anthøny 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sysop access has been restored

Per your request, your sysop access has been restored. --Deskana (banana) 00:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sean William @ 00:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're back!

Is this just an illusion :) Singu larity 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm here. Sean William @ 21:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo!

It's fantastic you're back Sean. You had your own reasons for leaving, and it's none of my (or anybody else's) business what they were ... regardless, just to let you know I really hope they are resolved, and I'm glad to see you've returned.

Best wishes,
Anthøny 22:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sean William @ 12:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Blah! - silly me. As if the last one wasn't controversial enough :) - Alison ☺ 03:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes :). Cheers, Sean William @ 12:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-oversight options

I'd be happy with just an editor redacting (or an admin firmly asking the original poster to redact). I'll live with it in the edit history. I've already tried redacting, and the admin just reinserted it and accused me of bad faith. THF 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then. Sean William @ 04:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Spheroprobability

RE: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spheroprobability

Hi. Why did you close the discussion when I asked for a time extension. I was writing another response. Granted, the notability claim was almost nonexistent to the general public, but much less so in the radiation oncology community, I believe. Notability is not the same as popularity, and using a search engine to establish notability, per se, is dangerous, I think. There were two other references to the same conference paper that specifically mentioned Spheroprobability that I didn't get a chance to post. Yes, the author did coin the term, he even said so. However, there seemed to be sufficient references listed by the author, some peer reviewed journals (even if we can't read them) to establish medical notability, and to successfully argue against COI or OR. The only real issue was notability, I believe. The article may well have been deleted anyway, but it seemed too soon to cut off discussion, IMHO. (I wish I had discovered the discussion several days ago.) Actually my complaints about the article didn't include those raised, but that it was very technical and more suited for a learned journal, rather than an encyclopedia. But that could have been fixed. This is not a DRV request, BTW, just looking for further information. Thanks for reading this. Ciao. — Becksguy 04:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see this message, and will be writing up a response when I have ready access to a computer. Sean William @ 04:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. Respond when you have sufficient time and energy, it's not time critical. I'm really just looking for enlightenment at this point. — Becksguy 04:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the discussion and prepared to close it, I evaluated the arguments raised by both sides. I'll try to show my thought process here:

The article was originally created by Scarbrtj, which is quite clearly T.J. Scarbrough, the coiner of this phrase. This indicates that the author used at least a limited degree of original research at best to describe his term.
A quick run through Google shows that there are absolutely no online sources, and only one offline source. (Scarbrough TS, Ting J, Wang S, Fuller CD, Thomas CR (2006) Simulated and Measured Analyses of Spheroprobability and Three Dimensional Setup Error, Radiological Society of North America Annual Meeting (Abstract SSA18-06) [1] being the only one I could find) The issue here is not that this term is "not notable". Since "notability" is a relative term, judging the "worthiness" of a topic can be done much more easily by counting the number of sources available on the topic. Looking at the page, I count 6 sources, but none of them directly mention the term "Spheroprobability" by itself, which suggests that Spheroprobability would fail the neologism test.
You suggested that Spheroprobability has been published in peer reviewed journals. If that is the case, then that would make a more than acceptable source. You also said that the writer of this article was among an eight member team, so there was no conflict of interest. However, the fact that he was involved with the concept of Spheroprobability suggests that he would still have a conflict of interest.

If you believe that you can prove this term's notability, and make it pass guidelines such as WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE, then I will gladly reopen the discussion for another 5 days. Just tell me if you would like to do that here, and I'll relist the debate. Sean William @ 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the time and trouble in responding. No, I don't think re-listing will change anything, it will almost surely result in deletion anyway. But thanks for offering. I'm not challenging your decision, understand (I agree with it), just discussing the process at this point. There was very little new information, and I think the only shot I had to show usage was to get at the oncology and radiation journals that are behind subscription walls, rather than just the abstracts, which didn't use the term. I saw the same conference paper you and the nominator did, and it does appear to be the only available primary reference via google, although I did find two other references to it by using meta and other engines. Even the author, Dr. Scarbrough, referred to the article subject as "obscure" and said he would revisit when there were more Google hits. After you closed the debate, I was still working on this, but by the end of the night (morning?) had just about given up on it—I just could not line up my ducks—so even an extra day, would have made no difference in the end. So I've moved on. I'm more interested in the process of deletion discussions and decisions in general. And in that, your explanation did help me to understand the process better. One question, however: Is there a forum where back and forth discussion of the deletion and/or editing consensus building process takes place? Thanks again. — Becksguy 12:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion process is documented at Wikipedia:Deletion process. If you would like to discuss the deletion process, Wikipedia talk:Deletion process would be a logical first stop. However, it is possible that nobody will respond, due to the relative obscurity of the page. WT:AFD might be a better place to start a discussion. Sean William @ 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity :)

[2] What, if anything, did that edit do? Giggy ^Talk 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See nofollow. Sean William @ 01:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't all WP pages set to nofollow by default? And if not, shouldn't we add that to every RfA (there's probably something special about that one, come to think of it...). Sorry about all the questions, and thanks for answering :) Giggy ^Talk 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the status of all Wikipedia pages, and I'm quite sure my nofollow trick didn't work. :). You could propose something like that at WT:RFA if you like. Sean William @ 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry about it; with Squeakbox changing his vote to neutral, and his discussion on my talk page, I think this is an optimal solution. Thanks for you help, though. --Haemo 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, I checked the source code, and only external links (such as links to diffs) have nofollow values attached. So I see how your edit could have helped (even if it didn't, apparently). Giggy ^Talk 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Hello Sean! Kinda strange talking to you over here but...I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to delete my user page and recreate it with just the newest version. I've just removed a bit of personal information and would like to erase any history of it as well. Thank you! :-) · Tygartl1^·talk· 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sean William @ 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! · Tygartl1^·talk· 01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave

No! Please don't leave! You're needed and a valuable member of the community. Please reconsider. Maybe just take a break? Give up the admin tools? You're an asset, and I'm sure plenty of people would like you to stay. Care to discuss on IRC? --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's time I break the habit. Sean William @ 20:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below the belt

I struck my question. It wasn't below NSLE/Chacor's belt however to unprotect the DB article and edit it with a sockpuppet, so in my opinion he should think twice before opposing an RfA on a hunch like that. —AldeBaer 12:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would like your personal information put onto the net without your knowledge when you're 16 for no reason except you reverted one single edit on some online encyclopedia, go right ahead. I'm going to ignore the attack. Cheers for your comment, btw, Sean. – Chacor 12:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. Personal information? 16? Attack? —AldeBaer 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Chacor did what he did under duress from another individual. Bringing up his desysopping was most unwise, AldeBaer. Sean William @ 20:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most unwise"? Awkward choice of words, if I may say so. Did I harm the project? Did I harm Chacor beyond upsetting him? I struck the question immediately after you commented on it. "Most unwise" makes it sound a bit like the Cosa Nostra kiss of death. —AldeBaer 10:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sean, please disregard my earlier comments. I admit I was still somewhat unsettled by the idea that my comment on the RfA was somehow a personal attack, so I thoroughly re-read WP:NPA and now realise it can indeed be seen as an ad hominem and I shouldn't have made that particular comment. It took me some time to figure this out, but—well, finally I did. So thanks for your input, it seems you were right all along. —AldeBaer 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We'll miss you.

Good luck, Sean William (formerly PullToOpen). And though the two of us never met, at least you get the chance to know me briefly. Good luck, man. --AR Argon 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your departure

I won't lobby if you're convinced you should leave, but you should know that I, too, regret your departure and will miss you. (I'd been looking forward to working with you on some of the ArbCom clerking, among other things.)

I think that R's comments above put it well. In any case, best regards and good wishes for whatever you do next. Newyorkbrad 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD AutoReason Updated

Attention spamlist! I've just updated CSD AutoReason to account for the new image deletion page. If you'd just hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 in most browsers), you'll get the new version and be on your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demon (talk • contribs) 17:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page

Hey Sean,

Was just wondering whether I could possibly steal the design for your talk page and use it on my own. Cheers! Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I know your gone, but I just wanted to say hello. —trey^{omg he's back} 23:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optimum Block on Simple

Can you create an account for me on Simple English Wikipedia. I would appreciate an e-mail with the password link here for email. Thanks Alexfusco5 02:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forgot to give you a username would like Alexfusco5 Alexfusco5 02:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I haven't been active over there and have no intention of returning. (Or here, for that matter. The only reason I noticed this was to vote for the ArbCom). Ask someone who's active. Sean William @ 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]