User talk:Sean William/July 2007

user talk page protection

Can you please protect User talk:Writeitin? He is vandalising it after being blocked. I believe he should have gotten an indefinite block instead of a 24 hour block for vandalising userpages and making a non notable article. Momusufan 02:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have upped the block to indefinite. If he continues to hand out personal attacks, then I will protect his talk page. Sean William @ 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He continued and User:Zzuuzz just blocked it, Thank you. Momusufan 03:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous statement

"The Ombudsman commission is that way."[1] can be interpreted as either directing people to use the Ombudsman, or as a statement that the Ombudsman is the way stated in preceding comments, such as being involved in "abuse of checkuser privileges" or "accusations of checkuser abuse". The implications of the possible meanings are significantly different. (SEWilco 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'll take this as an opportunity to clarify myself. I intended for this to mean "This is not the proper venue for such disputes. Allegations of checkuser abuse and privacy policy violations should be directed towards the Ombudsman Commission." I had hoped that this case would be declined, but now I inadvertently put my name on top of one of the more controversial arbitration cases. Sean William @ 04:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi! You've removed my checkuser request ([2]). However it exists actually and is here. Could you help with listing it at WP:RCU? Alæxis_¿question? 14:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. Sean William @ 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alæxis_¿question? 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tis a shame that you failed. Sean William @ 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of the QZ talk page

OI was about to add this when i edit conflicted:

It can be stretched that G8 Doesnt apply, because it contains UNdeletion discussion that does not appear elsewhere. Viridae ^Talk 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No BLP violations, so keep. This is firstly a talk page of a protected deleted article. As such there is no better place to discuss developments in the story that may potentially lead to the article being written again. The arbcom case reffered to in the nom did not and does not have any impact on the existance of the QZ article (see the rulings) or the talk page in which to discuss a potential QZ article. There is no BLP vio in this at all. It is 1. The article talk space, a space appropriate for talking about the subject. There is no negative material there at all, the sources have been provided (copied the ones N dug up over to the talk page) and the issue of wether QZ is a private person is extremely subjective, and in my opinion rather moot considering the widespread media coverage he has recieved. Summing up my opinion: No BLP violation and there is yet to be any assertion why there is one, and a useful place to discuss the potential for a new article should the new information turn out to be correct. Viridae ^Talk 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please consider re-opening to let the discussion continue Viridae ^Talk 01:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not re-open the discussion. This article is absolutely dead, with prejudice against re-creation. After a lot of pain (and an ArbCom case), we determined that this individual was not notable and did not deserve an article. If somebody wants the text of the talk page, then I'll post it in a subpage. Other than that, there is no reason for this lone talk page to exist. Sean William @ 01:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an editorial decision, not one for the closing admin (wether you believe the article should exist is immaterial to your closure). The articles existance was never resolved, least of all by the arbcom case. Multiple speedily-out-of-process closed DRVs and afd do not make it dead. Regardless of that, the talk page existed because of the possobility of new information, potentially giving more validity to the article. There was/is nowhere else central to discuss that new information except that talk page. If you are happy to copy the talkpage for further discussion, then you must agree that the BLP arguments in the mfd are invalid. That just leaves the G8 reason, under which you deleted the talk page and nothing in our deletion policy forbids recreation of an article with significant nw information. The talk page was discussing significant new information, since the article itself is protected. On those grounds I ask you to let the community have its discussion. Viridae ^Talk 02:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that the BLP argument was at least a little erroneous (I assumed that we were still editing out QZ's name), and will edit it out as soon as I get the chance. However, the CSD G8 deletion still stands: an orphaned talk page is grounds for speedy deletion. The news stories about QZ being offered film roles are nothing better than rumors, and should not be covered until a reputable movie database like IMDB covers them, or various other reliable sources. As that does not exist yet, there is no decision altering "significant new information" that would change the status of the article. Sean William @ 02:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of trying to get to the bottom of that, and when I had done so if I concluded what you have concluded (that it is only repetition of rumour not anything solid) then I would have explained to badagini that what he was providing was not enough and either blanked or speedied it until such time as there was enough, if that point came. The rapid close of the discussion however stopped me making my case on several points,1 the irritating Its a BLP violation !votes without any rational as to why, 2. the needed ability to have someone to rationally discuss a protected deleted page without having the rug yanked from under out feet. I don't believe a speedy was necessary - untill the mfd the sources badagini was referring to had not been provided, so the talking through of them was essentially just starting. Viridae ^Talk 03:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly OK with you reverting my decision. (I only just realized that with the precedent set by the Badlydrawnjeff RFAR, you can't undelete content deleted under BLP.) Although I still believe that the G8 was valid, it has been contested, and I'd really like to avoid a DRV. I'll be reversing my actions in favor of a discussion shortly, I suppose... Sean William @ 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the undeletion, I have now had a chance to look at the sources, and agree they are rumour. However can you modify your close rational to allow recreation of the talk page to discuss a potential article should solid evidence come to light that the signup has occured, rather than leave it as is, to be speedied again as recreated deleted material. Viridae ^Talk 04:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-closed it, with no prejudice against recreation providing that new information comes to light. Before the article is created, however, a DRV might be in order. Sean William @ 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problems with that one. Thanks for your understanding. Viridae ^Talk 14:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sean William @ 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanged vs Hung

I further looked into it, although I make straight A's anyhow, but technically neither are incorrect so I shall just leave that part alone. If for some reason you have anything to say, please do so on my talk page. Thanks. Wwefan980 02:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of execution, hanged is correct. Sean William @ 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jealousy

*Pine* your userpage is beautiful... but I think if I copied it it would not be great due to our similar names. Yet more confusion.

Feel like redesigning mine using your idea BUT with different colours sometime if bored? :) —Sean Whitton / 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. Just tell me the colors and I'll get to work! Sean William @ 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for what you have done so far; I am very impressed. I'm viewing it in IE right now and I'm really happy with the way it gracefully degrades. However, the navigation bar apparently doesn't do this and collides with 'From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'. Can you fix this? Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 07:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can make it smaller, either by folding it in half or reducing the amount of text in it. Sean William @ 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness for the improved edit conflict system when you did that! I've made some changes to the colours to suit what I want, or so I think. Somehow they don't look quite right but I'll leave that for now. There are a few issues remaining; I'm very pleased with the rest of it:

The whole page overflows to the right; this doesn't happen with yours. Any idea why?
I'd appreciate the addition of your user page disclaimer to the bottom of the left column. Done
I'd quite like to add some (or all, as the font is smaller) of my quotes page to the right hand column. I was tossing up between my nice sky image and the POTD, but I'll leave it as POTD for now I think. In order to balance this I'd like another section in the left hand bar saying "personal information" or some such that I can write something in to make the left slightly longer than the right. Done, except 3 quotes were omitted to balance the columns.
I need a wrap-around template with the purple heading for subpages, and my talk page header needs redoing.

Thanks again. —Sean Whitton / 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've investigated further and it appears that the POTD causes the sideways scrollbar to appear. Any ideas? —Sean Whitton / 15:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Sean William @ 17:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've removed the {{POTD}} template and replaced it with {{lorem ipsum}}. I'm trying to remove as many variables as possible so I can pinpoint the problem that's making the page overflow to the right. Also, in regards to your talk page, would you like to have an open <div> tag like I do? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "wrap-around" template. Is there an example I can look at? Cheers, Sean William @ 17:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

appearing out of the blue

No I have been here on wikipedia for over a month, I did not appear out of the blue as you stated on the RFCU. Francisco Tevez 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appeared out of the blue on Qst's talk page, which is what I'm referring to. Sean William @ 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. I have known him for nearlly a month, he is my adoptee... and that name got on Ft weatherman's page because I was copying the multiple account symbol to use and I forgot to change it by accident. I got involved because I seen the vulgar edit summaries. Francisco Tevez 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser should give us a definitive answer. Sean William @ 19:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is a WoW sockpuppet placed? Francisco Tevez 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I know for a fact that For one soul is not a sock of Willy on Wheels. Sean William @ 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why place it? Francisco Tevez 19:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has the exact same modus operandi as Molag Bal, who is a suspected sockmaster. Sean William @ 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just block me as Molag Bal and we will end this. Francisco Tevez 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That RFA you removed

I have never filed an RFA before, and this one is to fix a mess created by someone else; at any rate, when am I/you/the candidate suppose to put the rfa out on the parent rfa page? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the candidate accepts the nomination (which he/she does by signing their name in the appropriate place), then they will put the request on the main page. Before then, the nomination should be kept off of the main page. Sean William @ 04:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Thanks for the information. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Drop me a line if you have any more questions. Sean William @ 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My redesign

WikiThanks

I think I'm pretty happy with what I have now, so thanks for your patience with ironing out all the bugs. I never seem to get it quite right when I do it. I've also transferred it to meta, if you're interested. —Sean Whitton / 22:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad you like it. Sean William @ 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An issue has now arisen: it seems that the picture of the day today is too long and causes the column to go downwards (at least it does that on IE which I am using on this machine). Also, if you have a <pre> block i.e. that is one with spaces at the beginning, the template on the talk page breaks. Any ideas? Look on a previous revision on meta to see the latter problem. Thanks. —Sean Whitton / 07:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do about the first issue. My userpage has the same problem (the DYK column). The column will move up and down depending on the size of the POTD, and will never stay in the same place.

There isn't a whole lot you can do about the second problem, either. Excess text in <pre> tags will extend a page beyond it's normal borders, even without the talk page template. The only solution to this is putting a line break of something similar to shorten the text and allow it to stay within the normal boundaries. Sean William @ 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My (Kwsn's) RfA

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It unfortunately did not succeed. I still plan to continue to edit however. Hope to see you around. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

—trey^jay–jay has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

		The Hero of the Wiki, is Sean William!
		I TREYWiki, award you the hero of the wiki award. You work hard slapping vandals with a sword. Although on IRC, you make my ignored, at least its not on the notice board. So I give you this award, and I think you drive a honda ACCORD! (treywiki is not good at poems) —trey^jay–jay 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks, I don't deserve this... Thanks, though. Sean William @ 05:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your good work seems to go mostly un-awarded. You need more! :P —trey^jay–jay 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocked

Hi. I tried to set up an account at Simple English Wikipedia, but my IP is blocked, according to the disclaimer, because of vandalism using the same IP, as in a school. I'm an editor in good standing at WP, with about 6,500 edits under my belt since March 2005, and had a decent Editor Review. Is there any way I can set up an account with Simple WP? Thanks. Nightscream 07:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you e-mail another admin so they can create an account for you. I am beginning a somewhat long break (editing from a BlackBerry, no less), so I can't help. Sean William @ 05:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sean

Just a quick note to tell you I've copied the design from your userpage and if you dont mind I'm just going to steal the talk page design....**evil laughs!**.... :).

Kindest Regards
Rlest 10:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]