User talk:Sean William/June 2007

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that edit on my userpage. Very thoughtful of you. Cheers, JetLover -- Talk to me! 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sean William @ 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Dfpc

Please check out User talk:Dfpc. He was looking for you on IRC. -- John Reaves (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sean William @ 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing the block, you should view the following: here. Hopefully you make a wide decision along the lines of the actions Fred Bauder is taking lately. XavierVE 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN.

The deletion was done unilaterally. Some things are a bit too silly to waste time on. --The Cunctator 16:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're making us waste a lot more time. Sean William @ 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow that was fast...

... thanks for updating DYK! Smee 03:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

No problem. I'm not done yet, though; I still have to serve out all of the DYK thank-yous. If DYK ever gets that badly backlogged, drop me a line and I'll update it. Sean William @ 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help? Smee 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

Nope, I'll be done in a minute or two. Sean William @ 03:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. I'm going to start on the next update... Smee 03:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

O rly?

I had no idea. I'm kind of like Wikipedia's spy on 4chan, really; I have my fun there, but vandalizing the only thing I go to for information kind of irks me, so I report it when I can. Thanks for locking ACK and setting the record straight. ^_^ Cernen Xanthine Katrena 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sean William @ 05:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

...you DO know, Sean, that it still says "homo" there? You bascically locked the vandalism. Natanji 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. Sean William @ 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Block of My Old Account

Hi Sean. When you blocked TeckWiz, you left autoblock on. This didn't affect me because though I don't have a rotating IP, static ones still change sometimes and it appears that mine has changed since I was TeckWiz. Anyway, you probably want to unblock and reblock with autoblock disabled. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Shoot, that was stupid. I should have remembered that. Anyway, thanks for pointing that out. Sean William @ 00:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And even if you didn't remember, you should've set it to anon only. After all, if I was still using that IP, I would've been affected by it also! :) --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You see, the reason why I did that is that blocking an IP and blocking an account have different options. The default block for an IP is a soft block, anon only, while the default block for an account enables the autoblocker. It's not hard to mix up the two. Sean William @ 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but when blocking a user, I believe you see the IP block settings, which affect the autoblock caused by the user block :). --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivikrama Mahadeva

Sean,

Thanks for notifying me on the DYK for this article that I had authored. However, I do not seem to find this article in the DYK archive here. Any idea why, has it been missed out?, Thanks -- Amarrg 03:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that batch of DYKs didn't make it to the archive page. I have corrected the problem. Cheers, Sean William @ 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- Amarrg 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 4 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Goss v. Lopez, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Smee 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You can be honest...

...was it at least funny? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I be honest? ^(H) 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't funny. I can't find the humor in "party boys in drag". Sean William @ 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anywhere you're not following me today, H? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I only came here to thank Sean for beating me to the block button(the laughing slowed me down), when I got distracted by your question. ^(H) 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Very curious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I smell a conspiracy. Oh noes. Sean William @ 17:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke

You do realise that by selectively deleting out certain edits, if the article is retained, you will need to restore them, as otherwise you will have violated GFDL, right? Neil ╦ 17:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, it appears that you silently, unilaterally deleted my editing history as regards article Allison Stokke. My own edits no longer appear in my own User Contributions. I will give you one chance to explain your reasons for this censorship, and restore my editing history. I hope I do not have to take this matter any further. Thanks. Bete Noir 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See my comments at the discussion on ANI. This is not censorship or a GFDL violation. Metros 17:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore my above comment - I've gotten my dates mixed up. No GFDL problems. Neil ╦ 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sean William @ 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

MSG TO SEAN

Dear sean,

i ve been told from the help desk to send you an email for a problem that i have on the Greek wiki.

That is the email that i send to the help desk

Dear sir,

We are running an organisation for the protection of pedestrians' rights in Greece. We have created a movement called "streetpanthers" and we would like to have our organisation in the Greek version of Wikipedia. However, the moderator has erased our entry without having any specific reason. In addition, ther are similar entries into the english version such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass.

We would like to know why our movement has been erased from the Greek wiki, with the reasoning that "an encyclopedia shall not deal with such issues", while it contains say...low quality pop artists bio and other stuff which is not also so educational as our topic.

Our argument is that we have a social organisation that contributes on the improvement of the quality of living for pedestria and people with special needs. Our activities do not harm anyone and we have gained publicity on many mainstream media and the TV. Many wiki users tried to post an entry for our organisation but all entries were erased from the adminstrator, without having any specific reason.

We would like to know your views on this.

Kind Regards

Chris Mantas

P.S the link for our organisation in wiki is http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/streetpanthers

P.S. i know that the Greek wiki is none of your business, but i decided to apply on the central wikipedia in order to get some proper answers.

I can't read Greek, but you can find out why the administrators deleted your page by reading the deletion log. You could also e-mail the latest deleting admin directly, if you have an account. If you do, then you can click here to send an e-mail. Otherwise, the English Wikipedia will not be of much help to you. Sean William @ 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Sean William @ 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: ANI

I understand. I just want my comment preserved, even if it does no good. --Masamage ♫ 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Do you just want to have your name preserved in the discussion? Sean William @ 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why should Wikipedia condone the actions of those who arrogantly wish to vandalise the English language? I quote:

Led Zeppelin !-- Note: This article is written in UK English, which treats collective nouns as plurals. (i.e. Led Zeppelin WERE a band.) -- were !-- Don't waste your time changing this to "was", it will be reverted back quickly.-- an English rock band who formed in 1968. Led Zeppelin consisted of Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Bonham, and John Paul Jones.

Complete rubbish - not something that should be immune from correction.

I'm not sure what your complaint is. Sean William @ 04:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Manatees in popular culture PROD

Personally I won't object to deletion (see my comment when I created the page). However, I do object to a merge. I split off the page because it proved to be impossible keeping the trivia cruft down to a manageable size while it was in the main article. I mean, look at the length of this list now! I guarantee, for each of these items someone will contend that their stuff is as notable as the next one. If you are going to argue with those people about notability and relevance, and if you promise you can keep the cultural references section of the main subject free of flash animations, hornymanatee.com, and garage band references... Femto 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want it merged either, but I'm sure somebody out there does, and that's why I said it. I have a problem with "popular culture" lists, and a whole article dedicated to manatees in popular culture is just way over the top for me. I'll gladly argue against the notability for each of these events. Sean William @ 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me, maybe you should mention the prod at Talk:Manatee. Femto 10:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock

Thanks for the unblock, Sean. That stupid autoblock was horribly getting at my nerves and my temper... I hope I won't trip any more of those mines in that "dynamic IP as open proxy" minefield. CharonX/talk 16:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you need an administrator for whatever reason, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Sean William @ 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh...

Why should I keep it nice on my own user page? As far as I know it, Wikipedia is not censored. Xihix 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called the ethic of reciprocity. Racism is offensive. Please see WP:USER#Inappropriate content for what is acceptable in userspace. Sean William @ 21:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But, who's to say what I said was offensive... Me seeing a black person for the first time isn't offensive. I didn't mean to be offensive. Who's to say it was a bad thing I saw one for the first time? One could not be sure of what I meant. Xihix 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was contacted by a person who was offended by the caption, due to the fact that you look somewhat angry in the picture that the caption described. Sean William @ 22:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was, in fact, quite happy. I was visiting Canada for the first time, the mother land. The person just has some beef with me, because I really hate him for some stupid edits he's done to an article we both edit, and he just wanted spite or to make me angry. It's not offensive, trust me. Xihix 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I think it is quite offensive as well. If somebody thinks that your userpage is offensive, then maybe you should change it instead of affirm that it is "not offensive". Sean William @ 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not fair. It's not offensive at all. It's simply not fair that because a few people think it's offensive that everyone does. I want to add it back, it's not offensive! Xihix 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's offensive and borderline trolling. Take the hint here ... - Alison ☺ 22:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't dude me. You can't say it's borderline trolling or offensive. You don't even know what my intentions were to it. Man, I thought Wikipedia user pages was the only place where I could freely express myself... Now I can't even do that. This is pure bullshit. Xihix 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok - don't "man" me either. I'm perfectly entitled to give my opinion on the matter and, quite frankly, your caption is entirely out-of-line. I don't need to know what your intentions were, I only need to see the effect and its implication. Please read the userpage guidelines to understand what's wrong here. - Alison ☺ 22:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The man was directed toward myself. And this is still unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xihix (talk • contribs)

Life's not fair. Get over it. Sean William @ 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To this day, Sean, you were my favorite Admin. Have fun at the bottom of the list, now.Xihix 23:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am honored that I kept that position for so long. Sean William @ 23:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be, 'cause you lost it. Xihix 00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's enough. As the great philosopher Mick Jagger once said, you can't always get what you want. Sean William @ 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:USER, you don't own your userpage, anything you have there can only be there by the consent of the community. ^(H) 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein closing

I don't mean to pick on you, individually, but I've become increasingly concerned about closing of AfD's, and it happens to have boiled over with this one.

My concern is that this "AfD is not a vote" mentality has gone way too far. If an admin comes to the page while it's still open, the admin, like any user, decides which side's arguments are stronger, and writes Keep or Delete. If, on the other hand, the minimum time has expired and the admin feels like closing it, then s/he does the same thing, except that his or her "keep" or "delete" isn't a comment, or a vote, or a !vote -- it's the result. Everyone else is there just to present arguments for the admin's consideration; the numbers don't matter.

Treating it as vote instead of !vote, I counted 23 Delete and 19 Keep. It's pretty clear to me there was no consensus to delete.

So, let me give you a hypothetical AfD closing: The nom and four others said "Delete", and gave reasons. Five editors said "Keep", and gave reasons. Thirty more editors participated, each saying only "Delete per ___" or "Keep per ___" (naming a previous commenter). I ask you to close this nomination, and I give you the article (with talk page and history), the nomination, the four supporting comments, the five opposing comments, and the information that 30 others chimed in. I don't tell you what the breakdown among the 30 others was between "Keep" and "Delete". Would you feel that you could close this AfD? I haven't deprived you of any arguments or reasoning, just the "vote" tally. If AfD is not a vote and the closing admin is supposed to do whatever the stronger arguments dictate, then it seems that those 30 comments can be completely ignored. The AfD might be closed in a way that reflects the views of five editors and goes against the views of 35, and that would be perfectly OK.

Your closing of Seth Finkelstein seems to be a sterling example of this approach. You carefully and thoughtfully explained your decision, but it's an explanation that would be more appropriate as an explanation of why you were adding your name to the list of Delete commenters, rather than as a closing. You appear to have given little or no weight to the near-equal division of opinion within the community. Given the way AfD's have been going, you arguably can't be faulted for that, because community opinion (as reflected in numerical tallies of votes, !votes, comments, or whatever) seems to be of decreasing importance these days -- which, as I said above, is my concern.

I've been thinking about putting aside my distaste for Wikipolitics to raise a policy issue on this score. If you're willing to devote any more time to the Finkelstein article, I'd be interested in your thoughts about the role of the 19 vs. 23 in the closing. JamesMLane t c 17:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you not taking this directly to DRV. I read the arguments on each side carefully before I made my decision.

To respond to your hypothetical situation: I do not have enough information to make a decision. If we simply counted votes, we'd be digressing back into the mess that was Votes for Deletion. This is a discussion. In a discussion, numbers do matter, but not as much as the point that you raise. For example, if the keep !voters gave reasons for keeping the article such as "I really like the third paragraph" or "The picture on the left side is pretty", I would disregard numbers completely and ignore the keeps. Why? Because it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the pictures are pretty; should this article be in our encyclopedia? The same applies for delete !votes. "I don't like it" is not an appropriate rationale for deletion, and I would ignore it. This scenario has little to do with how I closed the Finkelstein AfD.

Now, I read through the arguments on the Finkelstein AfD, and I was quite sure it would end in "No Consensus". I'm sure everybody who participated in the discussion knew that already. One of our most important policies, WP:BLP, states that "When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted." Seth Finkelstein has openly stated that he wants his biography deleted, and I put a somewhat strong weight on the subject's wishes. I gave my rationale as to why I put such a strong weight on his wishes in the second paragraph of my close.

I put a strong weight on the clash of notability beliefs in this discussion. If I hadn't, I would have just given a one word closure, be it "keep" or "delete". I did not look at numbers, because numbers are irrelevant. Without the addition of BLP, this would be no consensus, no doubt about it. I decided to close this as "delete" due to BLP. The reason why I devoted so much of my closing paragraph to explaining it is because BLP closures always create a stir. I was not imposing my whims on this article. Sean William @ 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I still see the talk page. Can the talk page be deleted too. I could open a MFD to sort this out. I'm not sure about the policy for talk pages. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. If anybody needs anything from the talk page, drop me a line and I'll undelete it. (I'm hesitant to delete the talk archive^[1], though. A second opinion would be nice. Sean William @ 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

I recommend to delete the archive as well. I cannot imagine any reason for it to remain when there is no article. A reader will not end up there to read it. You can always undelete the archive if a good reason is given. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. On the discussion page for the Brandt AfD, I referred to the Finkelstein closing in suggesting that the policy we are actually applying (whether or not it's written) is as follows:

The previous policy, stating that an absence of consensus defaults to "keep", is hereby modified, to state that in a BLP case the subject's wishes govern unless there is a clear consensus against the subject's wishes.

Is that what you think the policy is or ought to be? Part of my bias as a lawyer is that if that really is the policy -- and it seems to be what's been applied here and in the Brandt case -- then it should say so.

As to my not taking it to DRV: If someone else DRV's it, I'll vote or non-vote or whatever to overturn. I haven't done it myself because I just don't feel like putting in that much effort. Your resolution of the matter was at least supported by the majority of those commenting, which wasn't the case in the AfD on Daniel Brandt, and yet that result seems likely to be upheld. I won't DRV this one because it would probably lose and because I have better things to do. Don't give me credit for civility or restraint or anything; it's just laziness. JamesMLane t c 19:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that a change like that would be excellent. I shouldn't be the only one being asked, because my view matters as much as anybody else, but I would support something like that. Sean William @ 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful for someone to present the community with a straight up-or-down choice: rescind the foolishness about the subject's wishes entirely, or make explicit the extent to which we're deferring to such wishes. Obviously, I'd favor rescinding, but even making a policy explicit, in terms such as I suggested above, would be better than the current amorphous situation in which, in some ill-defined circumstance (borderline notability), the closing admin can give some unspecified weight to the subject's wishes. I realize that you're not the only person to be asked, but it's informative to know that at least one person would favor a change like that. JamesMLane t c 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to say that a subject's wishes should be "considered". I didn't realize that you intended to draw a strict line with your proposal above. It is very important to allow administrative discretion when dealing with AfDs of barely-notable individuals. I understand your point about why a strict line would be helpful; However, giving ability an administrator to make judgment calls is something that we're going to need to have. Otherwise, judging AfDs could just be done by a vote-counting robot. If you add "considered" instead of "govern the deletion of the article", then it would match the current BLP policy. I'm not the lawyer type, so I don't immediately search each sentence for it's innermost meaning, which is why I missed your intention the first time. Sean William @ 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There's some value in according a closing admin scope for the exercise of discretion. There's also some value in having controversial decisions made according to a rule of general applicability that's known to everyone in advance. I'm concerned that we're tilting too far toward the former. People on both sides put a huge amount of effort into the Brandt AfD, and then the decision effectively hinged on which admin happened to grab it first. The latter point is also true of the Finkelstein article -- there are quite a few admins who would have closed it as a keep. I don't like playing Admin Roulette with such matters. JamesMLane t c 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The burden falls upon the admin to act in a way that reflects consensus as much as possible, while taking into account all of the factors (BLP, etc.). If the community feels that the closing admin did a poor job of doing so, then they go to DRV. We handle such things on a case by case basis. The closing admin is expected to defend their decision; if he or she cannot do so, then it is a sign that some factors may have been weighted more strongly than they should have been, or that the admin didn't think the closure through before doing it. Either one can be harmful, and either one may be reviewed at a DRV. Sean William @ 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Please reverse your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd). The weight of numbers was not nearly enough to constitute a consensus for deletion. As for the weight of arguments, the only arguments made were doubt of notaility, and the subject's request. Even the latest drafts of WP:BLP (which IMO are very poor policy and do not yet have consensus themselves) do not make a subject's request a reason for deletion, merely a factor to be considerd in otherwise close cases. I submit that this case simply was not close. It was not anywhere near close in numbers, and in the argument over notability the policy-based arguments were all on the side of keeping, the opposing argumetns being basically versions of Idon'tLikeIt. I don't think that AfD closers have, or ought to have, the degree of discrition you excersiuzed in this case. I would prefer not to go through DREV on this, but I will if need be. DES ^(talk) 02:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not reverse my close of that AfD. I explained my rationale already. Off to DRV we go, I suppose. Sean William @ 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Seth Finkelstein. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)

Love Equals Death article

The article was not a repost of previously deleted material. I indicated why the subject has notablity (and it has a lot) and I cited sources. Please restore the page Love Equals Death that you deleted. Randomfrenchie 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but the article was a re-creation of deleted content: WP:CSD#G4. Also, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Equals Death. The closer explains that this band is not notable: "Note that the guideline WP:MUSIC (yes, yes, I know) expects two releases, and as the keepers accurately observe, this band does not have even that." If you want to prove the band's notability, I'll restore your version of the article and put it in a user subpage of yours so that you can edit it. You may ask for a deletion review later on if you believe that you have proven this band's notability. Sean William @ 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the band is notable. They have released an album on a notable label and have been mentioned in notable publications. They have a page on iTunes. If you absolutely do not want to restore it, then putting it as a user subpage of mine would be good. Randomfrenchie 22:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they've had three releases: two EPs and one full album.
An article should be deleted "provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version" (from WP:CSD#G4). The article I wrote was not identical to the previously deleted one. Randomfrenchie 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can prove the group's notability, then by all means do so. I've restored the article, go ahead and do what you can/want with it. Sean William @ 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As the one who speedy-tagged it this time around, I'll keep it on my watchlist. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 22:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Randomfrenchie 23:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Un-courtesy-blanked the Brandt AFD

I have un-courtesy-blanked the Brandt AFD. I've never seen that done to an AFD before; they're intended to stay as live archives of community consensus and issue discussions. I opened a section in its talk page mentioning this, and if you really want to do it again I urge you to discuss there first and lay out your reasoning....

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 03:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do to access the debate is hit the "history" tab. It hides the revisions from Google, while allowing the community to still see it. Win-win. Sean William @ 03:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but there's never been any historical AFD we "hid from Google" that way (or anyone else)... I think it's reasonable to put a burden of proof on you to argue why we should, have to, and reasonably can within our community expectations of how we leave community discussions in their "closed" states. I don't think it impossible to make a case, but I don't see one in front of me now that I'd agree with. If you want to make the case, go for it... Georgewilliamherbert 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't, so I'm not going to bother. (I don't have one, anyway.) Sean William @ 04:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should remain blanked, and I'm interested if you will explain your reason for unblanking on the AFD talk page, George. "IDONTKNOWIT" isn't a valid reason, as courtesy blanking is part of the deletion policy, which you should be familiar with prior to entering the forays of deletion discussions. Looking forward to hear from you, Iamunknown 06:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Nvm, I'm not interested. --07:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Dear Sean,

Thank you for protecting Atassi. I am one of the family historians and genealogists. I have contributed several historical articles about famous people and politicians from that area of the world. This article is one that I had worked hard on.

A certain person (who refuses to identify himself) keeps undoing any additions or changes to the article. He also insists on including slanderous statements, such as "criminals in the family" (according to him, see section "Others" in his version) and undoes any historical facts that he doesn't agree with. His twisted facts and additions are of no benefit to anyone and are vandalism to Wikipedia. Unless I comply with all his wishes and agree with his version of the article, he will continue to defame my family (to twist my arm) and take out any historical additions I make. I prefer this page is protected for good, or he gets prevented from editing it. I don't think his remarks agree with Wikipedia's policy (slander). I tried to reason with him, but to no avail. At this point I am not willing to talk to him unless he identifies himself, at least to me, and promises to stop his slander and hateful remarks against my family (to which he does not belong). Thanks again.

Uh, no problem, I suppose. Sean William @ 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Proving my identity on Meta

I verify that I am PullToOpen on Meta. I sign posts as "Sean William". Sean William @ 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration review case

Please be advised that an arbitration matter on which you commented has been accepted as a review case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta/Review. You may present evidence on the case page or additional comments on the talkpage. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Xihix

I thought you may like to know there currently is a Request for Comment regarding Xihix here. You may, or may not, care to endorse the debate, as per the above conversation. Thanks for reading over, regardless! Best wishes, NSR77 ^(Talk) 01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be watching it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Sean William @ 01:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke (2)

What is the reason for deleting Allison Stokke's entry? Could you cite other examples of people who have been the subject of front-page stories in the Washington Post who do not have a Wikipedia entry?

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination). Sean William @ 02:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't use IE. Cheers, Sean William @ 01:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

hi

HI sean, could you please get in touch with Jillain from the New York Times today? Her email is jkdunham@mindspring.com. Thanks. (June 20,2007)

Love Equals Death redux

The person who wanted this recreated doesn't seem to have done anything with it, and the only other edit was an anon IP adding a link to the band's website. I say re-delete it, but I'd like your opinion. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Sean William @ 01:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Miranda Issue

Hello hello, its TREYWiki from IRC =). I'm having a bit of trouble with Miranda (imagine that). She is going around refactoring all my comments of RfA's and what-not saying they are personal attacks against her (which they are certainly not). On my talk page, I said that with all the bitterness between us, I thought she was trolling; and I used the wrong faith assumption, and she took that off and put <--removed personal attack-->[1] Then, I comment of an RfA (which she totally whacked out on trashing the kid and other users) saying that I feel sorry for him, she does the same <--remove... thing and threatens me on my talk page. Talk to her or something? I tried to resolve this, you know. --trey 04:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You really need to just stay away from Miranda. I'll tell her the same thing. If disengaging doesn't work, then we'll move to the next step of dispute resolution. Sean William @ 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to stay away from her. She is following me around (thru contibs) and has filed a report at WP:AN/I--trey 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore her. That's the best advice that I have. Sean William @ 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting Agent Bishop

I'm unprotecting Agent Bishop. Two reverts is hardly an edit war worth protecting over. Remember that protected pages are considered harmful - protecting pages prematurely is to be avoided. Phil Sandifer 21:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep that in mind. Sean William @ 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Jessie Davis

Your complaint was that it was a 'biography of a non-notable person'. I think I've addresed our issues with it by restrucuring it into a documentation of a notable event. I hope you will reconsider in light of the new structure. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't forget Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Cutts, Jr. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the AfD and given appropriate props. Nice job! Sean William @ 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did I do that?

Because I needed help and was very pissed off. Maybe you can help? Im calm now. Also note I actually (dead serious, I am a reformed vandal you know. Reformed) had a bit of a psychiatric fit at that time. I just need help knowing what to do in wikiland. I want to be here, but I dont know what to do in wikiland. I just dont know. thanks mate.  *BloodSpiller*^Wassup 06:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We've got a huge amount of wikiprojects that would love to have you help them. Just look through the directory and pick one that sounds interesting to you. WP:MAINT always has a lot to do. If you don't want to join a Wikiproject, just pick an article on a topic you like and spend time improving it. Go at your own pace; Wikipedia has no deadline. Sean William @ 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help by the way do you Wiki adopt???if do can you adopt me.  *BloodSpiller*^Wassup 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "adoption" is the correct word, but I'd be glad to help you along the way and answer any questions that you may have about Wikipedia's internal processes and policies. Just drop me a line here whenever you need something or want to ask me a question. Sean William ‹‹‹ 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You deleted my add to ANI

It belongs on ANI. Here is the relevant text from WP:AN

Report all incidents (e.g. blocked users evading blocks) on the subpage Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:AN/I). If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you may do so there.

I will restore the text on WP:ANI on this basis. patsw 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Suit yourself. WP:DRV is the next step. Sean William ‹‹‹ 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My userpage

You deleted my userpage due to me being blocked, and I was unblocked. Is it possible to undelete it? Hanoi Girl 15:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored the ones that I deleted. Sean William ‹‹‹ 15:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Good call there. What we don't need is agitators stirring the pot.--Isotope23 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sean William ‹‹‹ 16:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, Jayjg's actions don't actually violate the section of the policy that you quoted on the evidence page. No personally identifiable information was revealed. However, it does violate the preceding section of the policy, which states:

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute.

So I believe the issue here is that he didn't actually violate the foundation privacy policy, which some people are claiming, but the overall checkuser policy... this might not actually be relevant, I've never participated in an arbitration case before and I'm not sure if you're allowed to comment/reply to evidence people have presented. Kamryn Matika 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is kind of a gray area in the Privacy/Checkuser policy about revealing the ISP of the checkee. Normally, such a revelation would not be an issue, but the bombshell factor of revealing that a good-faith user uses TOR is not appropriate. Jayjg made a huge judgment error here. Feel free to present your own evidence if you see fit: Just replace the {your name here} with KamrynMatika, and write the evidence that you have. Ultimately, it's up to the arbitrators to decide if the release of information breached the privacy/checkuser policy. Sean William @ 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, of course :) One other thing - is it appropriate to mention who the checkuser was that blocked Charlotte's IPs? From the wording of the evidence so far it comes across as if it might have been Jayjg that did the blockings. Charlotte has already confirmed it fairly publicly and I think it'd help to make things clear but I don't want to piss anybody off or imply that the blocking admin was acting in bad faith. Kamryn Matika 14:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I think I'll do it anyway. Better to make it clear who it was rather than have some shadowy unnamed checkuser ambiguously referred to and have the doubt and suspicion cast over checkusers as a whole. Kamryn Matika 15:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Boo

Sorry about all the ECs earlier ;3 - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It happens. :). Sean William ‹‹‹ 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My signature

My signature complies with Wikipedia standards, so it is vandalism. Tcrow777 23:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To quote WP:SIG: "When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind: A distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. Some editors find it disruptive to discourse on talk pages, or when working in the edit window. Very long signatures that contain a lot of code ("markup") make it difficult for some editors to read talk pages while editing." Your signature is distracting. If you would be so kind, please change your signature. Also, in the future, be careful about calling good faith edits vandalism. Especially in content disputes, calling a specific edit vandalism almost always escalates the situation and makes the parties more angry at each other. Sean William @ 00:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIG also says:

"signatures that take up more than two or three lines in the edit window clutter the page and make it harder to distinguish posts from signatures,"

Tcrow777 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Your signature takes up three lines in my text editor. Q.E.D. Sean William @ 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

But no more, right? Tcrow777 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Rules lawyering will get you absolutely nowhere on this wiki, so I suggest that you stop. Please, please change your signature. It's annoying, distracting, and downright atrocious. Please? Sean William @ 01:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No! You can't just push people around, just because you are an admin. Tcrow777 01:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely not what I am trying to do. I asked you nicely; no "pushing around" was done. You're only setting yourself up for other users to give you grief about your signature later. Sean William @ 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My signature is based on 2 other persons' signatures. Why don't you take this up with them also. Tcrow777 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would, except it is almost midnight in my time zone. Now, please stop reverting me on my own talk page. Sean William @ 03:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd Vandal

Hello. I was patrolling RC last night, and I came across this. Not sure if it is the same Sean William or not. User talk:Swabbie333 is full of warnings. I just thought I'd let you know.--trey 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hah, that's funny. It's probably just a vandal that I blocked in the past. Sean William @ 16:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, vandals can be quite funny ^_^--trey 18:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)