Jump to content

User talk:Seraphim/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Karate High School

Hi. :) I just wanted to thank you for the note on my research on that article and also to say that I intended no slur on your judgment in questioning the validity of the sources in the AfD discussion. I know you mentioned reliability concerns when you presented them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Thank-you for your message :). I thought I'd just point it out so nobody thought I was a simpleton lol. I also didn't mean to imply that you were making a slur on my judgement. Your note was very kind though :) and I feel I have learnt something from this afd and this exchange.
Seraphim Whipp 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting one. :) I'll look forward to seeing how the chips fall when its closed.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 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.

Thanks for getting my attention on that MfD, and for closing it. I'll have to remember that I can actually close a discussion if it's very obvious what the consensus is. Good for the next time I mess up. :D Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 02:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ban Incandescent bulbs

Thank you for the move. I was trying to split off another article that was causing problems for another. It does sound better. Benkenobi18 21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Confused

Greetings Seraphim Whipp, Am confused by your recent (moved "Big Nick" Nicholas to George Nicholas: MoS name formatting).

Is there any particular reason for such a move? I have known of the name "Big Nick" for more than 30 years and only discovered his full name when preparing the article page, and I doubt that many folks out there know who George Nicholas was. So off I went to check out the MoS and this is the first thing I came across:

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known.

Look forward to your reply. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry about that. I was unfamiliar with the topic so I took the approach from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) thinking that George Nicolas was the name that would be most generally recognisable (in <First name> <Last name> kind of way). As you know much more about the topic and say Big Nick is more recognisable, please accept my apologies and move it back :).
Cheers,
Seraphim Whipp 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Greetings Seraphim Whipp,
Thanx for your prompt reply - sorry if mine seemed a little terse (I had just been reverting vandalism to other pages and should have taken a break). Cheers, --Technopat (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think you sounded terse :) and your enquiry was polite and correct. Happy editing! :D
Seraphim Whipp 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Panic! At the Disco

Sorry

Sorry I got angry. It just seems that a lot of the time when I create a helpful page it gets deleted. I'm really sorry. Please, next time can you tell me that you're going to delete a page? JazzlineB (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like you to know that a certain user has purposely reverted many of my Panic! at the Disco edits, such as the lyric samples for Build God Then We'll Talk and I Write Sins Not Tragedies. JazzlineB (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC) ( Comments were retracted in this diff :) }

Block this user!!!!!!

Block Nouse4aname. Besides deleting my edit, he also made a rude comment to me. I admit it, I snapped at him, but I feel like he's being a jerk to me because I'm new to the wiki. JazzlineB (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC) ( Comments were retracted in this diff :) )

Thanks

Hey there

Thanks for the pointer. I agree my response was quite harsh. I got wound up! Have apologised to user concerned. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really glad this turned out well. Happy editing!
Seraphim Whipp 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from JazzlineB

I'm sorry for posting the lyrics and losing control of my temper with the user Nouse4name. I didn't read the information in the edit summaries about lyrics being copyrighted (sorry, I'm from the LyricWiki). I have deleted the hostile messages and I will apologize to the user. JazzlineB (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad this was resolved so positively :D. I've added your messages above to show anyone else looking at this page, the context of our discussion and I'll write a little note to show you retracted them too. Happy editing!
Seraphim Whipp 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened

PAPA ROACH

I WILL NOT STOP BECAUSE YOU DELETE ONLY MY EDITS AND YOU MAKE VANDALISM!!! ITS YOUR FAULT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.89.28 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I delete your edits because you have been blocked indefinitely and you repeat the same vandalistic edits over and over again. Why aren't you bored by this yet?
Seraphim Whipp 20:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This really is vandalism. I haven't reverted it yet, but User:K-bomb260 made an edit to Brent Wilson that appears to be vandalism. I'll let you check it out. Jazzline b! (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism!

I logged out and took a few minutes to read through some of the Panic! at the disco pages, and I found a new message from K-bomb260. Look into the history of the page to see what he did, because I am reverting his edit. I think he saw that I reported him. Jazzline b! (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll go check it out now :).
Seraphim Whipp 20:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Great catch! In future, don't be afraid to revert it yourself :). Comments that are disparaging of the article's subject are usually vandal edits.
Seraphim Whipp 21:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the edit to Brent Wilson. I had to go to a Thanksgiving party, so I didn't revert it myself. By the way happy Thanksgiving Jazzline b! (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Improvement

I'm glad you restructured the Brent Wilson page. It was pretty much stuff that User:k-bomb260 (who was writing biased views in the article) and others had added and it was not organized at all. Thanks for improving it. The only problem is I can't find a free image to use for the page. If you can find a good picture of him, I'd be very happy. Thanks for all you've done to help me and the article. Jazzline b! (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have talked to K-bomb260 about his edit to my page. He had added an edit to your page below. I was going to revert it but this is your page, I'll let you delete it or whatever. Jazzline b! (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem :). At wikipedia we have to be soo careful about what's written in a biography of a living person.
From WP:BLP:
When I come across unsourced questionable content, especially if it's negative, I'll remove it on sight. Like the person below, some people don't understand why I do that, but as you can see, I'm just following WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Thanks for your comments :). If you need help with anything else... :)
Seraphim Whipp 11:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Brent Wilson

fuck you K-bomb260 (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Delightful!
Seraphim Whipp 11:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

K-bomb260

Watch out for this user. He attacked me through my talk page and vandalised Brent Wilson on the same day, which really darkened my Thanksgiving. When do users eventually get blocked for vandalism? Jazzline b! (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He'll probably get blocked if this sort of behaviour continues, so don't worry :). I'll keep an eye out.
Seraphim Whipp 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
Jazzline b! (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

P@tD

I'm happy that this vandalism business has ended and I want to thank you and other Panic! at the Disco editors for improvements on the articles, and if you have not joined the P@tD Wikiproject, I urge you to do so. Jazzline b! (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE REPLY IMMEDIATELY

There is a user, I believe the name is Ohhaibrent. He adds rude comments to Panic! at the Disco pages, like "Brent Wilson works at McDonalds"... you know what I mean. According to his contribs, the majority of his edits are "attacks" on Brent Wilson. I talked to the user, but he ignores people that talk to him (see his talk page). Jazzline b! (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way.I saw on your userpage your IQ is 130. That beats my IQ. According to an internet test mine is 120. Jazzline b! (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't actually around at the time. I'll swing by their user page in a moment. As for the IQ test, I know they are unreliable but at the same time, I ignore that 'cos I'm proud of 130 :)... I've been thinking about renovating my user page...
Seraphim Whipp 01:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm only 18 so it makes sense that my IQ isn't quite as high as most adults. Jazzline b! (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks

Please keep me posted; thanks! -- Avi (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall :).
Seraphim Whipp 01:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Block

How long will Ohhaibrent's block last? I didn't know she was going to get block, I just thought she'd receive a warning. I'm not saying she should be unblocked, though. I guess she deserves it, but do you know how long the block will last? Jazzline b! (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked indefinately because it was a vandalism only account. We don't give warnings to user's whose contribs show that they are only here to disrupt the 'pedia. If he had made some good contributions, then we could never outright assume that his only purpose was to disrupt and block him indefinately. By not assuming good faith, we could lose a good editor in the making, who simply didn't understand the rules. In cases like these though, they are quite clear cut. I hope you don't mind me making long replies; I'm trying to respond in a way that should help you pick up the general wiki-way :).
Seraphim Whipp 16:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, onto the reason I'm here. When you say Ohhaibrent has been blocked indefinitely, you mean that she will be unblocked at a time that hasn't been set yet? Or maybe forever? Forever would be a little harsh don't you think? Jazzline b! (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No they won't ever be unblocked because it was a vandalism-only account. They created the account with malicious intent and used it to create attacks on a talk page of a biography of a living person, about the subject. I suspect that it was the same person who created both accounts (Ohhaibrent and K-bomb260). We use two processes to detemine if multiple accounts are used by editors; suspected sock puppets, where diffs are used to show similar editing processes and then discussed, and checkuser, where the IP is traced and used to detemine if the same IP created the accounts. In this case, we don't need to use either of those methods because these accounts fall under the category (detemined at WP:RCU) as: "Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits" and the direction recommended is to block.
Seraphim Whipp 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing the user was a teenage girl who hates Brent. I've seen videos on youtube made by teenagers. This user could be one of my fellow YouTubers. JazzlineB (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How Charming

I just looked at K-bomb260's contributions, and how charming, I found another attack on me through your talk page. I don't remember seeing that one before. Some people never understand how serious the problem of online harassment is, and I guess this was the case with the blocked user. Jazzline b! (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it though. That's just a simple case of trolling. You're definitely right about the issue of (on-going) online harassment. It's not something I worry about on a daily basis but I do find myself being cautious sometimes about releasing details relating to my life in meatspace.
Seraphim Whipp 17:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh that makes me worry. I posted my first name here, and I think the first letter of my last name. Jazzline b! (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the "Trevor" edit

I thought that writing that would explain better why Brent was looking for a guitarist. Sorry :Jazzline b! (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a stupid edit, I guess. Just editing for no reason. Except it was true Jazzline b! (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco Wikiproject

Please respond to this message on my talk page.

I notice you haven't joined the Panic! at the Disco Wikiproject. I strongly encourage you to join as you frequently edit pages relevant to the project. I joined the project the first day I became a member of Wikipedia. I asked Nouse4aname if he wanted to join, but he said he didn't edit that way. The Panic! at the Disco articles I have always thought deserve a lot of attention because
1) they have been vandalised more than any page I've ever seen and
2) they need to be improved. I mean there's always room for improvement, but these articles are far from complete.
Sorry that this message is so long.
We're all friends (hopefully) here on Wikipedia, so you can call me Elliot. It feels sort of strange to be called JazzlineB.
Jazzline b! (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


For Future Reference

Please respond to all of my messages on my talk page, for convenience. Thank you. Jazzline b! (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:xx rejrets xx

This user has vandalised Wikipedia three times, on Brent Wilson, Ryan Ross and Spencer Smith. I strongly think they should be blocked Jazzline b! (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fan?

Not wiki related. Just a question. Are you a huge fan of Panic? Just curious. Jazzline b! (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No lol, not really. I used to like them, when they were underground and unsigned (found 'em on pure volume). I stopped listening to them as I outgrew them and they weren't really my thing. My favourite artists are Death Cab for Cutie (and their side band, The Postal Service), A Perfect Circle, Maximo Park, Utada Hikaru and Hot Chip. Quite a mix lol. Are you a fan of Panic?
Seraphim Whipp 01:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm a big fan, though only of the first half of their CD. (The dance oriented section.) I find sometimes that the songs with long titles are the best, such as The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide Is Press Coverage and Nails For Breakfast, Tacks For Snacks. I usually edit articles for bands I like, though after today I might be taking a long break from editing. I'd have to say my favorite artists are Cute Is What We Aim For and Radiohead (especially OK Computer). Jazzline b! (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN

Per the polite request of User:Hiding on my talk page, I have removed the repeated content from the SSP on its MfD. I would appreciate your response. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting article

I recently discovered (due to my editor position at IMDb) that a person on Wikipedia has actually been submitted under an incorrect last name! Due to imdb fault, we mistook her middle name for her surname and therefore websites lifting information from us including TV.com, Starpulse, etc, have submit her incorrectly too. Though IMDb.com has been notifying the sites and alerting them to the error, I plan to redirect the Wikipedia article to the correct name, however, will it be possible to delete the previously incorrect name from the database. It would be confusing to have "redirected from such and such" at the page top or the incorrect name appear in search results. What can I do? --Rosario (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A redirect will work fine because now that the wrong name has been purported around the internet, most people are likely to search for the incorrect name so having it redirect to the correct name will be fine :). It is possible to delete the other page but there wouldn't be any point. Redirecting really won't have a big effect on the page :). Seraphim Whipp 14:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for the Welcome. My first article's work in progress. If it actually stays up long enough without being reversed then please feel free to give it a read.

Thanks.

Andrew81446 (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks!

This is a symbol of thanks (for the barnstar). You are an awesome contributor, and I hope you continue in the future. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you :).
Seraphim Whipp 14:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A Big Favor

Not only am I on an extended Wikibreak-ish thing, I'm not able to mentor Angie all the time because I'm only 12 (school, bed) :-)

So I was wondering if you could be her mentor when I am unavailable. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

:) If Angie feels comfortable working with me, then I will gladly help out :).
Seraphim Whipp 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Then you better ask her. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I will not be able to mentor Angie. I will not give up my time to someone who says such horrible things about me. I'm really sorry. Perhaps ask JetLover? Unless Angie also holds the delusional belief that JetLover has harassed her too...I'm gobsmacked at the accusation she made...Angie has bullied and harassed a horrendous amount of people, as RfC's no. 1 and 2 show; perhaps this is psychological projection?
I find it ironic that, at 12 years of age, you will be mentoring someone who is 20 and that you are more mature than a person who is 8 years older than you.
I wish you well :) and I'm sorry that, in the end, I couldn't be of any more use. Seraphim Whipp 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I know her Asperger's is not an excuse, but this is mainly the cause of it. I don't know if this will make you feel better, but I asked Angie to apologize to you and look for evidence of you harassing her. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 02:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

I noticed the announcement at the top of your user page. Happy Birthday, and happy editing! 24.18.180.44 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you, that's very kind :). Seraphim Whipp 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


Happy Birthday -- Avi (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2008
Thank-you XD Seraphim Whipp 14:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

U may disagree on me regarding ownership of Afd's but i have had experience with avi re this issue and it was made clear allreay that he is wrong. if 2 people nominate a Afd one cannot retract it if the other does not want to. so i am not harassing nobody please do not accuse me of this serious sin--יודל (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You won't leave Avi alone, and you keep wrongfully accusing him of abusing his admin tools. Yes, I think that is harassment. Seraphim Whipp 13:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok so now u want me to stop calling attention to an abuse of power, ok i will except that but how do i call atention to a wrong edit watching he shouldn't get exposed? he reverted me how can i revert him by not making my case? Lets face it isn't an AFD nominated by 2 people no more under the ownership of only one?--יודל (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no abuse of power here. There is no ownership of an afd either, but the nominator may withdraw a nomination if they so choose. Seraphim Whipp 14:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What surprises me is that I told yudel that he could relist the article for deletion, but he has not done so; instead choosing to try and reopen a closed debate as well as engage in what may be termed as harassing editing behavior. If yudel were really interested in deleting the article, wouldn't it make sense for him to just relist it under "Jeff Ballabon (2nd nomination)" as opposed to his current behavior? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It would. At first, I thought he must have simply misunderstood but you were very patient and did explain to him what he needed to do. There was no reason for him to continue being disruptive... I do deem his behaviour as harassment, expecially with the repeated claims that you have abused admin tools...even though you haven't even used your admin tools 0_o. Seraphim Whipp 14:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks

Thank you for you *measured* response to a simple dispute. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a simple response, did you even bother to read the notice at the top of my page? Nope. Also, if you had bothered to take a glance at my contributions from the last 3 days, you'd see that going through someone's upload log is my MO. I find one non-compliant image and then search their upload log to see if there are others. A proper attempt at discussion from you would have been effective, instead of your sarcasm and unpleasant accusation that I was making a WP:POINT. Seraphim Whipp 23:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
You undid the tags I added without addressing the concerns I tagged them for (concerns which can only be addressed by picking and choosing two of the images in the article). The images fail these specific fair use criteria and therefore cannot be used and they are non-compliant images:
3. (a) Minimal usage. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article.
There are clearly too many non-free images in the Crimson Skies article. A logo is a good representation of the topic being discussed and perhaps one game cover/toys to illustrate to the reader what is being discussed and add to their critical understanding. But you only need two images to do that. This leads on to my next point.
8.) Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (Bolding is my own)
The images presence does not increase the reader's understanding of the topic because the other two images have already satisfied that. Therefore, these images aren't compliant with fair use policy.
WP:FUC also states that "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing fair-use defence that satisfies all 10 criteria." (Bolding is my own).
Can you understand why I believe these images are non-compliant? They fail 2 of the 10 fair use criteria. There's no actual way of satisfying the fair use criteria because the issue is about where the images are being used and how. Seraphim Whipp 10:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh and also, as stated at the top of my talk page, the talk page message a person receives when I tag an image, is automatic. Seraphim Whipp 10:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you feel that way about the situation, but I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria. I feel that those images are necessary, and do not violate the criteria you cite - the Crimson Skies article, as it stands now, is cobbled together from several other articles that were combined some time ago - the different images are from different companies, each of which had different and separate takes on the subject. Also, as I mentioned in the edit summaries, I misread the edit histories, and the original fair use rationale on the images, while not added by you, or me, *was* added by a third party, so there's someone else out there that felt that there was no problem with the images as used in the Crimson Skies article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The images do not add to the reader's understanding of the topic and to be honest, they don't actually look that different anyway. There are reasons why the images survived before: A.) The person who added the fair use rationale might not have fully understand NFCC B.)The images might have been used in a different article (i.e one image in each article and not all the images in one article, therefore compliant). It seems this is all rather irrelevant now anyway as someone else has removed the images from the article. Seraphim Whipp 12:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

unblock

User:Cell2 was blocked for "vandalising" my page. he was kidding. please get him unblocked, as well as a user named User:Quako5 (he was blocked for vandalising his own page). Please unblock him too. these guys are just joking. they haven't done anything wrong. JazzlineB (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing there to suggest that Cell2 was kidding...and Quako5 looks like a vandal only account. Actually, they look remarkably like the same editor. I am not an admin, so I lack the technical ability to unblock someone. Don't worry about it though, it doesn't look like any loss. Seraphim Whipp 18:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
i insist that User:Quako5 should be unblocked. Most of his edits were just nonsense, and no, I'm sure that he or she is different from Cell2. Cell2 for one created an account over a year ago though Quako5 only created one a month and a half ago. Also the pages they have edited seem to have been edited at times too close together for them to be the same user. Quako should be unblocked because I don't think he or she understood what they were doing. No I know that Cell2 was kidding, he is an acquaintance of mine. thats why he was leaving personal messages on my page and that's why I greeted him a month back, so they should both be unblocked. JazzlineB (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Since most of his edits were nonsense, there is no reason to unblock him. Cell2 left a message on Quako5's page saying "enjoy vandalising the wiki" [1]. If you want, you can ask an admin to unblock them, but they will just say the same as I am saying. Why do you want them to be unblocked so much? Seraphim Whipp 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
why? i believe in giving people second chances. i was given lots of chances when i was arguing with nouse4aname two months ago. i apologized for it, of course. but they haven't really done anything worse than i did (because in my opinion edit wars and vandalism are the same). but if they stay blocked, whatever, i suppose, then they stay blocked. by the way i'm "resigning" from the Panic at the Disco wikiproject. JazzlineB (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
But the distinction with you is that you were an editor who was trying to be helpful but was going about it the wrong way. These accounts were used inappropriately with no good intent. Why are you resigning? Seraphim Whipp 17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Since you've tagged my pictures as fair use, I've reverted them on the EB page. Intranetusa (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement not supported by

I don't think it is a good idea to add these, as it is not as meaningful as a support vote, and will promote simple gainsaying instead of contributions. If I asked you to revert this, would you consider it a reasonable request?

There are alternatives being proposed, but I'm hoping we can prevent more (repetitive) discussion thread popping up, so I'd like to just have Support votes with very short comments. What do you think? / edg ☺ ☭ 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem and perfectly reasonable! I was going on what they do in user rfc's. I would have liked to have discussed whether a dissenting section was a good idea before I created one but there wasn't really an appropriate place for me to bring it up. I'll go remove it now though :). Seraphim Whipp 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I was a reasonable thing to do, but this policy tends to produce landslides, and we're trying to hold those back. It's something we just came up with, and a new instruction has been added to the top of the RFC. Thanks a whole lot for taking care of this.  :) / edg ☺ ☭ 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Seraphim Whipp 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you. Seraphim Whipp 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter

The reason I have requested arbitration is because there has NOT been a clear consensus. This is all stemming from a bias against me by User:Metros, who stalks my edits and reverts them or argues against them. There have been two RfCs on the Harry Potter page, one indicating "no consensus", and the other one indicating that the consensus was clearly "keep", even though there was strong evidence to support the "change". Mediation was not agreed to, and so I am using this arbitration as a last resort. I have left Wikipedia in the past due to this type of red tape and unfairness, particularly regarding User:Metros, but if this doesn't go through, I will leave permanently. All policies on Wikipedia are designed for the administrators by the administrators, and designed to allow as few non-admins succeed as possible. This dictatorship known as Wikipedia is simply out of control, and I for one can't take it. I have a real life with real stresses and problems, and can't be bothered with this nonsense. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Then chill out! Take a break! You shouldn't let wikipedia make you stressed! This site is a volunteer project and at any point that it has a negative effect on your well being, take a short break from it. You'll come back refreshed! I won't comment on some of the other things you mentioned because I have a differing opinion. Thanks for taking the time to respond; I was just interested, having not followed this issue from the beginning. Plus, I watched a frightening film and I didn't want to go to bed just yet :) (It was I am Legend btw :) ) Seraphim Whipp 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
So, your request for arbitration is because of my actions? What? I made two edits to that RFC (aside from reverts after the RFC was closed). They are this and this. In no way did I control this RFC. In no way did I add anything substantial to this RFC to swing it either way. As for stalking your edits, I was drawn to the RFC by your post to ANI about it (a board I frequent often because I'm an admin). It's not like I sit around all day and say "Oh, I wonder what he's up to now!" Metros (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's exactly what you do. The fact that you found your way into a private conversation between me and another user is obvious evidence of that. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I noticed your edit because this page is on my watchlist. I left a comment to Seraphim Whipp a while back, so I saw it on there. Metros (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Both parties, just disengage. Cool off and talk about it tomorrow. I really was hoping the comment about the scary film might add comic effect (you know because I'd rather edit wikipedia than go to bed and have nightmares from watching a film that isn't really that scary but oh yes...it is really :( and I'm 19 and too old to be scared by films...) and make this dispute seem needless but I guess it didn't...work...Seraphim Whipp 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No, unfortunately nothing will stop this power-hungry maniac from trying to undo any contribution I make to Wikipedia. But I appreciate your attempt :-) Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments like that are not helpful. I'm sure you are a reasonable person, would you consider striking that please? Seraphim Whipp 03:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No. After all this, I'll either be blocked or request that my account be deleted. Either way, I would rather go out with a bang. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
But why? Generally speaking, do you enjoy editing here? Seraphim Whipp 03:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy writing, and I pride myself on the contributions I've made to articles such as La Toya Jackson and Birth certificate. However, I am constantly left feeling like my edits are not wanted, and that I should "take my business elsewhere". And so I plan to. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you enjoy writing, then don't leave. I'm not suggesting that you "take your business elsewhere" here, but perhaps you would find it beneficial just to steer clear from this particular issue. It's obviously very heated and doing you no good because it's making you stressed. The project keeps on losing contributors... :( Seraphim Whipp 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The project loses contributors because users like Metros chase them away for not properly understanding Wikipedia's infinite number of silly policies. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
But Metros hasn't done anything to warrant you feeling like you're being driven away. If you want to leave, then leave on your on accord. Seraphim Whipp 03:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If I leave, it is absolutely at least 97% because of Metros. He has stalked me, and we've had major issues in the past over various issues. But because he seems to think he has "administrative privileges to harass", my requests and comments have been ignored and scrutinized. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Based on my personal interactions with this user, I find it difficult to believe that he has either stalked or harassed you. Due to the nature of wikipedia, everyone's contributions are always open to scrutiny; it's how we decide whether to make someone an admin or how we determine if someone should be blocked. It's a shame you feel like this and that you can't edit in a different area, but it you want to leave...you want to leave. Seraphim Whipp 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There's clear evidence of his actions, if you want to take the time to look through the history for La Toya Jackson and some of the other disputes I've had with him. However, it would take hours and I'm very tired and headed for bed. It's been nice talking to you and I am glad that you have been a reasonable and understanding user. If all users were more like you, many more contributors would feel welcome. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you, that is very kind. I'm still hopeful that some part of our dialogue will somehow make you not want to quit... Goodnight. Seraphim Whipp 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Punk et al.

Unblocked. And you're quite welcome -- Avi (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Image messages.

Hi. By my count you've left 63 - 63 - nearly identical messages on user talk:Tree Biting Conspiracy. Could you please try to compact these in the future, into one message that lists all problematic images? Probably a bit less overwhelming for the users on the receiving end of the notices. Thanks, Picaroon (t) 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Placing a tag on an image automatically places a tag on the uploader's talk page. How do you compact them? Seraphim Whipp 11:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries; tis done! I have compacted all the messages (on those talk pages I have tagged the most) using a collapsible navbox. Seraphim Whipp 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphim/Archive_4&oldid=1143297139"