User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 3

Michelle Hinn Entry

Hi again! Thank you for all your help and I also appreciate your civility while we talked about my page. I'll read up on the ways to update the page in the future -- that was very helpful to learn about! I really am enjoying being a part of wikipedia and I hope to extend the information on game accessibility very soon so that it helps others interested in finding out more information so we can keep making electronic resources (webpages, games, etc) accessible for all! Cheers! Vrgrrl 01:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

Hi, I hope you don't feel I'm stepping on your toes, but I replaced your recent copyvio with a speedy (db-copyvio), because it applies in this case and the admins don't have to jump through so many hoops. This is the second round on this (you may have seen the user's talk page). There are other articles that will need to be reverted that have similar content. I'm especially happy to see someone else chipping in this time around. Thanks! JonHarder 23:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dathletez

Thanks a lot for removing the last warning, I really appreciate it and I am sorry for any caused trouble or misunderstanding, you truly are a good admin. Thanks for everything. --Dathletez 09:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dualit toaster

I think the article is a copy of an 'online essay', have a look at the first two hits of this google search, so maybe db-copyvio would be a better CSD notice? Either way, it shouldn't stay in its present state. Regards, Mr Stephen 12:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Mr Stephen 12:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rye House Rockets

Why delete an article I am in the middle of producing ? The Rye House Rockets are a professional sports team in the UK, no different to any football, cricket, rugby etc. I am trying to set up a record of all speedway teams for the rest of the speedway community to add to.

Ther was no need to refer it for "speedy deletion". I am putting the article up again and if you still have an issue with it I suggest it is left for further discussion.

Thank you for your reply. I am unable to adda tag to an article that has already been deleted. How can I encourage more users from the speedway community to post when the existing structure is being deleted ?

If you intend removing ALL the artciles I have written then tell me now to save me wasting any more time.

Thank you for your response. I have not taken the issue personally, but if every article I post on the subject is going to be wiped by someone on here then I I am not going to waste my time. There is a weekly magazine publication, the Speedway Star, that is published every week featuring an article about every speedway team in the country, every single week. I am pretty new to this so I would appreciate the offer of help as to how to citate in the "MLA/APA format".

My other issue was that if someone was to actually look at the category it is in it is clear that it is an internationally recognised sport. The motorcyle speedway page on wiki establishes that quite clearly.

edit conflict fun

Great minds think alike! :-) Funny how we both went and looked at it at the exact same time. Cheers, FreplySpang 15:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sprung floors

Hi, I haven't found a lot of sources for information on sprung floors around, so I think this manufacturer's website could have useful information on current practices. (I'm not affiliated with the company in any way.) How would you feel if I put the manufacture link back in sprung floor, at least until a more generic reference can be found? geoff_o 04:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! I completely agree that's a better source. --geoff_o 05:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BE PATIENT

With all due respect, I ask you to be PATIENT. I JUST started posting something about this VERY WIDELY known and EXTREMELY famous Lebanese impersonator and a comedian and I ask you to BACK OFF until I have had the chance to get more references. This is not my full time job. It is something I am doing as an UNCOMPENSATED Editor for the sake of complete strangers like you. Please give me some space and be VERY courteous to my uncompensated efforts. Thank you...

ENOUGH with the BIG Egos and RUDE Demands

I am not sure whether you have the RIGHT to do what you are doing, but I sure RESENT "the way" you are doing it... I will BOYCOTT the Bassem Feghali Article and will no longer make any further contributions to it... YOU research it on the net and finish it.. It is all there!.... You can have the entire article all to yourself.. I am SICK and TIRED of the OVERINFKATED egos...

The last two posts on User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 3

Message for Seraphimblade: I have been keeping an eye on your deletion-tagging habits based on the comments you get here. Perhaps you should consider my previous advice to use your PROD a little more lightly? There have been 5 or 6 cases at least in the past month when editors whose new articles you've tagged have come to your talk page to ask you not to be so fast, to let them work. I hope you start reassessing your approach, because it comes off as unilateral and alienating. It's obvious the guy who posted the previous two posts isn't aware of editorial policy here and should be treated with Wikilove. He/she sounds like h/s cares about what he's doing, and if a more experienced Wikipedian is going to tag his/her article and communicate with h/h, it's in the best interest of WP that a fostering and developmental approach is used.

To the author of the previous two posts:

First, when I'm done posting this message I'll check your contrib log and if you are new to posting articles on Wikipedia, I'll follow up with the helpful welcome message that someone posted on my talk page when I made my first edits about 1.5 yrs ago.

Second, it would benefit an interested 3rd party like me if you signed your messages here (just put ~~~~ [4 tildes] at the end of your post, your sig and timestamp will be added when you save the page).

Third, and this part is addressed to Seraphimblade as well, a very important Wikipedia editorial policy is to assume good faith. Click the link to read up on what's meant by that. My take on it is that we are all working for a common goal to have a widely comprehensive encyclopedia, and we should therefore treat each other like teammates. But we need to also understand that we have different interests, personal philosophies, and visions of what we are trying to achieve and attain by participating in Wikipedia. Try to approach this conflict with the idea in mind that Seraphimblade is trying to make your contribution the best it can be by prodding you into making it more compliant with other Wikipedia editorial policies. If you don't agree with his methods, at least if you approach him as a colleague and not an enemy you have a better chance of influencing his actions. It worked for me a few weeks ago when he did the same thing to me - we exchanged some disagreement, but it was couched in polite words.

I hope you guys can dial back the conflict and start working on resolution. As long as you act like reasonable people and stick to the spirit of Wikipedia, your contributions are appreciated. I speak for myself, I hold no special status here, but I believe my words reflect what I've read about what Wikipedia is all about.

If I can ID the person who authored the previous two posts to this talk page I'll post a copy of this message on that talk page too. Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 08:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've found his talk page I see that your response seemed as combative as his posts on yours. If you are going to take on the responsibility to prod new pages, you should also really approach dissent with some strong Wikilove. You gave yourself the job you are doing, remember? No one's making you do it. Try to be nice about it.

Also, if you are going to reply, please reply here, not on my talk page. I'd like other users to easily see both sides of the convo. - Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 08:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Previous posts to Erialhonan's talk page, reposted here for context)

Recent feedback

Thanks for your recent feedback. I would like to show you the responses I made to this user:

Reply to your comment

Thanks for your recent feedback. I apologize if you took offense to the placement of maintenance tags, as certainly none is intended. These tags place the article into categories of similar articles with these issues so that any interested Wikipedian can assist in resolving the problems. We all do this without compensation, which is why it's important to cooperate. Part of that is to ensure that articles are properly categorized, which is part of the job of those who patrol new pages. Seraphimblade 08:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do apologize if you took offense. Please do note that once an article is posted, anyone may edit it. Could you please specify what it is that you object to, that I did? Seraphimblade 08:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Might I ask, in exactly what way I did not approach him civilly and in an attempt to work with him? After my last request for him to specify what his complaint was, he deleted the comments from his talk page and did not respond. I certainly did not intend to harass him to demand a response, and if he considered the discussion closed I took him at his word-that he did not appear to wish to improve the article any further. I do appreciate your feedback, but might you specify what you would've had me do differently? Seraphimblade 08:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(New response)

Certainly will be happy to respond here, and will copy the last post from your talk page here, or please feel free if you'd like to do so. I'm unaware how my posts were "combative"? I apologized for any offense caused, explained why I had placed the templates (note that I had not placed the prod at this time, just an unreferenced and notability template!), and asked him to clarify his position. I would also ask again that you clarify what I should have done differently. I certainly appreciate your advice but I'm having a bit of a difficult time understanding the specifics of what you mean by it. Seraphimblade 08:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You posted on my talk page:

Might I ask, in exactly what way I did not approach him civilly and in an attempt to work with him? After my last request for him to specify what his complaint was, he deleted the comments from his talk page and did not respond. I certainly did not intend to harass him to demand a response, and if he considered the discussion closed I took him at his word-that he did not appear to wish to improve the article any further. I do appreciate your feedback, but might you specify what you would've had me do differently.

What I saw on his talk page (unsigned):

I do not tolerate rude and bossy harassment!... READ the Wikipedia Terms and always show the rest of us respect... for yourself.

I welcome friendly and civil comments

Those who think they know it all, only annoy the rest of us who actually do!...

Ok, you want to know what I would have done?

1) I wouldn't be hanging out in the new pages queue looking to slap prods on new pages seconds after they post. I'm not the only one who finds that disturbing when I'm editing an article, and you've done it to me. If I were checking out new pages I'd probably watchlist ones that look sloppy or problematic, and wait 24 hrs before tagging them with anything. And if they were just weak articles and not otherwise violations (and in making that judgement I'd assume good faith), I'd tag them as stubs, as being in need of improvement, or I might spend 10 minutes googling for references if I were interested in the topic.

2) I'd remember that part of doing this work is being nice to people even if they aren't nice to me right off the bad. Don't take it personal, and remember that some people do b/c they haven't drank the Wikipedia Koolaid yet. Maybe you were nice, but you might could point someone who's pissed off at the various pages on expected behavior, in a nice way. Dammit man, what you are doing is an ego blow to new editors, and even to experienced ones if they aren't aware of all the Wikipedia norms and morés. If I were in the role you've chosen I would expect people to get pissed off at you from time to time, and I would develop means of handling them tactfully. And part of those means of using tact bring me right back to 1), above.

Hope this is helpful. Being helpful is good, you know. And I want to be good. Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 09:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: I did not prod the article "seconds after it was posted", I only put maintenance templates (notability and unreferenced) on it! I then attempted to speak to the user (and I believe I did so in accordance with civility, you apparently disagree but I'd really like to know how), and after the user stated that he was unwilling to work on the article any further, I went to see if I could find information on the subject. After finding that the subject appears rather unremarkable on Google, I then placed the prod. This was quite some time after the posting of the article. Seraphimblade 09:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, hit save too early. In response to the rest-the first article I put up got deleted. This actually encouraged me to learn the guidelines of articles (and new articles). There have been cases after I've spoken with the author I've withdrawn a deletion request myself, and worked with them on improvement. There were many other cases in which no deletion request was placed at all and I've helped out new authors with how to write. However, I've got no regrets about tagging band pages that "cite" a Myspace page or vanity bios with a speedy. In many of those cases, though the article was deleted (and it would've been sooner or later anyway), I did in fact speak with the author and help them to understand. Seraphimblade 09:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last one

Ok, I'm done with the topic after this message. Feel free to reply. I should know better than to get in the middle of things like this.

Regardless of your tags, maybe you could hold off for a day, give people a chance to do what they need to. The guy's initial complaint, if I remember correctly, was that you were quick on the trigger. If you read your own talk pages you'll see he's not alone in that observation. IMHO, you can pay lip service to civility, but your method of tagging might just come off as antagonizing strangers on the Internet with provocative words/actions. I think there's a word for that kind of behavior, but I won't use here.

I don't doubt that what you do is valuable in keeping chaff out of Wikipedia. I suggest you re-evaluate your methods, perhaps measure your actions against the concepts of civility and good faith from the perspective of other editors. "How would I feel if someone did that to me?" might be question to ask yourself, and then try to come up with an honest answer.

I dont' mean to make you defensive, but I'm afraid I have. So, in good faith, I'll ask myself the same question, and use that answer in how I approach similar situations in the future. I'm all about personal growth! :-) Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 09:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - every single time I try to post to your talk page I get an edit conflict message! Give a girl (well, a queer) a chance to reply! ;-) Anyway, reading your interreply-reply, I see that you do have a chance to have good interactions, and maybe give people a chance to learn how things are done here more quickly. I still think that slowing down on the tag trigger would be a good think to consider.

Will consider your thoughts, and I apologize if you think you're not welcome to speak to me. Your advice is well-considered and your experience is quite evident, and even if I disagree sometimes I appreciate it.

As for slowing down on the tags-the problem there is that the types of articles I generally tag (vanity bios, spamvertisements, non-notable people and bands) are very likely to be tagged in any case. To me, it seems a bit underhanded to let that wait until the person who wrote it may be offline and will have no chance to make their case before the deletion occurs. I prefer to engage them at once-and yes, sometimes I get some grief on it. I do rather expect that. In many other cases, though, things are worked out to both parties' satisfaction. More often then not, the articles I'm tagging are already tagged for speedy by another editor by the time I'm done typing it out.

In this case, however, I didn't tag for deletion immediately. I see nothing wrong with placing maintenance templates, these call attention to other editors that there may be problems with the article, and allow everyone to work together on fixing it. It actually places the article into a category of the ones that may have such problems, where people that are experienced at fixing them can join in and help. I only placed the prod in this case after the discussion I had with the editor and after looking for myself if the subject was a notable one that a good article could be written on.

I'd also ask you to remember that, though I've flagged a lot of articles, I've only had maybe three deletion requests overruled. This would seem to indicate that in general I'm getting it right, and that those articles flagged are indeed going to be deleted.

I'm still interested in your take on what the incivility is, as I've got absolutely no interest in attacking anyone. As I stated previously-my "how would I like it if someone did this to me" is not hypothetical, the first article I posted did get deleted. The person who proposed the deletion directed me to "Wikipedia is not a how-to guide", which is exactly what the article I posted was. I found them to be very civil and helpful, despite the fact that they (correctly) stuck by the deletion request, and this encouraged me to learn more about how to contribute. I realize that some people might take an ego blow and never return after having an article deleted, and I'm really sorry to see that-but the only alternative to that I see is to let anyone post anything they want, and then we're just Myspace II. Seraphimblade 09:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I would talk about the changes if people would talk about the changes J. D. Hunt 04:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay/our discussion

I think it's a good idea to state your position up front like that; it helps people understand why you've taken on the role you have, and serious people should treat it with respect even if they don't agree. I wrote my inclusionist position statement in part in response to our first interaction, in part to clarify my sensibilities to myself as well as to make my philosophy known.

Don't worry about bad feelings. I enjoyed our debate, I was just in need of getting to sleep. Also though I enjoy discussing differences of opinion I know this is one where minds won't be change, and they don't really need to be. Wikipedia needs both sides of the inclusion/deletion spectrum to stay healthy.

FWIW, I had a little experience recently trying to get an image I believe is inappropriate for its current use removed from an article and ultimately from the servers. I'm not done with that pursuit either, and I am not alone (according to various talk pages) in my opinion on how this image should be handled (i.e., with rubber gloves on... really ;-). While I do feel that everything has a place in Wikipedia, I also feel that everything should be in the right place. Not to not assume good faith, but nearly everyone who spoke up against my position came off as a little petulant, even if they did so under the auspice of being nice. I'm glad to have had a positive discussion with you to balance the 'no you' argument style I got from those guys!

Be well, and we'll catch up again I'm sure :-) Erielhonan talk | contribs 仕方が無い 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikify request at bomb damage assessment

I'm not sure what else you would like done to that article. Perhaps adding {{mil-stub}} would be pertinent, but it is in fact information rich. It is also full of wikilinks. What are you looking for? ... aa:talk 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, if you say so. have them look over tannerite too, then, while you're at it. it's in about the same state, and nobody's requested it be wikified. ... aa:talk 06:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i hate to be the one to break it to you, but wikipedia is generally a pit of liberal whiners who don't like to discuss war (unless it's some heroic, long-ago battle). i've gotten comments composed of "love poetry" from users, along with questions about why i must fill up the intarpedia with things like weapons specifications. so, not real surprising to me. i am glad it is there now, however. ... aa:talk 07:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Soxaholix image fair use help

Hi. I'd like to provide a more detailed fair use rationale for the two images on the Soxaholix article so that you'll feel good about putting through its GA status. After reading the fair use pages, I'm a bit confused as to what would fit the needs of rationale on the image pages. I received direct permission from the original author of the two images by e-mail contact with them releasing them for use on Wikipedia under full knowledge of what that entails for Wikipedia licensing. The two panel comic image is essentially a screenshot of one of his early strips and the title image can even also be considered a screen capture (although he gave me the actual image file from the website). Can you help me determine what you're looking for to improve the rationales? Thanks. Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. ju66l3r 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I had a bit more time right now to look at the image help pages and other fair use pages and I added a section to each image page detailing my rationale for fair use. Were they what you were looking for? Here are the links to the image pages for your convenience:

Thanks for your time and for reviewing the article's GA nomination! ju66l3r 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

good work. I love seeing people contribute to the project. Thanks. ... aa:talk 22:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fabolous

Wow, I can't believe you saw that already! It pains me to fail an article, especially one about a rapper (since there truly are very few high-quality articles in that area), but that one big concern was too much to ignore. However, if the article becomes more comprehensive, I'd love to see it given GA status in the future. I think it's the goal of a review to not just say "pass" or "fail", but to say what's good about an article and what could be better. In the case of Fabolous, there's a lot that's good, and one thing that could be a lot better. Good luck, and happy editing. -- Kicking222 03:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for your work combating Akaneon! I was slightly stunned to see the AfD marker, but very pleased to see it gone so fast. Yonmei 11:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for finding that the article I created and taken a major role in editing is worthy of Good Article status! If you have any suggestions for getting it the next step to Featured Article status, please feel free to leave a note on my user talk page. ju66l3r 15:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Regarding your modification of the 'Tata Sky' article:

Hi seraphimblade, you have deleted the section 'Criticism' in my article 'Tata Sky' This is a compilation of problems that one has to deal with when subscribing to a Tata Sky connection. You will experience all these problems if you purchase a connection, something that you won't do as you live in the US. Having to wait till a website publishes the same criticisms before citing them here with a reference to the website is not realistic.Mahesh.n 16:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_NESkimos

Hello, could I ask you to look at your vote on this article? I believe that it should meet criteria to be kept now. Thanks a lot!

Sanctusorium 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for looking back at this AfD! Sanctusorium 18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

don't be an idiot

[1] is clearly not important. Anyone with a brain can see that. You are a genius.

CIVIL?!?!?!

CIVIL?!?!?! CIVIL?!?!?!? You are the one who are trying to delete a reasonable aricle. EVER CONSIDERED looking at what pages link?

YOU ARE A TROLL. Now piss off.

YES, CIVIL

1. Don't bite the newbies.

2. I don't think you would understand notability, you prick.

Lutheran_Theological_Seminary_at_Philadelphia

Responding to mutual nominations at WP:AIV, my thoughts have been given on the article's Talk page. Please continue constructive discussion there. Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this user is leaving WP behnd. (aeropagitica) 11:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did attempt to discuss the matter civilly, and was met with some quite rude comments. I will continue to try to do so, if you have any suggestions please let me know. Seraphimblade 11:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking at Waiting4's Talk page history, they have removed quite a few warnings and a block message. You did the right thing about bringing it to admin attention. Just remember the three revert rule and be careful not to cross it when reinstating speedy tags. This stops petty edit wars and tit-for-tat arguments about content. You don't cross it when reverting vandalism, though. Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize, I thought that removing speedy tags was considered a form of vandalism and was exempt from 3RR. If I was incorrect in that, I apologize and will remember that in the future. Seraphimblade 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism and you won't transgress the rule by reinstating the tags! You can warn the other editor about WP:3RR, though, and have them blocked for ignoring your warnings. No apology required! Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, misunderstood, thanks for the clarification. :) Seraphimblade 11:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. What's going on with User:Unfurnished? He's making some erratic edits. Urania3 12:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened with the subject article? It is an accredited school of theology. Its web page says "The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia is one of eight seminaries affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), a denomination with about 11,000 congregations in the United States and some 5.2 million baptized members." It should be possible to create a well referenced article. Edison 06:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE [2]

please. I want no more to do with your house of trolls. I would just like to make one point before I go 11:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive