User talk:Seicer/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Speedy deletion

Regarding the page Image:Gym Wall.jpg, which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of it is a non-free image or media file, which claims fair use but has no fair use rationale, and which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because it has not been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days. If you still want the page to be deleted, please re-tag it under a CSD criterion that applies, consider redirecting the article, or use the proposed deletion or the articles for deletion processes. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My userpage..

Hey, thanks for the great inspiration! Hope that you do not mind I stole the idea a little bit. :D Tiptoety talk 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate It

Thanks for pointing those out. I'm sure you've taken a look at the other user's contributions and reversions as well, and in doing such took the appropriate action. Anyways, back to smokin' the Hookah. --InvisibleDiplomat666 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Highways are state routes, not federal routes

The only federally maintained roads are roads in national parks and military bases. All U.S. highways and Interstate highways are state highways. The U.S. in U.S. highway merely refers to the national coordination of the numbering while Interstate highways receive some federal funding and in turn must be built to specific federal standards. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You do realise I was parodying Carl Rogers? The guy's nuttier than most of the vandals we have on here. seicer | talk | contribs 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

???

Hello Seicer

Forgive me I don't know what your talk page is.

However you impeded me from editing for a reason unbeknownst to me.

Please explain as I make very valuable contributions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N1r4v (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you are a sock, I really have no clue as to what you are talking about. seicer | talk | contribs 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

gotta question

long time, no talk. sorry to bug you, but do you know where i can locate the userbox stating how many mainspace edits a user has made. it's not for me, it's for another user that has a habit of messaging others to let them know how many edits he's made. i told him this userbox on his page would solve the problem and he's agreed to add it. i see you have the contributions userbox on your page, as do i, but i can't find the blasted mainspace userbox. thanks if you can help. cheers. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Anastasis Michael

Hi. This is the first time I am doing this. I don't think the speedy deletion (A7) of Anastasis Michael was a valid one. He was one of the of the candidates for the Cypriot presidantship. The article should be nonimated for Afd and have a discussion about it. I can't see, for example, how he is less important that tenths of football players. That he received 117 votes doesn't make him non-notable. Moreover, the article had several link to it, it wasn't orphan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: Hey, maybe to forgot to answer this one! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did :) I'll restore it and then you or someone else can nominate it for AfD if you wish. seicer | talk | contribs 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It's better if a discussion is held first. I think, I had concerns if this article should exist as well, but since is not orphan and some people contributed, let's give it a try. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Waiting your response

I responded to you in my talk page and have yet to hear back from you. Sethie (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Willirennen

I have reblocked this user indefinitely. There is a pile of evidence suggesting that he is the sockmaster. One is the fact that many of the socks have racing-related names (Lara Dalle = Dallara Automobili, a racing car manufacturer, Moosato Cowabata = Masato Kawabata, a drifting driver, etc.) and two is the fact that I can't find a single instance of the accounts editing at the same time. There are clear "streaks" of edits, indicative of account-swapping. I find it spectacularly unlikely that if there were truly two computers being used by two people, that not once would they have been editing Wikipedia at the exact same time, especially given how many edits were made. FCYTravis (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, a second pair of eyes always help. Plus, there seemed to be consensus towards a reblock, so it's all fine by me. seicer | talk | contribs 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User: Nevilledad

Seicer, User:Nevilledad is making up stuff again on the Corridor G page. He's now readded stuff that I reverted to delete and refuses to provide any real cites. Can this page be protected or he be blocked from editing it? Brian Powell (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving him a final warning. He's edited elsewhere and has done the same. seicer | talk | contribs 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
He struck again. I reverted, yet again. Brian Powell (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
...and blocked for 24h. seicer | talk | contribs 04:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to Unblock TechOnline Wikipedia Page

Hi Seicer -

I was wondering if it would be possible to unblock the TechOnline wikipedia page. My sincere apologies if this violated your Terms of Service --- I will gladly re-read any material you have on quality posts before re-attempting.

Best Regards, Tshannon tol (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Tim

User:CarlosRodriguez

Follow up to User_talk:CarlosRodriguez#When_you_return..., User:CarlosRodriguez is back to being disruptive in the Jeremiah Wright article space. I think this talk page edit, in which he changes an existing heading to add "--Wright a Muslim?" really sums it up. His other contributions over the last hour and a half are more of the same. TheslB (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

deletion Review

You might want to take a look at the Deletion review for Susan Hubbard, [1] -- DGG (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

used

fezmar9 and nouse4aname i believe are sock puppets, they make the smae edits, alwasy undo what i edit and never let me change anything, they both make huge changes without disscussion and then tell me i cant make any edits without talking baout it, they violent 3 revert rules more then i do, please give them the sock puppet warning becasue it is clear they are sock puppets, USEDfan (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:S@bre

This editors appears, if I read the history correctly, to have been caught up in an autoblock applied by you. Do you have any objection to his being unblocked? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Used discography

This is getting ridiculous now. This user refuses to engage in meaningful discussion and simply reverts any attempt at compromise. It is unfortunate that it seems nothing is being done to encourage this person to contribute productively. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just saw you blocked him. So how can we go about reaching a solution that we can all agree on. To me it seems that they will not be happy unless they are changing something about it...Nouse4aname (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, can you explain why the page has been fixed to a version that is in dispute, rather than reverting to a more neutral format such as this [2], which upon looking back at the history, seems the most common form over the past few months Nouse4aname (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
A page protection is not an endorsement of one version over another. It is designed to encourage users to discuss their edits on the talk page, and in the event that a critical edit is needed, you can request so using {{editprotected}}. seicer | talk | contribs 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that. It just seems a little unjust that the page is now frozen in a disputed version. The fact that the page is protected at all is also a little confusing considering the only user refusing to discuss things is User:USEDfan. He has disrupted every version of the page for with no clear explanation. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FatMackemBuddha

[3] Only locked for 48 hours. HalfShadow (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

The edit war for which this article was protected has since ceased, and consensus has been found on the article's talkpage. Can it please be unprotected so that we may get on with improving it? Thankyou. --God Save the South (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, before you remove the protection, I would like to see my query about Save the South's edits answered on the article talk page. Perhaps you could elicit a response from him. Baegis (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Were on the same side!

Just a little note about the whole Griffin & Scarborough content dispute between Kek15 and everybody else. Kek15 is a newbie who is showing potencial. I am completly neutral on the issue with that term and links being used in the articles. I was (and still am) only interested in the consensus. At the moment the consensus is that this term does break wikipedias policy. So i welcome the term not being included in the articles. I was concerned that users (not just you) were assuming bad faith on the part of Kek15, thats why i defended him. I hope we can now put this behind us, as i am meant to be on a wiki-break. I will still try and help mediate the issue, if it comes up again. But i want you to know; We are on the same side! The side of policy, consensus and, most importantly, Wikipedia! Cheers and have a nice day! :-) TheProf - T / C 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any user who decides that going the route of filing an "abuse" complaint against a long-standing and respected administrator at Administrators' Noticeboard instead of seeking consensus through discussion is a negative in my book. While the user may be new, the insertions of potentially libelous statements in violation of policy is always a concern -- and it's always best to play it safe by removing the said comment -- even if it may be so sourced with what is a rather disputed source. Consensus or not, if it is in violation of policy, then it needs to be removed. In addition, I can't find said consensus. seicer | talk | contribs 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want evidence that we are on the same side, you'll see that at User_talk:72.92.4.157 (Kek15's IP), I also tried to make him see the BLP violation. Until, what i saw as a consensus, seemed to favour him. Now its pretty clear that the term violates alot of wikipedia policy, and, as i stated above, is rightfully excluded from the articles. As for the AN report, it was more of a comment on Johns lack of willingness to join the discussion. If you'll check me and my contribs, you'll see im one of the good guys, like yourself! Thanks TheProf - T / C 14:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Seicer, TheProf - T / C 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Discussion

Hi. If you're not too busy at the time you get this message, can you chime in with your opinion on this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. I've dealt with these editors before (the "pro-science"/"anti-science" crowd) and it's never a pretty sight. I'll try to chime in later today seicer | talk | contribs 14:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

TheProf07 (talk · contribs)

Hi there. Can you please provide me with diffs demonstrating TheProf07 (talk · contribs) was involved in disruptive editing? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found enough. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[4] [5] If his last parting thoughts include vandalism... See WP:AN#John Reaves #2. seicer | talk | contribs 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Iit's probably not a good idea, generally speaking, to block someone you are in dispute with (although I did see what TheProf put on your userpage, it is not acceptable). He is requesting an unblock, he is retiring/scrambling his password. Instead of this all getting blown up way out of proportion, what do you think about an unblock? He blasted your userpage (twice I think, once for sure), but other than that, I don't see the "disruption". Am I missing it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine with me, but his continued tirades against various administrators is a little tiring and disruptive to say the least. Continuing to blast various editors or administrators for what he sees as infractions is disruptive, and I am not engaged in a dispute with TheProf. The only commentary I had, was in regards to administrator John Reaves (talk · contribs) at the thread at AN, so I don't see a real conflict of interest. seicer | talk | contribs 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryanborgz

I see you added the tag to his talk page, but he isn't blocked yet. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're not around any more right now, I've blocked him. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Doh, thanks for that. I feel incredibly stupid now. seicer | talk | contribs 14:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys - thanks for this. I'm so slammed with the Tribeca Film Festival I just haven't had the chance to do anything about it. But this user arguably has the worst history of contributions. The legal threat aside, he uploaded a photograph of "Teenage Pubic Hair" (which, you know, is illegal and can open the site if not to problems, at least to criticism), then argued I wanted to keep my own privates on Pubic hair (they aren't mine), and what few contributions that aren't self-obsessed ramblings about his own likes and dislikes, best friends, etc. that he has on his User page, his actual articlespace edits consist of things like paging blanking the Fart page and writing poorly written and misspelled stupidity. I encourage the blocking admin to not lift the block until the User's behavior improves beyond the legal threats. He's a classic case of "It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but not anyone should edit..." Frankly, this guy just doesn't belong here - look at his contributions. Thanks for the help. Dave --David Shankbone 14:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Turemetalfan

Hi there. I noticed you were the admin who blocked the above user indefinitely. You also identified and blocked the sock 98.224.211.86. Despite the blocks, the user is still editing on wikipedia through this sock, removing information (s)he disagrees with despite the presence of reliable sources as references. The user has also left some abusive comments on my talk page here, calling me a dickhead among other things. Just wondering whether you can do something about it. --Bardin (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That was fast. Thanks. --Bardin (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Darren Sukenik

You speedy deleted as "no notability except sales" but a persona can be a notable salesman. As notability in real estate sales was clearly asserted, it doesn't fit under speedy--please undelete and send to AfD. It just might hold there, but even if it does not, I think it makes a difference to follow the procedures and to interpret speedy narrowly and exactly.DGG (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A figure is not a major criteria for notability. A general query provides no tangible results, sans his own personal web-site which makes a rather outlandish claim that he is the "#1" in downtown sales. Many of the corresponding web-sites are either related to his web-site, or some derivative of, and a general news query (not on NewsBank) provides little to no contextual clues towards his notability. I did restore the page, and it's at AfD; procedure was followed per CSD, as no major notability was established (sales is a very, very weak case at best, and is a term that can be misleading). seicer | talk | contribs 00:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WV 235

Can you help me start a page about WV 235. I put information about the route but cannot seem to get the page right.Please Reply.--Jdlddw (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)jdlddw


User:BudgieMikeInAmerica

Dear Seicer please can you lift the ban for BudgieMikeInAmerica because this user is recent and made mistakes when editing EnglandRules1966 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. And if this is the only reason you are here, based upon your edit history... seicer | talk | contribs 18:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of Grsz11

Grsz11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contacted me by email and expressed a willingness to stay away from the Barack Obama-related articles he's been edit warring on for a few weeks (specifically Trinity United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy and William Ayers. (He actually said he'd be OK with a "topic ban", but I don't think we need anything that formal.) I've told him that if he says this on-wiki, and if you agree, I'd be willing to reduce his block to 31 hours. Grsz11 has been a good contributor in the past, and I just think he's let his political passions get a bit out of hand in this election season. Given his offer to stay away from these trigger articles, would you be OK with a reduction in his ban duration? I don't want to wheel war, so I won't do anything unless you agree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let me do it in a few minutes. It's a shame that he didn't contact me regarding the matter, or this issue would have been resolved much sooner. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually was thinking of 31 hours from the time of the initial block (that is, a block ending at 09:10 UTC May 1), and that's what I'd said to him in my email. But I suppose I wasn't clear above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I ended up canceling the remainder of the block, since its around 24 hours and reblocking again would be kind of moot. I don't think he'll be an issue if he keeps his word. seicer | talk | contribs 04:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the considerations...now what am I expected to avoid in return? Grsztalk 04:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember anymore. But please just be more careful to not edit war and it'll be fine :) I don't have any qualms about you editing regarding Obama/politics/Jeremiah Wright, but if there is a major sore issue, just take it to the talk page. I've watchlisted it for a while now and have monitored it for any disturbances, and can provide some relief if you let me know what's up. seicer | talk | contribs 05:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!! Grsztalk 05:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Situation on One Bid

I'm in the process of trying to defuse an edit war on One Bid. Since I'm not the most experienced in this sort of thing, feel free to kibitz and jump in if you think I'm doing it wrong. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm...., looks like you got yourself an edit war-er. I'll take a look at it tomorrow, but it seems that you did the right thing. There seems to be consensus not to merge the game into the main article, and that slamming the page with needless tags to try to gain consensus for a merge or possible delete is just petty trolling. (Not directed at TPIRFanSteve.) seicer | talk | contribs 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yay, another sock of Hdayejr. seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the block of the Hdayejr sock, I had filed a checkuser request but I guess it was obvious enough. As far as I can tell, he was also running some anon IPs yesterday, judging from the attacks on my page and TPIRFanSteve. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I knocked out his newest IP address and his older sets are no longer active. Let me know if any more pop up and I'll get em'. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this probably qualifies. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Hi Seicer,

I totally agree with your edits to Parapsychology, and thanks (: However, if I don't say something about your having edited the article while protected, I would be totally inconsistent when I complain about such page-protected edits in cases where I don't like them. I think in the interests of consistency and policy and fair play (and also making sure I've got grounds to complain when I don't like such edits), that you should probably revert until the page is unprotected. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for unlocking the article. Were there anymore items needing sourcing? --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

AE thread

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. Please note my closing comments. I am informing you because you posted in the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VIII (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

On rule for one anoher rule for another

What is going on with "keratoconus" some people are allowed to do anything they want to ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.120.240 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Thank you for monitoring recent changes and tagging inappropriate articles for deletion. I wanted to mention, though, that csd-a7 should not be used for schools such as Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Tennessee). Sometimes an article which does not assert notability very clearly can be cleaned up to the point where its subject is clearly notable. --Eastmain (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I should have noted the following: "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." seicer | talk | contribs 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.102.193.102

Hi, this is just to inform you that I have granted that IP's unblock request because the user that had been using it, Akhamenehpour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is not currently blocked. Feel free to revert me if I have somehow not grasped the situation. Sandstein (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter, Issue 4

Apologies for the late delivery; my internet connection went down halfway through the delivery process.

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 4 • 30 April 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A Simple Plan

Resolved

Why is the page being protected? The summary that was there was ALREADY approved by admin happy-melon after a lengthy battle. I can see NO reason whatsoever why the article is once again being completely trashed. Is it standard policy to throw out the results of a long dispute that was moderated by a fellow admin? Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Interstate 635 (Texas).svg and Image:Interstate 94 (Indiana).svg

About at least how much longer before those two image is finialize, becasue normally I see files get process no later than 12 days. Another 5 days at least. I understand when people cannot be on Wiki 24/7 becase it is not a true time job. Espcially some people is still undergraduates, and some people have tests and works.--Freewayguy (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't klnow, but any human-involved project is bound for delays. seicer | talk | contribs 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

hey

hi, i recently added a genre dispute section to the used page both Pwange8 and FatalError loved what i did with it and they both made some tweaks to improve it however there is a user SilverOrion that keeps deleteing half of the paragraph, im trying to aviod an edit war here so im bringing this to u since we delt with each other it the past, they are saying the bert said the band isnt scremo when the source we have listed says he doesnt want to be considered screamo, they are also removing that the band is still often considered scremo and about half of the paragraph that follows, out of the 3 or 4 users that have edited the paragraph so far they are the only one causing a problem that can lead to an edit war, the pararaph was created to avioid edit warring but when they keep removing so much info, its hard to kepp it that way, can you have talk to them and tell them not to change it to their liking because even the users that use to hate me agree with it the way that i made it. tahnx. USEDfan (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

also with the amount of info they are removing, i think it may be consider vandalism, so i told them on their talk page that i bough tthe conflict up with anadmin so we can try to strighten things out. USEDfan (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
nevermind, im working on it with another admin right now. USEDfan (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
SilverOrion is still being abit of a problem to me, anytime an edit is made that they dont like, they say its a sock puppet of mine when i only have this aoccunt. edits were made by pawnge8, nouse4aname, gb, and bill and since they didnt like them they said "looks like u got another sock puppet account" also if u look on their main page they say that they constantly edit bands genres and will get invloved in edit wars and not back down, other users such as nouse4aname, bill and pwange8 and also not liked some tings they did such as remvoing screamo from a lsit of used gernesc(as seen on the used talk page), we managed to work things out on how the paragraph shud be so thats fine but it really seems like this user is just on wiki to start up trouble (they admitted somewehre to not being a big used fan, yet they still war on the page of the band they dont care about) it doesnt make much sense other thne that they are a trouble maker. u can talk to pwange8 and nouse4aname because u delt with us 3 in the past and maybe they can give a little more support or proof of what im saying, overall any edit made that they dont agree with is what they say is a sock puppet of me (which is not and u no pwange8 and nouse4aname arent sockpuppets of me) so maybe u can give them a ban just to end this problem with their account. and if u look on their talk page they had disputes about 3 other bands genres and its prob gona be more to come. USEDfan (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please

Could you please redact your comment on Mccready's talk page? There's no need to rile him up more. Thanks for understanding. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

...and by replying to his trolling attempts is also riling him up. It's amusing to read at the least. seicer | talk | contribs 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Seicer.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron

Seicer: From your post on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Interference_by_involved_administrator, I assume your feeling is that Omegatron either did nothing wrong or nothing worthy of correcting or reversing? Is that right? And if so, why? I was under the impression that involved administrators were supposed to avoid taking sides. Greg L (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that has already been raised. There have been questionable actions from both sides, and as an uninvolved administrator, I simply closed it because escalating the matter will only further degrade the relations on both sides. Sometimes, it's better to forgive and forget rather than drag it through the mud. seicer | talk | contribs 03:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

98.224.211.86

Hi there. I've brought this user to your attention before. He is indefinitely blocked from editing on wikipedia but is still doing so through the use of a sock that cannot be indefinitely blocked because of a dynamically allocated IP address. You blocked the sock for a week but this block has since expired and the user has returned to direct more insults towards me, calling me "rude and mean," describing my views as "narrow minded" and telling me to "grow up." Granted, that is not as harsh as calling me a dick head as he did previously but still. All this on a talk page that he has not previously written anything on before the expiry of this latest block. He has not edited anything else since his return either. I'm just wondering whether there's anything that can be done about this borderline stalking. --Bardin (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep a watch but I don't see anything too incivil yet. seicer | talk | contribs 01:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you so much for this. He's been a real annoyance among the Reference Desk and most of Wikipedia alike.--Ouzo (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

...aaaaaaand now he's unblocked :( --Ouzo (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just to say I'm sorry if you think I warrant any sanction. I have replied to your comments on User talk:David Shankbone. Merkin's mum 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think DS needn't have been so intimidating. He doesn't know my life situation that makes privacy more vital to me. But I know he's liked here by some people, and anyway I shouldn't have been evil.:) Merkin's mum 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Used

We resolved the dispute, so I'm requesting the article to be un-protected. The only person that has not agreed with us is USEDfan, but I don't think it would be worth trying to convince him otherwise. The rest of us have reached a consensus, so if he attempts to change it again, we can consider it vandalism or whatever. Thank you! -- FatalError 18:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

USRD participants list

As discussed at WT:USRD, the participants list at WP:USRD is being split by state. Due to any of the following factors- your extended participation in WT:USRD discussions, your IRC participation, or your extended participation in Shields or Maps, I have guessed that you are a nationwide editor and have designated you as such in the USRD partiicpants table. This is part of the lengthy process. If this is in error, please let me know immediately. This is especially likely with this group as I have to guess whether you are a national or a state editor. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Come on Seicer, there was a consensus on attribution, everything was fine till SA started edit warring against that consensus. Why do we have to put up with the page protected in his version? This is not a legit dispute. This is just disruption by one editor. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just protecting it to prevent edit warring, and you know that the protected version is not an endorsement of one version over another. I'm not taking sides, but as you are aware, I previously inserted in the removed text per consensus. If you can find the link and post it on the talk page (I'm heading out for a while), I'd be happy to reinsert it. seicer | talk | contribs 21:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the version which is most recent and reflected the consensus on various talk pages was this. Since then significant edits were done [6]. Not sure what you'd want to do. The edits misrepresent the sources, as you can see from this edit of mine [7]. I know you're being a good admin. Just frusterated that's all. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll look at this tomorrow at work if I have time. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am adding this here due to it relates to this article, but I had been reading that article and also the talk page and it seems as if the user ScienceApologist has been causing disruption to the article and also he/she has been pushing their own POV for at least a couple months now if not longer. He/she seems to be only interested in reducing the article into what they see as a "pseudoscience." Now I'm no big wiki editor who can spout out all sorts of wiki rules and guidelines, but I know that his/her edits are being disruptive and something should be done to investigate/censor/block/whatever you, the admin's, believe is appropriate. Thank you. Brothejr (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Doctor Steel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Doctor Steel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Coolgamer (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?

I saw that you blocked user LADNAV .RM. I am a Wikipedia Administrator too. I see no fit reason for you to block this account. Please tell me your reason in a responce on the end of this section. In my opinion this user has made one edit that I do not see to be bad that is on your talk page. I just think they were joking around. I have not seen anyone show this user the welcome attachment and I do not believe they know the rules. Do tell me your reason for blocking this user. (Respond below) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.77.148 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, an IP address posing as an administrator. I have a good idea of who this is. Screw off. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply re:Request for eyes/policy proposal?

Hi there, it's Webfan29 I just wanted to let you know that I had left you a message reply at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding images. NOTE: the images i've uploaded on wikipedia are from my Canon PowerShot A560 camera and these images were taken by me during my trip to Cuba in January 2008. All other various images were either scanned from a book or found on the internet. Thank you. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webfan29 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't find any copyright vios. of the images at other sites, so they were not tagged as such. I would have informed earlier but had to step out all of a sudden this evening. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)