User talk:Sean William/May 2007

IRC cloak request
I am Sean_William/PullToOpen on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/sean-william. Thanks. --Sean William 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

7th Muslim Brigade
Maybe you don't realise that semi-protection would force the anonymous user to discuss his problems with article (he so far refuses). Or if he decided he has nothing substantial to say, he will go away. I've only been here short time, and I can see than for Wikipedia openess=anarchy (mostly). What is gained by letting one anonymous user rip up the version of an article several users accepted, without discussion or justifying himself even?--Methodius 16:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why I didn't semi-protect the article is because it would only block the IPs from editing, and not established users. If pages are protected in a content dispute, the page must be completely protected from editing so that all parties must discuss on the talk page. As I said before, if an edit war erupts, ask for full protection and begin discussion. Of course, it would be much easier to begin discussion now, but as you said, the IP doesn't seem to want to engage in discussion. Sean William 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "it would only block the IPs" - it is dispute between one IP and several registered users. All except one IP are wanting to discuss. So only the one IP needs "coercion" to discuss, everyone else is already ready for discussion, so there is no purpose to "coerce" them also. So I do not see point of what you say. All is needed is blocking IPs from editing for week or two. Either he will discuss or he will go away.--Methodius 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look at the protection policy. We don't semi-protect pages for content disputes that have to do with IPs with the intention of locking them out. Sean William 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I hope he decides to discuss then.--Methodius 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can you please protect page? Same person is now harrasing me, putting sockpuppet template on my page again and again, insinuating Serbian newspapers are not reliable because they are Serbian, and making a mess of articles. You can see contributions.--Methodius 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have completely protected the page, and semi-protected your user page. Sean William 18:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

AndyZ already Desyssoped
Just so you know AndyZ was desysopped over at meta by Drini at 1:37 UTC. That's about 15 minutes ago. --24.44.158.33 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're sorting it out on various IRC channels. Sean William 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Certified.Gangsta
Please see this -. The editor did not violate his parole on just one article. He did it on several articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have commented on that thread. Thanks for letting me know. Sean William 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your message concerning Certified.Gangsta
All my edits are motivated by upholding Wikipedia policy and enriching the project. I don't know why on earth you think I am baiting Certified.Gangsta. Baiting requires a degree of intention, which I do not possess at all. Frankly, he does not need any baiting to get himself blocked every second day.

I assure you that baiting Certified.Gangsta was not in my mind and was no part of my intention. If you block me for my good faith edits, believe you me I will appeal it to the highest level to vindicate my good intentions.

I am surprised and shocked by your failure to assume good faith on my part. That has in no small measure influenced my reaction to your message and the tone of this message. If any part of this offends you, I apologise. Nevertheless, I feel I must express my indignation with an appropriate reaction. --Sumple (Talk) 00:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In making unprovoked edits to Certified.Gangsta's userspace, you're encouraging him to edit war, violate his parole, and get blocked. Pending the ArbCom's clarification, I won't be blocking Certified.Gangsta for userspace violations. However, you're making him violate the spirit of the sanction. I remember the discussion about spoofed new messages bars, and I'm pretty sure consensus was NOT achieved. Sean William 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your continued failure to assumed good faith appals me. Your imputation of User:LionheartX's behaviour and intentions to me shocks me.
 * Please clarify your accusation. Are you accusing me of baiting on the basis of your perception of my intentions? On what basis do you make that conclusion? I ask because I see none.
 * Your argument seems to be that, because Certified.Gangsta is subject to a revert parole, I am somehow restrained from reverting him under the threat of blocking.
 * If your argument stood, that would place me on a revert parole with respect to any page edited by Certified.Gangsta.
 * That makes no sense to me. ArbCom imposed a sanction on him, not on me. If somehow a sanction on Certified.Gangsta requires me to stop good faith editing, then there is something seriously wrong with then ArbCom procedures.
 * I am editing in the same way I have always done, and I will always continue to do so. I refused to be restrained by some kind of secondary constraint on me resulting from an ArbCom case in which I was not a party and my behaviour was not impugned by the Arbitration Committee. A fortiori the Arbitration Committee did not at any point say that other users are to stop reverting Certified.Gangsta's bad edits.
 * In this particular case, may I remind you that it was not "unprovoked". Certified.Gangsta added a UI spoofing banner to his user page, which, on my interpretation and on the interpretation of many users now and in the past, is against community consensus. --Sumple (Talk) 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (here is the straw poll, from which you derived "consensus": )Okay. I don't think we're on the same page here. The reason I mentioned LionheartX was because I was showing that Certified.Gangsta has been baited before. If you were really "good faith editing" to Certified.Gangsta's userpage, then I will excuse myself from this issue and not deal with him again. I'm sorry, but sometimes you've just got to call a spade a spade. Please, don't revert his userpage again. As long as you leave him alone, I'll leave you alone. Sean William 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite being a dick
Cheers sean for your words, but I just had a tantrum and acted like a dick - had a stressfull day at work, next time I'll stay off the laptop when I'm in a bad mood! Thanks again -  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Everybody has days like that every so often :). Cheers, Sean William 01:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia IRC channels
Hi Sean William. The reason I am here is to ask you about Wikipedia IRC Channels. I usually hear the words "Wikipedia IRC channels" by diffent wikipedians. In my opinion, Wiki IRC Channel is similar to Wikimedia, or Wikimedia commons. Is it right? I hope you can understand my questions, respond in my talk page. Daniel   5127  02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For starters, how much do you know about IRC? Sean William 02:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just like chatting rooms for wikipedians to discuss the many problems in Wikipedia. Daniel    5127  02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you know it's a chat medium. Wikipedia chat (generally referred to as #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en, but it consists of many different channels) is a place where Wikipedians can chat about Wikipedia. However, as conversations are wont to do, they sometimes get off topic. So, a better definition of "Wikipedia IRC" is "a place where Wikipedians can just let their hair down and chat casually with their peers". A few of the channels are used for coordination (#wikipedia-en-admins, #wikipedia-en-spam, etc.), but most are just social channels. To connect to an IRC channel, you need an IRC client (A good article comparing the clients is Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients). My personal favorite is Chatzilla, which is pretty simple and easy to use. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me. Sean William 03:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

hey there
Hi

I stumbled across this page somehow - this, and I was just wondering...what does Mazal tov mean?

Apologies if this seems a little random, I like learning new things and somehow I couldn't understand the phrase, so I thought I'd annoy you for a little while :)

Regards, xC | ☎  14:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mazal tov tells you all you want to know. In this context, I meant it to mean "congratulations". Sean William 15:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why didn't I search on WP?? (Big dent in forehead where I'm hitting myself) Thanks for telling me! Regards, xC | ☎  04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Feel free to ask me any question you may have, and I'll see what I know! Cheers, Sean William 04:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Abdominal thrusts and choking
Hi there, as a member of the first aid project, i would value your opinion. I strongly believe that abdominal thrusts does not need it's own article, and should be redirected to choking, where we can have one coherent article on the subject. I think this should be the case because:
 * Abdominal thrusts are only used for choking, and therefore logically sit in that article
 * With how-tos removed from abdominal thrusts, the article is very short, verging on being a stub
 * It avoids people looking either term up having to flick between pages to find the information they require
 * It follows the logic of some other similar changes on the project such as the creation of Emergency bleeding control from the stubs of tourniquet, pressure point etc.
 * It provides a single place of reference on Wikipedia for the information, rather than two 'competing' pages who repeat a lot of the same information

I would very much appreciate any input you might have to support or oppose my view (hey, i'm not right all the time) on the talk page Talk:Abdominal thrusts

Thanks for your time, Owain.davies 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the discussion. Sorry it took me so long; I've been rather busy today. Sean William 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated. Owain.davies 07:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you again, and i know you commented, but i'm having a few issues with another user reverting the edit, without very much reasoned basis - if you are able to help, the talk page is still at Talk:Abdominal thrusts. Thanks Owain.davies 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not me
I'm sorry for my brother vandalism he thinks it wasn't but it was so I'm deeply sorry for that Arnon Chaffin Got a message? 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

haha sorry person

HIM (band)
It appears to be consensus with the relevant editors that the genre should be Alternative Rock, could you change this as the page is protected? ≈  Maurauth  ( 09F9 ) 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! :)
Yes, dear sean - we've managed to turn a potential vandal into a newbie Wikipedian! :) Happy day indeed! Love you, and I hope you're doing great,  P h a e d r i e l  - 23:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Good luck in helping that person become a constructive contributor. Cheers, Sean William 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Too quick!
You're just too quick - good work protecting the User talk:Boogiedowndj page! Just wondering, shouldn't the special protected template be added to the page? The one stating that the page is protected to prevent disruption from the blocked user? :)

ChrischTalk 14:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: User talk:Boogiedowndj. When you protect talkpages to stop abuse by blocked editors, could you set an expiry time for the protection? In pratice a few days is usually fine. The other week I had to go through unprotecting nearly a hundred old talkpage protections, some of which had been protected since early 2006. It save maintenace work later if the pages are indefinitely protected... Thanks, WjBscribe 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't know that. I'll go ahead and change it, if you haven't done so already. Sean William 14:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"no, he's indefblocked. No need to add a template."
Why? --Iamunknown 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Billy Ego was banned by the arbitration committee for one year. That ban was eventually extended to indefinite. The only way that Billy Ego will be unbanned is by a direct appeal to the ArbCom, which can only be done by e-mail. The only thing on the talk page right now is a notice of the ArbCom's decision, showing why this guy was blocked (the main userpage says it too). pp-usertalk says "This template page has been protected from editing to prevent (name) from using it to make disruptive edits or continuing to abuse the unblock template." Billy Ego is banned, and isn't allowed to edit. Period. There isn't any policy that I can cite to defend myself. I just think that adding protection templates on indefprotected pages of banned users is superfluous at best. Cheers, Sean William 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There also is not a policy one can cite to defend their use of a myriad of other such templates, but we tend to them anyways.  It would certainly be useful for categorization and, in my mind, would do no harm, but if you are unwilling to transclude the template, I, as a registered account, can do nothing more.  Thank you for your time, Iamunknown 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Sean William 21:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Hi Sean. I would like to ask you to protect 7th Muslim Brigade article again, because there are few users which do not want to accept sourced information. They don't want to discuss, they just make funny of me and keep reverting. They are deleting the previous version without reasonable explanation. For instance, I provided all reliable sources per WP:RS (courte decisions), and they just keep repeating as robots:

'' User:Nikola Smolenski:Even this International Courte's whitewashing doesn't show what you say: no effective control, but they were still formally a part of it. The "cause of Arab arival" being mass rapes and death camps is hopelesly out of touch with reality: no such things happened.''

They are just denying the facts proven by international courtes. Thanks in advance. 85.158.34.219 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. If problems persist, bring up the issue at WP:ANI. Sean William 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Sean!
Dear Sean, thanks so much for your wonderful gift and your kind words! :) I always find it very hard to find the words to thank beautiful gestures like this one you've gifted me; I prefer to enjoy the happiness that you give me without more ado. So just let me tell you, it's my pleasure to work alongside you, and I'm so happy our paths have crossed. Here's to a long and warm friendship, dear Sean! Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

HIM
It looks like another edit war could be starting on HIM (band) over whether all the listed genres from the debated part of the article should be put into the infobox or just a concise umbrella genre. ≈  Maurauth  ( nemesis ) 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked each of the IPs for 24 hours for breaching 3RR. I'll keep an eye on the page to make sure the discussion stay civil after the blocks expire. Thanks for letting me know. Sean William 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My Talkpage
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage. DXRAW 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Feel free to drop me a line if you need anything. Sean William 22:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple E. Wikipedia
Hi, Sean. I am wondering if I can copy Wikipedia-en articles and modify them on simpler words on simple-en? I will respond here. Real96 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we allow (and encourage) doing that. Cheers, Sean William 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Real96 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm...
How is this an appropriate use of rollback? Seriously. A re-read of WP:ADMIN might be in order. Mi kk er (...) 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's userpage can say whatever he wants it to say. Period. Sean William 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal
Why did you remove the listing for 64.140.181.126 from the AIAV page without blocking the villain? --Janus Shadowsong |  contribs  17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They haven't vandalized since January. We only block vandals who are active now. Blocks are to be preventative, not punative. Sean William 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I gave you the wrong page!  (Too much cutting and pasting.)  The vandal in question is  64.140.181.126.  He was given a level 3 warning yesterday, and vandalized the same page today, which is when I reported him.  And it does not appear to be a shared IP.  --Janus Shadowsong  |  contribs  17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, no wonder :). That IP's last warning was on May 22, and was only a level 3 warning. The IP vandalized twice today, but stopped about an hour and a half ago. As I said above, we try to block vandals only who are currently active and vandalizing. Cheers, Sean William 17:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

being a dick
thanks for the advice. excuse the error: the "nonsense" was not intended as an insult. This site is not as elegant as advertised. Organisations are required to collaborate with errors before attacking them. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfd101 (talk • contribs)
 * No matter what happens, you can't vandalize other people's user pages. Sean William 21:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User Talk:Wendel67
He still appears to be in editing difficulties. MelicansMatkin 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I responded. I have the page watchlisted for replies. Sean William 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Please don't remove filed requests for arbitration, even if you think they're daft. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I won't be doing that again. Sean William 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man
Thanks for helping out at the incidents regarding User:Roswalt44. Deletion Quality 17:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you need anything else during your time here, please don't hesitate to ask me. Sean William 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for fixing up my checkuser request. I appreciate it. --Yamla 19:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Cheers, Sean William 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi Sean. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. Max S em 21:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Sean William 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh?
Yes, yes it was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, no it's not worth a revert war. BLP trumps process. Sean William 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And there were no BLP issues. You really gotta get on the ball.  Between petitioning for unjustified blocks and a complete lack of understanding of wiki policy, you're not doing well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither are you. Sean William 00:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, i'm sorry. Have I petitioned for unjustified blocks and showed a lack of understanding of wiki policy? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've shown a lack of common sense. Are you here to debate the closures, or to complain about your block? Sean William 00:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense is not common. I'm here for both, actually.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've read the logs. I did not petition for your block. Don't make it sound like I did. Sean William 00:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Want me to quote you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Any quote you can give me would be taken out of context. Such is the nature of IRC. I know what my intentions were on that day. I shared those intentions with you shortly after the incident. We've been perfectly open with you. Is this what I get for apologizing? Assumptions of bad-faith cabalism, compounded with conspiracy theories? You're a nice person when you want to be, Jeff. We're just on opposite sides of a debate. One side's taking it personally, while the other side isn't. And because I'm on the opposite side of a debate, you immediately assume that I dislike you and and want you blocked just for proposing an opposing viewpoint? Sean William 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for nicely expanding the stub article I started, Goss v. Lopez! Do you work in Supreme Court :-)? WooyiTalk to me? 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, but Supreme Court case law is one of my hobbies. Cheers, Sean William 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And so it begins. Sean William @ 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for the privilege. But please, fix Recent additions page. Previous entries are repeated there, intead of the new ones being added on top. -- Poeticbent   talk   19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how that page works, as this is my first time updating DYK. I only did so because it was behind schedule. I'm going to leave that one to the regulars. Cheers, Sean William @ 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it. -- Poeticbent   talk   20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, congratulations on doing your first update. I trust it was not too painful? Assuming that the next update is ready to go, the process should be simply (!): check the articles are OK, protect the image, copy the update to the main page template and save a second copy to the archive, update the time template, and post the notification templates on the relevant talk pages. Always good to have someone else who can take a turn, if need be. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll help out where I can. Cheers, Sean William @ 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

On Timeline of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq
You deleted the article based on WP:SYN. However, that states:
 * Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

As I clearly pointed out, a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Your invocation of the "original synthesis" argument is therefore invalid.

Am I incorrect?

Furthermore, I fail to see that a consensus had been reached on the article. --User At Work 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I deleted this article based on the AFD. If you disagree with my closure, take it to WP:DRV. Sean William @ 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)