User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 4

mediabox is unique open source art work, not a product :)
mediabox is unique open source art work, not a product :)

Your Deletion Recommendation
Sorry, but you caused a big mess! (I am a frank person, sorry). Your initial remark at AFD Recommendation caused a problem!! Do you imagine having a Wiki article about Paul McCartney but not about John Lennon??? Hey!! What is this? How come that a user has deleted the article about Yehuda Zisapel while I clearly made notice that I am working on a total revision!!!?? Is it OK to have only half the story, Zohar Zisapel in Wikipedia? And what is that deletion decision anyway? Was it a democratic decision?? Are these knowledgeable persons? Don't you understand that even the article about Bill Gates could have been written poorly and commercially at the start??? THIS IS NO REASON TO DELETE THE NAME SPACE TOTALLY.

Please amend your actions. —comment added by John Hyams(t/c)


 * The reason I nominated this article for deletion was that he, unlike Zohar Zisapel, didn't seem to be mentioned in reliable third-party sources. Of course, if sources can be found, you can certainly request a deletion review. I am not an administrator and cannot reverse this even if I wished to, but if you feel the action was erroneous and can find some sources, you certainly may wish to file for review. Otherwise, perhaps best to leave his mention in the article about his brother? Per your other question, AfD is run per community consensus, and any editor is allowed to add their input to a discussion while it's in progress. Seraphimblade 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As an addendum to previous, civility is expected when dealing with other editors, even if you disagree strongly. Your message to User:Ixfd64 may be interpreted as a personal attack. Seraphimblade 21:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So where do I reply? Here or on your page? If here, then understand this my dear friend: User:Ixfd64 has not even bothered to reply, and personally offended a fellow user, me. This is no way to behave with people, making rash desicions, and not justifying any action after people invest so much of their time! Am I doing this for myself?? What are you talking about?   Regarding the deletion: I WAS IN THE PROCESS OF EDITING EVRYTHING!! Why was it deleted while I was working for resources and credible information!!!???!!!??? Why?? I was making it clear that I am CURRENTLY WORKING, so people come and slam my face??? ISN'T THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK??  This is outrageous, both you and Ixfd64 do not deserve your admin status!  Shame on you and your so-called civility, you have no idea how to be civil to other fellow users who try to contribute. —comment added by John Hyams(t/c)


 * If you'd prefer to have the discussion all in one place here, we can certainly do that. I do apologize if you took offense, please do understand that deletion requests are in no way meant to offend or intended as an attack. If you can source the article and establish notability, I would strongly encourage you to approach User:Ixfd64 a little more calmly and patiently, and explain that you now have sources and would like to recreate the article. Also (as I stated in my previous comment), I am not an administrator, so it is not possible for me to make or reverse such decisions. Nor, even, did User:Ixfd64 make the deletion decision-the community, as per their participation in the AfD decision, did so. If you feel this decision was in error, there are several options open to you, including contacting the deleting admin with an improved version you'd like to recreate, and deletion review. However, throughout any of these processes, calm and civility will be expected of you-and you'll find disagreements are much more easily resolved to much better outcomes if you keep your cool. It really does make the process, even of disagreements, much more pleasant for everyone-including you! Seraphimblade 00:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

i am contesting deletion recommendation for ivs alumni associationdue to the fact that this page is for the Indus Valley School's Alumni Association which is a registered organization with its own website at, the school itself is present on wikipedia, here, thus its alumni association should be represented as well.

--Ramizbaig 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for picking up on the Brine Pools article. I believe my only source was a Blue Planet episode on Disocery Channel. It was fasinating. I came to wiki to see if anyone had made a more detailed article, but found nothing, so I did a little work on Brine Lakes (needs more work too), Brine and Brine Pools to get the ball rolling. I'll keep an eye out for more resources and update when I can.Fcsuper 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick thanks
Hey mate, thanks for your advocacy on User:Shining Fountain's talk page regarding his personal attack. We share almost identical philosophies regarding the wikipedia and it's nice to know that a more experienced Wikipedian such as yourself is looking out for the attacks on the slightly more green deletionists :-)

 •E l om i s•     21:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My talk page
Thanks for reverting the edits on my talk page. Last night seems to have been an odd one. Regards, Mr Stephen 09:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reconsider vote for Dr.S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School
I would like to ask you to reconsider your creation of the AfD for Dr.S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School. With a little bit of research, it is clear that the school is indeed notable, and the additional information has been added to the article with material from the school's web site and several references from The Hindu, India's main national newspaper. With its management and operation by the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, the school has a unique science program that allows students to learn from India's top scientists, and to have heard from several recent Nobel Prize in Chemistry laureates. The school competes in, and has won, at the top levels of sport in the state. I strongly suggest that all those who previously voted to Delete should re-read the article and reconsider their vote. Alansohn 15:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

VandalSniper
Thanks for applying to use VandalSniper! You have been approved. If have not already done so, you may find instructions to install VS on the project page.

As some of the libraries VandalSniper runs on are currently in transition, there have been a few issues reported with setup. At the moment, Linux is the most compatible platform for VS. If you have questions or problems, you may find help on the project page or its talk page. Please also feel free to contact me for help and I will do my best to assist you.

Thanks for becoming a part of one of Wikipedia's best new software tools! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I have been very active in NP patrol and AfD recently, so I keep coming across you. I like your style, I really think you should be an administrator on here (if you're not already). Anyway take it easy Amists  talk •  contribs 13:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While were on the subject, what do I do with a hoax page like Cheate In Ewe where we both put db tags up and the page author instantly removes them? Thanks Amists  talk •  contribs 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Airbus A340
I just want the assessor to give reasons and suggestions as per text in the template itself. Do you not want that too? Paul Beardsell 03:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you avoid the issue. In your personal opinion would you not prefer an editor to provide a reason for his/her assessment and suggestions for improvement? It seems I would escape censure if I were to arbitrarily wander about placing unreasoned assessments on aircraft articles but I am criticised should I remove them. Paul Beardsell 03:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk page assessment
this user talk page is considered "below average" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psb777 (talk • contribs)

Music Box Tour
Please see the progress I'm making on Music Box Tour regarding your concerns about notability and sourcing, and please reconsider your posting it for deletion. Thank you! Wasted Time R 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Prayer
Thank you for your opinion. I disagree, but I disagree respectfully and understand your point of view. Biruitorul 05:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Three reasons: The other user was able to establish a precedent, the list is not that long as it is, and the overall article is short enough that adding the list did not disrupt the balance of the article. KazakhPol 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thank you for your comment on Talk:David Quinn (actor). Looking back at much of what I said, I realize that fellow editors could have interpreted my statements to mean that I did not approve of offline sources. Which is not what I meant to convey. Ce la vie. At times, life seems to be a continual process of learning greater and greater methods for expressing ourselves. TheRingess 07:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Saprotrophic nutrition
AAAAARGH! When you edited the article, i lost my edit which had all the references done down to the nth degree :-/ I'll redo them now. Hold thy horses. JCraw 13:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's okay. Luckily i copied and pasted. :-) Care to check out the article now? JCraw 13:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Weeping willows
Thanks for "forcing" me to motivate why Weeping Willows deserves an entry in Wikipedia - keep up the good job :) PER9000 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I B High
Thank you for reconstructing the page on Issac Bear Early College High School. Magikarp11 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Light on the hill
The Chifley Centre did not write the speech. Perhaps you can guide me here - the speech was delivered (and one presumes written) by Ben Chifley, who died 55 years ago. That means the copyright has expired - correct? Joestella 12:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ben Chifley has been dead for 55 years. He is credited with writing the text. He did so in Australia. This is not a copyright violation. Joestella 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion that this "seems very promotional" is beyond belief. It's a political speech. I am flabberagasted by the idea that an American could conclude that "Use of the term doesn't seem widespread enough to need its own article". I'm no supporter of the Australian Labor Party, and certainly no supporter of a socialist like Ben Chifley. But even I can acknowledge that the Light on the Hill ranks with the Tenterfield Address, the "Forgotten People" and "Well may we say God Save the Queen" as a key piece of our history. Since I doubt you have heard of any of this stuff, your AfD threat is rather like me nominating the Gettysburg Address for deletion on the basis that it could be merged with the Abraham Lincoln article and "seems very promotional" for the Republicans. Joestella 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I was unclear-while the tone of the article does not seeming promotional, having any user who searches for "Light on the Hill" directed to a certain political party would seem to convey the wrong message (much as having any user who searched for "The smartest people on the planet" directed to a certain party would seem a bit off, even if a leader from that party made a highly-notable speech containing those words).


 * It looks like in Australia, the copyright expired in 1999. As that's not an obvious copyvio, I'll remove the speedy template-though I still strongly suggest a move to "Light on the Hill Speech" or the like, or a merge to the party page. Seraphimblade 13:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As an addendum to last-the reason it doesn't appear to be in terribly wide use is due to Googling, not due to me "being an American" (which I in all truth resent a bit). If one googles for "Gettysburg address", results upon results are found referencing the Gettysburg Address-there can be no question the term is in wide use and recognized. On the other hand, "light on the hill" references the speech itself on a few pages, some churches, a South African political movement, and an Australian politics site. While obviously the term exists, there is not nearly so much indication it's in wide usage or well-known. This is why I questioned notability/widespread usage. Seraphimblade 13:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant no offence - I don't have a problem with Americans. But as an Australian-based graduate of political science, I would say that my understanding of Australian history probably exceeds that of yourself, or a Google results page. In future, your concerns are probably best communicated through talk pages (rather than just tagging for deletion) and in a less patronising tone (there's no need to welcome me to Wikipedia, I've been here a while). Joestella 14:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

copyrights
Thanks for the reply to me about that image, and yes, it would be good to find an appropriate licence, if the one ive set for it is currently appropriate, then i guess ill just leave it at that!

Removal of warning from User talk:Rebecca
I'm curious as to how an edit summary of " two critics views that happen to agree with your own still isn't an NPOV summary" (when I've expressed no views on the movie and in fact haven't even seen it) do not'' constitute an attack? Seraphimblade 03:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to on what grounds you think it does. Hesperian 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Effectively, Rebecca is making an accusation of POV and bad faith (attempting to put my own views on something), when what was inserted into the article was summarized, sourced, and, far from being POV, simply was a listing of the available sources. I suppose technically it isn't an attack per WP:NPA, but it certainly doesn't strike me as a very good way of handling things, nor as meeting assumption of good faith or being civil. Seraphimblade 03:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly Rebecca's edit summary implied that your edit was POV, but that is a comment about content not contributor. I don't see anything in her edit summary that accuses you of injecting your POV on purpose. Without the "on purpose" bit, its neither a personal attack, nor an accusation of bad faith. Hesperian 03:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do see your point and where you're coming from, and upon reviewing it doesn't seem to rise to the level of a personal attack. Still, I would assert there are much better ways in which that could have been said, and one could ask for a person's viewpoint rather than presuming it. Seraphimblade 03:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the section as it stands is that it is picking two critics about random and presenting it as the only view. Similarly, I could have added a critical response section last week and found two critics giving very positive reviews, and the section would be completely different. Neither of these would be NPOV. Critical response sections are really hard to do in an NPOV manner, but at the very least, they need to cite an array of different views - otherwise, it looks like the author just picked out a couple of critics they agreed with. Rebecca 03:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I stated on the talk page, those couple of reviews were really the only ones I could find that weren't on a blog or similarly less-then-reliable source. If you can find positive ones, by all means throw them in! As I stated before, I haven't even seen the movie, and could really care less about it-but critical reviews are very important to any film, and I think they certainly do deserve inclusion. As to those two, they did both really seem pretty balanced-the Movie Magazine one pointed out some flaws but overall said it was decent, Rotten Tomatoes didn't pan it too harshly but really did seem to be a reasonably good summation of what seems to be said about the movie. However, I still strongly encourage you to refrain from making accusations without evidence-I never even expressed a view on the movie, and in reality I've never even seen it! I can hardly attempt to put "my" view into something on which I don't have a view. Seraphimblade 03:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review
Seraphimblade, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your offer to help revise the article. I replied on my talk page and have listed sources at User:Dgray_xplane/XPLANE. Thanks in advance for your help.Dgray xplane 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say thank you for your help in revising the XPLANE article. You are restoring my faith in Wikipedia and instilling a desire for me to learn so I can help others too.Dgray xplane 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Shopping centers
In an Afd you said there was a centralized discussion about them. Where exactly: WP:CORP has a lot of discussions and it was not clear which one you referred to. Thanks. Edison 15:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ...
I was just looking for the correct stub - and you found it for me. Ta Kbthompson 11:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:PsyBNC}}}
Hello, Hm2k, and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created,, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. Seraphimblade 08:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please can you explain how my article promoted anything. I did not promote a company. I did not promote a product. I did not promote a service. I simply offered an explanation as to what psyBNC is, and its features.--Hm2k 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks
oh thanks for catching that. --Howrealisreal 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

AHS Forum
I did not realize that the practice of notability existed. I recently created my account and decided to create a page that could be identified with at my high school/town. I apologize for making an illegitimate page, and understand your decision to have it deleted.

--GiraldoAlves 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability guideline being developed for malls
You have commented AfDs for Shopping Malls regarding criteria for having an article. Please see WP:MALL where there is an ongoing attempt to create a guideline for which malls are deserving of articles. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks! Edison 06:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for voting in my RfA, I passed. I appreciate your input. Please keep an eye on me(if you want) to see if a screw up. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BENNIE K
Thank you for quickly editing some mistakes I made ^^ ShinjiPG 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Gender Blender issue
Sorry about deleting the maintenance tag -- I didn't know those weren't supposed to be deleted. But I do disagree with the tag -- the novel is pretty popular. Janet6 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks ;-) Janet6 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, Seraphimblade -- should the article be deleted, or what? Should we leave it there to increase notability, or for encyclopedic sake? Janet6 21:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy, Deletionist and Editor Review
Hello

This might be more appropriate for your editor review, but bear with me: Why do you label yourself a deletionist? I see now evidence of this - I myself rely primarily on WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS when I participate in AfDs, and this results in me being more inclusionist than the average AfD contributer (based on a statistical analysis of my arguments in the AfDs I've participated in) ~ I'm not sure how Only reliably sourced material makes you a deletionist. Usually editors who say If Britannica doesn't have an article on it, we have no business having an article on it or If it isn't verifiable in multiple university level textbooks, delete it are called deletionists. Is there some reason (beyond your manifesto) you consider yourself a deletionist? You argued keep at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_convicted_or_indicted_religious_leaders - something I have trouble picturing any tried and true deletionist doing. Lists are usually especially odious in the eyes of deletionists. WilyD 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your email
Sorry, wrong CMummert. I have never been in the state of Colorado, unfortunately, although I think it would be a nice place to visit someday. CMummert 02:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

John Adams
I regret to see that Rjensen is again proclaiming his own opinion the "consensus of historians". He has a habit of doing this; and every time I have checked, I have found his quotations are selective and incomplete; misrepresenting the historians he cites and ignoring the ones he does not cite. When caught out, he becomes abusive, as documented at Requests for comment/Rjensen (and its talk page). I think it is clear that there is in fact a POV conflict on the article, and I must agree that Strothra (sp?) has a point (perhaps not as much of one as he thinks he does). The article could be worse; but this, especially the intro, is the language of panegyric and inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Septentrionalis 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to clean up that article too; although I will encourage Strothra to do so. But I think the tag should be there, because there is a dispute. Septentrionalis 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Though the Rajkumar Kanagasingam was posted by me to the wikipedia originally but wrongly as a newbie (and still feel so), it was actually created by Wackymacs and subsequently shaped by others, , , and .

After they all have given notability for Rajkumar Kanagasingam only, I started to shape the Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

The Daily News of Sri Lanka is a Sri Lanka's National Newspaper since 1918 and the widest read newspaper in Sri Lanka and overseas.

Rajkumar Kanagasingam has published articles over the years and the following articles, , and are available online since 2002.

Though the articles have been written by the subject Rajkumar Kanagasingam, the facts he has mentioned in those articles might have well accepted by the populace without any complaint before he published the next article over the years and might have established some credibility within the Editorial circle as well.

I wonder why those articles can't be considered as Reference for Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

The Press Release in Daily News could speak for Rajkumar Kanagasingam's association with leading Sri Lankan and international personalities and adding notability for Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

The US State Department's Office of Weapons Removal and Abatements "Safe Passage" Newsletter carried a news on "Night of A Thousand Dinners" which was organised jointly by Asian-German Sports Exchange Program and PDIP, A Think Tank which was founded by Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

As the PDIP's Secretary-General, his activities in the available publications (on-line) will speak for his achievements.

All of his above attempts are substantial enough for a fair testimony for his notability among Sri Lankans and gives weight of his book German Memories in Asia which is about-to-be-released.

Ezine Articles may be "Vanity Press" but the contents in most of the articles by Rajkumar Kanagasingam are falling in the lines of well-researched and well-documented articles than those of mere Search Engine Optimization (SEO) ones.

After all his Ezine Articles are linking to his Book/Author Info. Page in AGSEP, which is an NGO and not to his personal or affiliated sites with ulterior motives of Ad Sense and click-gimmicks. As an author he is trying his fair attempt for his book without any hidden baits.

Some of the linkings might be Link Farms as I am a newbie of mere three months, but you should consider few of the internationally prominent people I have so far created and those have been left out in the wikipedia so far, especially Dr. Gamani Corea and others.

I have spent lot of my time to keep Dominic Jeeva from deletion with rest of my creations Arumaipperumal and Pandara Vannian which are not falling into the Link Farms.

The Internet is introduced after the mid nineties and still most of the news items are not falling into the web-world. By expecting reference for testing a person's notability with on-line reference materials might be some times misleading where the particular persons' references are mostly in off-line media archives.

Internet is mostly weighing a person's prominence based on the Internet availability in English and few other languages and not in all other world or local languages.

I don't have any objections if suitable and appropriate deleting Rajkumar Kanagasingam from wikipedia, but my kind expectation is at least wikipedia should attempt to have a survey among Sri Lankans through its available means whether Rajkumar Kanagasingam is prominent enough or not among Sri Lankans.

User:Rajsingam 2 December 2006

Re: Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Hallo! Thanks for your kind advice.

I noted your points carefully and like to brief myself for your kind concern.

As I stated already I never thought of entering into wikipedia but it happened its way.

That is the way I received a Peace Award in 1989 from Srichinmoy, the head of the Peace Meditations at the UN Headquarters, New York on his visit to Sri Lanka for my initiative on a Peace Mission around the world, but it never happened for various reasons.

But the Peace Award changed my world view and made me popular in the island by featuring in various media.

As the recipient of the award and my links with the UN Association of Sri Lanka, I involved in indirect politics and peace initiatives for a lasting solution in the Island.

Other than my above peace attempts I did my Business Administration and a graduate-level course on international affairs and started to lecture on Business Administration and Economics.

At times I combined my lecturing and UN Association links for various charitable purposes.

I founded the PDIP, A Think Tank and spent a lot my time, effort and my own money for various awareness programs on landmine and economic issues.

I did a marathon speech on "world economies" for nearly 20 hours in a day and that gave me a chance to be interviewed and featured in a weekly English newspaper and subsequently gave me a chance to be a Business Reporter for that newspaper for some time and to interview some of the top personalities in the island and overseas and eventually made me a columnist on various issues in the Sri Lanka's leading newspaper, Daily News.

I did a speech in India on "Re-building the Indian Economy beyond natural disasters" to raise fund for Gujarat earth quake victims in 2001 and gave me some popularity among Indians by featuring in the Indian media like "THE HINDU" and other.

My speeches on "Changing Role of the US Economy in the Year 2000 and beyond" and "Globalization and Future Role of the Sri Lanka Trade and Industry" are chaired by Dr. James W. Spain, a former US Ambassador for Sri Lanka and the UN and Dr. Gamani Corea, a former Secretary-General of UNCTAD gave some more prominence.

I did many things by some hidden urge which eventually made me popular among the LTTE and the Government circles and helped a lot in the tsunami time in coordinating things between the Government, LTTE and the NGOs on relief assistance towards the tsunami victims.

I have evidence for all what I did and said above in off-line media archives which are written by others and me and appeared in English and the local languages Sinhala and Tamil, but wonder how I could furnish to wikipedia.

Still I don't know whether I am eligible for the popularity which I gained but things works its way and made me to author the book "German Memories in Asia" which is well documented all what I did and said above and more about the world from the pre-historical times.

User:Rajsingam 2 December 2006

Curious behaviour
I'm quite new to wikipedia and I wanted to get your advice. I'm looking at a page you flagged with AFD where the author is flooding the edit history with non sensible, superfulous edits. Futher to that end, they are removing the AFD tag. Have you seen this conduct before and what can we do about it as wikipedia editors? Trinity college of biblical studies

Thanks for the reply on my discussion page. It seems that another user has come to support the article in voting against deletion. Is it correct that we need a consensus to delete it? Alan.ca 23:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion please
I appreciate the discussion we had on the Trinity College article. I am facing a lot of oppositiong to an afd and I was hoping I could get your opinion as I feel that my opposition is being unreasonable. this article's entry Alan.ca 04:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidance please?
May I have your opinion on the following AfDs?

I face a lot of opposition and I trust your opinion.Alan.ca 10:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sigma Alpha Mu

Articles for deletion/Barbara Biggs

3RR on Jews for Jesus
Hello Seraphim, I should notify you that you are in dangerof violating the WP:3RR. If you revert the article one more time you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware that I was also close, but you are as well. I think you will find that your change was so similar to previous changes that it would count as a revert.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean after we discussed it? I politely warned you about breaking the 3RR and then you attempted to gratuitously wikilawyer your way out of it and continued to revert two more times. You even had the gall to through it back in my face and warn me for "edit warring". I find it near-comical that you would now call me actions underhanded.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bots
Just wanted to suggest that you may wish to set your bot to mark its edits such as subst'ing templates as minor. This makes them much easier to skim past on the watchlist. (This can be accomplised in preferences by selecting "mark all edits as minor".) Seraphimblade 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I was positive I had it checked :-) — Mets501 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

kiwanja
I wonder if you might re-evaluate your assessment of this article.Helzagood 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR block
Hi. You have been blocked for 24 hrs due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Thx. El_C 07:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello-I'm hoping that you receive this message, I wonder if you could provide links to the edits you consider reverts? Thank you. Seraphimblade 07:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly. At 05:59, 10 December, you made your first revert (back to a revision entered in 00:31, 10 December) On 06:19, 10 December you made your second revert. On 12:43, 10 December you made your third revert (I'll get back to that 3rd revert). On 17:36, 10 December you made your fourth revert. Regarding the 3rd revert, removals always counts as a revert. So, technically, that's four reverts. May I ask what sort of internet connection you have and how it fairs Wikipedia-wise? El_C 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have cable, and it really does quite well, though sometimes the database slows down of course. Doesn't matter much the speed at my end when the servers are getting hammered! As to the third "revert", which you classify as a removal, I'd request you look at the next edit I made-this was a temporary step in moving the section, not a permanent removal of it. This had never been done before, and was an alternate solution to the issue-therefore, I do still assert it was no "revert". Thank you for your response-I would ask that you do examine again. Seraphimblade 08:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just wandering why you removed it first rather than simply moving it in a single edit, but you're right, that counts as a self revert. Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Sorry for the inconvinience. You are (or will be momentarily) unblocked. El_C 08:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well, for taking time to review. :) Seraphimblade 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor review
Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Editor review/, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor review
Thanks for having requested an editor review. A month has passed since it has been posted there, and it has been archived. You can find it at Editor review/, where you may read last minute additions. We would really appreciate your help in reviewing a random editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA Nomination
I would like to nominate you for an RfA, are you interested? Alan.ca 12:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss this on your talk page. Alan.ca 00:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 Alan.ca would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Alan.ca to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.


 * Your nomination is accepted, with my gratitude. Seraphimblade 01:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey sorry if my block tainted your RfA. It was subsequently suspended as I stated I would not converse with those who were angering me.  Alan.ca 07:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be sorry a bit. If you'd like me to have a look over the situation and give some input, I'd be happy to. Other than that-one hopes that those !voting in an RfA would be looking at the candidate, not unrelated circumstances. Seraphimblade 07:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote you an email, thanks for the understanding. I would prefer to discuss it off wikipedia as I had proposed to not discuss it here for 72 hours when I requested the unblock. Alan.ca 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions about articles
Hi, I'd like to know if I am able to add any keywords into articles, so it will be easier to find when people are searching. Dennylin93 04:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA comment
Hello! I saw your response to my position and I would like to say thank you! Your opinions are your own and I wouldn't expect anyone to blindly jump up and do whatever I say! An RfA is a learning experience for everyone, subject and community as a whole, and I hope that you get lots of useful and constructive criticism for your Wiki-career, whichever way the opinion flows this time. Doing any of the things that I have suggested will assist the project greatly - and so will a lot of other tasks, many of which I am not even aware and this place is so vast! Whatever - stay positive, edit constructively and have a happy Christmas and a good New Year! Best wishes, (aeropagitica) 01:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the same to you, thanks! Seraphimblade 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman
This issue is discussed in his article and is not as clear cut as you might think. Rmhermen 04:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
It is my regretful task to inform you that I have closed your request for adminship early as unlikely to achieve consensus. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay  ( Talk )  11:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry that your hard work didn't pay off this time, but I am sure that with your dedicated attitude you won't have a problem running again in three months-or-so. Keep up the valuable contributions! Regards, (aeropagitica) 11:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I create a redirect?
Hi. I want to create a redirect for Taipei_Nangang_Exhibition_Center. It has an abbreviation called "TaipeiEx". Dennylin93 11:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thank you anyway. I found information here: Redirect. Dennylin93 11:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Hey sorry about that buddy, well I honestly think that you are doing a great job. But you just need some more experience, keep up the good work and maybe next year I will nominate you. &mdash; Arjun  14:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just keep up what you're doing. My objection was that your tenure here was so short that it was unlikely that you'd delved enough into policies and guidelines to be able to enforce them. With time, you'll run into more funky situations, and will learn more about the policies. Everything else you're doing is fine. Try again in ~six months. Cheers! | Mr. Darcy talk 16:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that the block that was in discussion was placed in error. I read Samir's comments about the block and I agree with Samir that you dealt with the issue in a classy way. Then, I read that there was discussion of another block (which I saw was subsequently noted in the discussion in your RfA). The fact that there was another block-- made me think there was something to this and it tainted you in my eyes-- so, I left my comment as is. I did consider changing my comment-- shortly after I made it... before any one else had commented--to reflect this. In hindsight, the reason I gave wasn't a completely fair justification--and for this I offer an apology.  That said, I stand by my judgment-- I think it was right, even if the given reason wasn't completely right for the conclusion I had drawn.


 * Looking forward, if you acknowledge the blocks I don't think they can bite you. Also, should something like this happen again-- i.e. a block close to a RfA, it is much better to bring this to the RfA than someone else bringing it up.  Further, I think it better to write an addendum to the nomination/questions (if you want to comment on something)-- than enter the fray in the support/oppose/neutral section.  An addendum is probably more visible.  Also, I think it is more respectful of those voting; in some sense, if the person up for RfA comments in the support/oppose/neutral section it is like a politician campaigning at the election booth (a no-no in most places). All things considered, I think you have a good chance at becoming an admin-- if you run again in the future and steer clear of any problems. Nephron  T|C 17:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey there, sorry your RfA didn't succeed. I think others have given you some pretty good advice: just keep going and get a little more experience (as I just keep making my way around this place, I keep learning new stuff about it which will help me), and you'll likely be successful in the future. Heimstern Läufer 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Hi there; I think it is only fair to point out that you are seeking advice from someone whose RfA in November failed to achieve consensus!!

But to answer your question as well as I can: what contributors look for is:-

1. Absence of any significant edit conflicts in the recent past.

2. Absolutely no suggestion or threat of being blocked at least within say six months.

3. A good and steady level of contribution to mainspace.

4. A good and well-spread contribution to Namespace.

5. Good answers to the questions, indicating a good understanding of Wiki policy.

And I must say that in my view you pretty much achieved that last time. Being nominsated by an editor who then got blocked was clearly not your fault, and I paid no attention to it, but clearly a number of editors did.

I would suggest that you wait three months - applying before will tend to gather oppose votes on the basis thay not enough time has elapsed - and try again. You could actually ask for views from oppose voters - most of us are reasonably friendly even in that situation.

If you need nominating in March let me know; I could probably do it unless anything silly happens.--Anthony.bradbury 23:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A summary of my block
Hi, you may want to check out the summary statement I have written regarding my block. I'd appreciate your comments by e-mail on the subject.User_talk:Alan.ca/block Thanks. Alan.ca 08:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Anton Balasingham
Hi, Can you do few editing on "Funeral in London" to make more NPOV.

Rajsingam 26 Dec. 2006

Quixtar's Bomb
Hello. I note you changed the POV edits re Quixtar's bomb. The same changes were made to the Quixtar article. I'd appreciate it if you could correct this on that article also. An admin is not letting me edit the Quixtar article because, as you know I am an Amway rep in Europe, and Amway is of course owned by the same company as Quixtar. cheers, --Insider201283 00:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

failed rfa
sadly, it looks like your well-intentioned work at jews for jesus ruined your chances. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.14.102 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Hi,

I kindly request here Jimmy Wales, Administrators and other senior editors to verify the good faith of the User:Nv8200p for placing AfD tag than "This article needs expansion" just two days after my controversial discussion for my community in the discussion page of Anton Balasingham. Rajsingam 11:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade

References (off-line media archives) on Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Rajsingam 16:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Seraphimblade: Do you own wikipedia?
Good day “deletionist” (is this a word), you deleted my stub on Patricio Manns, one of the most important living artists in Chile today. By the way Chile is in South America (and I don’t mean the state of Texas!). Do you know who Patricio Manns is? I placed this stub almost at the same time that you started to add tags to it. I thought this was rather rude – a kind of vandalism. Before I could place a comment on the talk section of the page you had already deleted my contribution to wikipedia – I thought this was also vandalism.

The reason you gave for deleting my stub was “vandalism” for removing a tag “without making the required changes”. I was in the process of making the required changes but when I submitted them you had already deleted the page. All this was in a matter of minutes. This is a very serious problem because I thought this wikipedia encyclopedia was something a bit more serious: a kind of genuine attempt to create a source of valuable information from different parts of the World. You don’t come across as being part of a community of people who respect knowledge or those who contribute their time and research to it. Characters like you lead me to believe that this is not the case. There is either something profoundly wrong with you and your conception of knowledge or there is a weakness in the whole wikipedia concept.

My question is: Do you own wikipeida? Is it your private enterprise? If it is not – and the philosophy behind it leads me to believe that it is not – what you should do is open your mind to the World of culture. You should learn that the world of culture is more than Britney Spears, Stephen King or Hollywood (or is it Bollywood)! Go for it ! Don’t be afraid, there is a whole world out there to be discovered! - Чисто Золото 18:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)