User talk:Seresin/Archive 10

User:Ludvikus
I'm sorry, but I did not understand your technical question? Would you please explain? I'm the Wikipedian who has written that Disambiguation page which has been proposed for Deletion by User:Mikkalai. Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The page is being discussed at MfD; however, it is a page in the mainspace, and therefore should be at AfD. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. So can you fix the problem? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) I appreciate very much your diligence. Had you not intervened I would have been talking to the Wall.
 * (2) You realize of course that I was the author of the Disambig. page & that my Keep position ultimately prevailed.
 * (3) But I had no opportunity to participate in the Discussion, or in the Vote since I was never informed of the Page move.
 * (4) So there were 2 irregularities involved. Do with these facts as you please. But I hope it's useful for you to know that.
 * (5) Finally, be that as it may, I think you deserve a Barnstar for your Dicovery & Action.
 * (6) I will be back in a moment to award you my favorite Barnstar - which means Action to me (I hope you like it). By. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate that, I did not do anything. I merely noted that the page was in the wrong venue; the decision was not influenced by my comment. No need for a barnstar. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that was all it took - to say something!
 * Tireless Contributor Barnstar
 * Well, thanks then. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to the Vote/Decision (I didn't have a chance to Vote). But I think that the Page was moved because you asked the Question, and even without my vote, the Article was so important that others voted for the article. And I think your seeing the irregularity made the Page move to its right place - are you a magician too, besides an Administrator? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mykungfu
Sure--I have no interest in dispute either...I just couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on. Regards-  Ro Bo  Tam  ice 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand admin bias
It's happened again: an admin has placed semi-protection on Ayn Rand with the stated goal of silencing the "anonymous" contributors. This time, there's the added claim that one of the anons is a banned user, but not only is this is entirely unsupported by evidence and therefore most likely false, the protection affects ALL anons equally, even the ones known to be innocent, while sparing the signed-in users.

Frankly, I don't think any level of protection is necessary for the article at this time, but if it's going to be protected, let it be protected fully so that there's no bias. For that matter, there's no notice of protection posted in the article and I couldn't find anyplace where this admin announced his actions to other admins, as policy requires. I'm asking that you once again fix this problem. - Bert 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and for the record, one of the "anon" contributors signs with his full name and I sign with my first name, so we're both less anonymous than the vast majority of users who have accounts. I resent the second-class treatment that we receive. There are good reasons why I don't use an account. - Bert 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

Hagger...
Thanks for fixing - whatever it is I have no idea though. cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Eah. I seem to always be online when he hits. It's very odd. But thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And have thanks from me for your recent spate of reverts, deletes, and blocks of the same/copycat vandal. Dreaded Walrus t c 06:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All in an I-shouldn't-be-up-this-late night's work! Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Terima kasih (thank you in Bahasa Indonesia)
Hi, I'm back; I see you've got my back. Thanks much. Lar commented on AN that I use a bit of admin resources — and your move log is an example. While I regret this, a lot of that burden would exist somewhere; I just happen to have pissed someone off. Please consider yourself an associate mentor; i.e. I welcome your advice. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. I seem to have a history with reverting Grawp. I doubt he will be going away soon XD seresin ( ¡? ) 08:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * actually, you could be wrong about that last bit. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI
You are being mentioned on ANI in regards to your actions on Mykungfu.  m ir a nd  a   17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sith

 * What does FU stand for? Obi Maul12 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It stand for fair-use. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
They are reliable sources and I will continue to re-add the content. If it wasn't reliable it wouldn't appear in more than one place. Do a google search! 69.133.83.124 (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thanks
No problem, I just happened to see it on my watchlist. And thanks for blocking him after "vandalizing after final warning", saved me the trouble of going to WP:AIV. Just wondering, why was that link you gave me on some "secure" webpage?--Sunny910910 (talk 04:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had already warned him for another vandal edit, so I was watching. And because I use the secure server to edit. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between the secure server and the normal one?--Sunny910910 (talk 04:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's https instead of http, and supposed to be more secure. Supposedly. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well anyway, thanks. Have fun doing what you were doing before I interogated you *joke*.--Sunny910910 (talk 04:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. If you need anything else, let me know. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal you recently blocked
continues attacks on talk page. Perhaps protection for duration of block?  Enigma  message 04:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * my connection is so slow that by the time I got this in, it had already been protected.  Enigma  message 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well, thanks anyway. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Herbiesteven93
I'm sorry but why have you deleted the Catty the Cat article, I do not understand. I understand you don't see the importance but it is a TV show that seems interesting. I'd like for you to place Catty the Cat article back on Wikipedia because I do not see the reason for deletion. Herbiesteven93 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article failed to assert notability, which is a criterion for speedy deletion, which is why I deleted it. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

congrats
Congratulations on becoming an administrator. --Alien joe (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you need anything, let me know. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB question deluge
Hi Seresin. I was wondering why 7 questions are necessary in addition to the 16 the candidate has already answered for you to be able to reach a decision on Avraham's RfB. It increases the load by nearly 50% at a stroke. Surely in your experience of the candidate, their contributions and logs history, the other 16 questions, the lengthy statements etc., there is enough information for you to reach a useful decision. Much like the proliferation on RfAs of late, these look like fairly formulaic questions that aren't going to teach you much and that there is essentially no chance of the very-experienced candidate getting wrong. It just seems a bit like setting the price of your support at answers to 7 of your personal-favourite questions, in a kind of quid pro quo, rather than the broader picture. Splash - tk 13:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Renames
Hi Seresin. You'll be pleased to know that I'm dipping my toe(s) into the world of WP:CHU. I'm sorry if I've let the community down by not being the most active 'crat but at least I'm not classified as a genuine "inactive bureaucrat" at WP:BUREAUCRAT. Anyway, I hope to continue to fulfil my responsibilities to the best of my ability. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Again, I hope you did not take it as an attack on you. If you have any questions about renames, and WjB isn't around, I might be able to help, if you need it. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly userpage vandalism
Thanks for reverting that :). Seraphim&hearts; Whipp  17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock
I'd like this to go as smooth as possible and I'm really hoping that the admins would see their way to unblocking me, despite the suicide note (used to distract the stalker I had) and the sockpuppet claims (which are false). Who should I talk to? Vampire Warrior II (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably Wknight94, as he is the original blocking admin. I think he's online now. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend going the other way and blocking the as well.  Once someone here is forced to call the authorities on a person, they should, at the very least, be banned from Wikipedia forever.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

James E. Kings testicles
Your probably right. However, given that he was edit warring, and edit warring to include a rather insignificant piece of trivia to an article about a living person, to the point of violating BLP, I will reinstate his unblock request. However, I will not unblock him. You or any other admin may unblock him whenever they want. I will raise no objection. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 02:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You better add this
Sockpuppet tag to User talk:UniqueTamil. Thanks Roadrunnerz45  (talk 2 me) 07:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand II
I think that, if you look more closely, it turns out that this is not a case of one person reverting against consensus using multiple IP's.

Aside from one random, drive-by vandal, there are only three IP's in use, belong to two consistent "anon" editors. Two of those IP's are used by me, and I shift between them automatically depending on network load. I've made a point of signing my changes with my real first name and have never pretended that the two IP's represent two different people. If I could configure the network to use just one IP, I would, but I can't. The last IP belongs to a person who, while often participating in discussion, has not chosen to sign with a name or anything else, and has informally been called the night owl. Given this, banning us both would be easy. Of course, it would also be wrong.

You see, it's not at all clear that either of us are editing against consensus. We are, however, editing against the false, self-declared "consensus" of like-minded (read: rabid) fans of Rand, who are violating NPOV by removing well-supported criticism. In this, we are joined by J Reading, Lilith and others who have accounts, as well as by the now-banned Edward, who only recently gave up entirely on making this article accurate. The number of people on either side shifts with who chooses to participate during any given period of time, and I don't see that either side has even a plurality, much less a majority or a true consensus.

Therefore, the way to solve this is to either remove the protection on the article or step it up to full, so that the admins do not interfere with the consensus-building process by artificially silencing some members of one faction. - Bert 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The only people who agree to Bert's "consensus" are Bert and the other anon. While some of the editors (myself included) agree with some of Bert's points, we make our edits through consensus and not edit warring.  Bert and the other anon simply make the changes they want and ignore and/or dismiss any comments to the contrary.  Their request to remove protection on the article has also been denied.  I do believe that this dispute is ultimately a lapse of communication and that, as a new user, Bert may benefit from mentoring about how to properly edit Wikipedia. Idag (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a nice example of the temporary victor trying to rewrite history. In reality, people like Reading and Edward have worked hard to fix this article, yet many of their attempts get immediately reverted by you Randians, acting in concert to avoid 3RR.  Of course, when non-Randians revert, it's edit warring, but when Randians do it, it's enforcing consensus.  Nice double standard.
 * In your Orwellian world, "consensus" means nothing more than "what we Randians have managed to keep in OUR article despite the best efforts of more neutral people". That's why you're here right now, stalking me in an attempt to subvert my "unreasonable" attempt to have the one-sided protection of the article lifted so I can, of all things, regain the right to edit the article at all.  How transparent.  AGF is not a suicide pact. - Bert 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get involved in that dispute right now. If you feel you have a strong enough case for unprotection, then I suggest you make a request at WP:RFPP. If problems from many editors persist, then we can go from there. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to make a decision, even a wrong one, and take responsibility for that decision. This leaves open the possibility of eventually recognizing your error and fixing it. It's another thing entirely to hide your decision under the guise of neutrality. After all, once you've already gotten involved, getting uninvolved is just an endorsement of the status quo that you've created by your prior actions. So I'm not going to ask you to do the right thing; you've already refused. I'm just going on record to say that you're doing the wrong thing, and doing it the wrong way. I don't imagine you'll agree, much less that you'll learn anything from this. I just have a compulsion to at least state the truth so that it's out there for everyone else but you to see. - Bert 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)
 * To what "decision" are you referring? My refusal to use my administrator tools in this editing dispute? My involvement has exclusively been to remedy what I believed to be an incorrect protection. I have done nothing else with respect to the dispute, and acted only in an administrative capacity. Any effects of my actions are long since irrelevant &mdash; my protection has already expired, and the new one was made completely independent of me. There are over 1500 administrators, of which several hundred are active and can help you in this dispute. I have no desire to get involved in an editing dispute, or do any research into it, which would be needed for any further action on my part. Speak to the protecting admin (Rylong). seresin ( ¡? ) 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your decision was to correct the injustice caused by one-sided protection. After you fixed it, another admin broke it, but you don't want to "get involved" by fixing it again, even though you're already involved. I do not consider this admirable.

Ryulong is, to be frank, pilloried all over the blogs as among the worst of the worst admins in terms of abuse. Talking to this person would be worse than pointless. Then again, talking to you doesn't appear to be much more productive.

At this point, I've said what I have to say, so I'm done here. Until you grow a conscience, you won't hear from me again. - Bert 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Stolen name issue
Seresin, how long should I wait to hear about this before figuring that it has fallen through the cracks? Is this being discussed somewhere in bureaucrat-land? If so, and it's some place I can access, could you point me to it? I'm curious to see what the discussion looks like. Frankly, I've started to wonder whether I really want to change to this name. The whole idea was to become more anonymous (without losing my edits-equity), not to attract attention to myself, and although I don't have any enemies that I know of on WP, it's not out the the question that this was done deliberately to me, not randomly, as some kind of retaliation. Well, if the usurpation goes through, I'll take it, but.... anyway, I'd appreciate if you could answer me here, not on my own talk page. Thanks. Djiann (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's being discussed anywhere. The rename boards are chronically backlogged, so it can sometimes take a while for requests to be acted upon. If nobody comments there soon, I'll probably poke a bureaucrat for you. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Seresin.

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. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. I wanted to especially thank you for your sequence of detailed and thought-provoking questions that were of help to clarify both the issues and my opinions. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you didn't pass. I believe that in the future, there is a significant chance you will pass, since, in my mind, many of the opposes can be remedied easily. However, I think that that future might be a bit of a way off, since you did receive opposition because of the short time between your candidacies. I think that if you maintain your activity at RfA (and certainly not decrease; otherwise I believe any future RfBs will certainly fail) and start being active at the rename boards, you will be able to pass easily. The best way to "get involved" at the rename boards is to do some legwork for the bureaucrats. There is a guide here about what is usually good to point out. If you have any further questions, WjB is the most active renaming bureaucrat atm, and so can probably answer any questions. If he's not about, I can probably help. Anyway, the best of luck to you in any future requests. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

UVoD
Hi, I hate to bother you, but the other admin I asked hasnt been seen in over a month and youre the next familiar name on the list. Basically, I noticed a sign saying that you promise to provide a copy of a deleted article upon request. Well I'm here to ask for just that, if you would be so kind. The article is The Unspeakable Vault (of Doom), and I am not sure if I have ever edited it or not, but I remember reading some information in it that isn't anywhere else on the Web. The author of the webcomic has posted in his blog about the deletion of the page, but I dont think he realizes that it can be recovered by an admin. I also think the article deserves a shot at going live again, since the comic has grown beyond the Web and produced some hardcover books as well as other media (including even a film, apparently, though I dont know what the budget of it is), and is more notable now. But if we are going to do that we would have to have the latest version of the article before deletion since it would take a long time to get back to that state. Also, please note that I doubt that I would be the one to revive the article; I just want this information so I can email it to the author of the comic and let him decide what he wants to do. Please write back and let me know if everything is OK with my request. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I dont know if the software alerted you of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seresin/Admin <--- somebody wrote to you but chose to do it on the wrong page. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I'm not going to be the one to restore it myself since I'm not really much of a Lovecraft expert.  I'll ask the author of the strip what he wants to do.  <B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 07:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Julie-Su
It was 10 keeps against 8 merges, where is the result merge?<font color="#FF0000">Fair <font color="#FFA500">field <font color="#FF0000">fencer <font color="FF0000">F <font color="#FFA500">F <font color="#FF0000">F  08:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to block 211.21.238.26
Hi, I am requesting that user 211.21.238.26 be blocked for a period of ONE YEAR. This user has been repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia, with repeated warnings in April as well as several other warnings. Thanks. Prowikipedians (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars colour change proposal
There's been a few comments that the colours on the scoring charts for Dancing with the Stars are less than ideal for a number of reasons (colour differentiation, hurts the eyes, clashes etc) so I've put a proposal for a colour change up here. Obviously other suggestions are welcome, but I do think a change of some sort should be considered... and this seems like a good time (now that we're officially in between seasons and the articles are stable). As you've shown interest in the past, I thought I'd let you know. Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  10:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Benin talk page history
FYI. --Van helsing (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've restored the page history. seresin ( ¡? ) 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)