User talk:Seresin/Archive 22

Thanks!

 * Thanks and you're welcome. seresin ( ¡? )  01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4
If there is anything I can do to alleviate any concerns, please let me know. Have a pleasant evening/day. — BQZip01 — talk 01:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got it watched. If something comes up, I'll let you know. seresin ( ¡? )  02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

user page tweaks
Ok, more than tweaks. Per your note on my talk, I looked at your user page; I'm not sure what's gone wrong with the title-override; it's broken for me, too. If I sort that out, I'll be back. I did make a bunch of changes to the implementation; I got rid of the old-school font-elements and changes some of the positioning. The override of User:Seresin was interfering with the monobook tabs (not sure what skin you run). It still impinges on the lower bits of the tabs, but is workable now. I see the same issues on the talk page and the changes should be made here. If you like, I'll do it after you comment on bits so far.

You've obviously noticed I'm back ;) Did you see that I've as many edits on other projects as here? It's actually a great learning experience; one I highly recommend for a few others. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I noticed you're back! Thanks tons and bunches for the tweaks. I hate to be picky, but is it possible to make the overrides look like they did before? The new way is fine, I suppose, but I preferred the way it used to be. If not, no worries. Thanks again. seresin ( ¡? )  00:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The primary thing I was trying to do with the overrides up-top was to keep them from interfering with the top-row tabs. For example, in the version here on the talk page (untweaked), I can't use the 'User' tab as the override is covering it; not the visible characters, but the white-space around them, specifically the top. This could possibly be addressed by a top-margin of zero. The same sort of thing is happening with other tabs, too. A lot of this sort of user page stuff ends up being rather fragile and susceptible to problems due to change elsewhere, such as the global monobook.js. There are also the vagaries of different browsers; an allusion to MSIE sucking-balls. Anyway, I'll look again; comments welcome.
 * I'm glad to be back; I plan on staying — unlike some who are blithely groping for their exeunt.
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks. I figured that somebody must have changed a global file, because it broke and I didn't change anything. Whatever you feel like doing is appreciated. seresin ( ¡? )  07:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Avi2DVD
Hi Seresin! You wrote "Not a criterion" to my delete request to article Avi2DVD. Maybe my arguments were not really clear. I would try to explain my point of view: The application Avi2DVD is not more available on the linked page. On this link exist only other commercial software. At the moment this article like it is, is only a publicity platform for commercial purpose. Isn't it? And this is not the idea of Wikipedia, I think. If you want to leave this article in its place, then it should be re-written (remove commercial links and maybe describe in generally what means "avi2dvd"). Best regards (de:Benutzer:NikoK 94.137.159.239 (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC))
 * The article may indeed merit deletion; I made no decision to that effect. I only declined the speedy because there are very specific criteria to speedy delete an article, and I saw no pressing reason to delete it outside those. It might have met A7, but it seems to be software, which A7 explicitly says may not be speedily deleted (no clue why). So I don't see how it can be speedily deleted. If you wish to list it for PROD or AfD, and you're right about it, it will be deleted. Let me know if you need any help. seresin ( ¡? )  00:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

iCan Benefit Group Deletion
Hi there. After posting a brief article on this company, you deleted it citing "(A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)." In what way does the article fail to meet guidelines, specifically? The reason I posted the article was because the company is mentioned on Billy Mays Wikipedia page, but there was no link to click through and read about the company. I, along with other users on this site, prefer not to run into dead-ends when research something - the fact that it's referenced in another wiki, along with the fact that the company is endorsed by a celebrity, make it notable enough - to my thinking - to have at least a brief definition of who they are. Please let me know your thoughts, and if it will be possible to edit the article in some way to have it restored. I'm a rather inexperienced when it comes to providing/editing content on Wikipedia, and don't want to waste my time writing things that are speedily deleted, so your guidance is very much appreciated. Thank you! Sethdillon (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm a bit puzzled here. I've read hundreds of Wikipedia articles; generally, even if they're about a company or product, they are strictly informational and do not make any overt assertions about why they are notable. Can you please provide an example of such an assertion? Also, Billy Mays and his marketing tactics are quite controversial - there is a considerable amount of discussion on the web regarding his style and the products he promotes - a google blog search on his name reveals this. Furthermore, it is extremely rare for a tv personality like him to promote something like health insurance, when he typically promotes cheap products like super absorbent towels. Perhaps mention of this oddity, which has sparked significant discussion, would serve as an assertion of notability? Sethdillon (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Page Deletion
Hi! I was wondering if it was possible for you to help me recreate the page titled Bill Bannister. I have tried twice, to no avail, but I do have some links for references if that will help. Apparently, I am terrible at this. Thanks for you time!!! Angelteal20 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Either Way's RfC
Your claim of the page being "Improperly certified" is false. It had the two certifications necessary. I request you restore the page to it's previous condition. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 07:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The disputes certified were not the same (although they are similar), and there's no evidence of Download trying to resolve a dispute. An ANI post is not dispute resolution. Plus, the RfC was ridiculous. seresin ( ¡? )  07:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the deletion was ridiculous, not RfC. I suggest you think again. FMAFan1990 (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that is up to others to decide, not just one unassociated admin. Also, the ANI post...that was closed a couple days ago, hence why it was brought to RfC. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to guess you aren't going to kindly reconsider your unnecessary deletion of this RfC. So, I am going to take this to ANI as I feel you have jumped the gun and deleted a RfC that was properly certified.  If you plan on reconsidering, get back to me in next moment or two. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 08:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a disputed deletion, so it should probably go to WP:DRV. seresin ( ¡? )  08:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I took it to ANI instead. Please see here. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 08:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the RfC, since it is apparent that there was a viable discussion occurring. Any problem with the certifying may be discussed on the talkpage, and action taken where there is a consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that was unhelpful. The dispute, as presented by the RfC, has not had two people attempt to resolve it—one of the certifiers merely participated in an ANI, which is not dispute resolution. Besides, the RfC is ridiculous and sentiment is nearly unanimously in support of either way; there is no "viable discussion" to speak of. I wish you had waited to discuss this with me before overturning my deletion—there would have been no worthwhile discussion impeded by waiting and discussing as is normally expected. seresin ( ¡? )  18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that
— BQZip01 — talk 23:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

with...
...drawn FMAFan1990 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ACT is a "test" than a "exam"
ACT's original name was American College Test. So, it was a "test" than a "exam". I moved ACT (examination) to ACT (test). So do you undo it?--Zhangdeming (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't necessarily saying the move was improper. Only that I think it merits discussion before being done. ÷seresin 06:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Bot
If you are interested in rekindling this project I will gladly follow suite if we can find somebody who has the time to run the bot. The project of course was not only intended to start articles but was also intended to help clean up what we already have and standardise articles something I'm sure you'll agree is a good idea in principal..Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in re-kindling a bot that will create articles I don't believe should be here; I was opposed to the bot from the beginning. Standardizing and cleaning up articles is indeed desirable, but I don't see any details on the page, and I don't believe that's what the bot was approved by the poll to do. ÷seresin 17:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why you thought it was necessary to restore the page then? How does this help improve wikipedia exactly?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because its deletion deliberately obfuscated a project and history that has no need to be hidden from view. ÷seresin 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File deleting
Regarding your deletion summary for this, I'm just curious - is that kind of an image speedy-able? I have absolutely no experience with the File namespace, so I just used an FfD to ensure that it gets deleted. If I can speedy something bluntly unencyclopedic, which tag should I use? All of my deletion knowledge comes from the Article namespace. (I'm asking you because it was your deletion summary, which implies that you know the answer to the question.) &mdash; Ledgend  Gamer  03:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Stinky Peterson
I have nominated Stinky Peterson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Stinky Peterson&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Signpost
Are you available to contribute to this this week? If not I'll happily complete Features and Admins for you again. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthe garden  19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer. It looks, however, that my Sunday evening will be free, so I should be able to do them. ÷seresin 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Sersein. I have put in an offer to extend the "Bot" section of F&A; I will try to have it done before you start work on the rest of it (so if I say for this week's to be finished to my satisfaction by my 7pm, your midday on Sunday). It's a moot point really, as the best version will always be at User:Jarry1250/Signpost piece. Hopefully you will think it a useful addition, but I'm happy to leave the final cut to you. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you propose which bots are selected to be detailed in which manner? ÷seresin 19:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I acknowledge that there is an inherent bias here, but I honestly trust myself to pick the more controversial bots. It's normally quite obvious, and the through-put isn't that large to start with. If one made the number "highlighted" variable - maybe 3 or four on some weeks, then I don't think there would be many complaints. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, should be fine now if you want to use it. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)