User talk:Seresin/Archive 24

Antonin Scalia
How can you remove my changes, which did not remove anything of substance and which was accepted by consensus. Please restore my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.213.117 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Luis Ramirez
Could you please explain what is different between Marcelo Lucero (see also Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6) and Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala that despite their near-identical notability, circumstances, and sourcing available you decided to delete the latter? TAway (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't the same, and there were two different AfDs. The other one is irrelevant. This article was deleted because it violated WP:NOT and WP:BIO1E. ÷seresin 03:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You say they're not the same, but could you explain the main differences you see between the two? And if you feel it violated that policy (despite Marcelo Lucero somehow not violating it), couldn't it have been moved to Murder of Luis Ramirez rather than deleted? TAway (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus was that the other article shouldn't be deleted; that's the difference. Moving to Murder of Luis Ramirez could, perhaps, address the problems. ÷seresin 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If Murder of Luis Ramirez is an acceptable location (since no one is denying the prevalence of national-level sources across a substantial period of time), could you please make the move to that location? I cannot access deleted content. TAway (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Snipe Hunts
I think you miscounted Articles_for_deletion/List_of_snipe_hunts has 5 votes of keep or weak keep and 2 for delete. Nowimnthing (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree totally with that, particularly since your only comment was "The result was delete." Uh-uh.  Doesn't matter what your personal preference is.  A closing administrator has to be neutral... Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of people who supported one position or the other is largely irrelevant. The issue is the strength of the arguments. Those who argued for deletion had much stronger arguments—the list was entirely original research and it was an indiscriminate list. Those supported keeping didn't convincingly (or even adequately) refute them. ÷seresin 03:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think the number is irrelevant according to Deletion guidelines for administrators. Rough consensus is to be determined by the admin, opinions can be disregarded only if they are not made in good faith or if the article clearly violates policy. I think according to the discussion we can tell that it is not a clear violation of policy, so you would need to show why you think it is and according to Deletion guidelines for administrators then recuse yourself from the final decision since you are stating an opinion, not carrying out consensus. Nice and bold there is 4. When in doubt, don't delete. Nowimnthing (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep reading. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument... This applies. ÷seresin 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cabala (Led Zeppelin album)
Hi Seresin. One of the people who commented in this AfD that you closed, User:Artyline, was determined to likely be a sock puppet of a banned user. Just letting you know, in case you think that this warrants a relist of the AfD. Best, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. ÷seresin 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to view the deleted articles FlashTrek and Flashtrek
I would like to view the deleted articles FlashTrek and Flashtrek. However Flashtrek may be a copyright violation, see Articles for deletion/Flashtrek, so obviously, if it is I do not want to see it.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would e-mail them to you, but you do not seem to have e-mail enabled. I'm not sure about the copyvio status, but the content in Flashtrek seems like it could be. So I'd rather not post on-wiki. Do you have another suggestion, or a specific question about the content? ÷seresin 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have enabled e-mail now. I don't have a queston or suggestion, I just want to see the article.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've e-mailed you the last significant revisions of the two articles. ÷seresin 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have them. Flashtrek, apart from the lead section, and I am not saying the lead section not a copyright violation, is almost certainly at least in large part, a copyright violation. It was probably, at lest in large part, copied from http://www.webfossan.com/flashtrek/community/. The web page has chenged from the copied version to the point that you is couldn't tell it was copped from there unless you remembered the old version.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RfB questuions
Hello, Seresin. I warned Julian that there would be some grueling questions; I'm glad to see that I was not wrong. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My RfB
Hi. I'm under the impression that you're still not quite satisfied with my answers to your questions, so is there anything you'd like me to clarify? Cheers. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I was the nominator, and obviously I'm very happy that Dave passed, I would not have closed it as successful. I do believe, however, that the bureaucrat who made such a difficult and potentially controversial decision should be commended. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should he be commended? Doing so implies you approve of the closure. ÷seresin 01:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I approve of his closure; given the tough circumstances, I assume it must have taken significant thought and judgment to come to that decision, and I thank Rdsmith for making the call. I disagree with the end result, however. If that makes any sense, at least... I haven't slept properly in a few days. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

BK Transformers
Why was it deleted? How is it a derivative work? It was a close up shot of the cup and the placemat but also included some tile around the image, and was shot in perspective (albeit close-up), and their was lighting/shadow decisions made about the placement of the items... It should be no different than taking a picture of a statue or other copyrighted item. The image was not a full-on view, like a simple scan, but included two items and some surrounding background. Could it not be used then as fair-use? --Oaktree b (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It could not be used as FU, no. There is no justification for it. ÷seresin 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why thank you. ÷seresin 10:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories
The category existed last night. Philly jawn (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Image
No I didn't take that picture. It's a demo photo on Windows XP. P.S. I Rock Wikipedia! (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)DJ WikiBob

Why the vitriol?
Today I discovered two emphatic notes from you ripping me for three edits I made (actually two edits and one comment). They were not malicious, but your tone was. I have no intent to be a regular editor of any type. I simply corrected errors. If this is not something you want from knowledgeable people, I will respect your wishes and refrain from participating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.204.130 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the messages here? I only left one note, this one. There are only two article contributions by that IP (see here), neither of which were "simply correcting errors". My guess is that this is a shared IP; the person who used it before you made the edits to Anderson Cooper which resulted in the warnings. ÷seresin 04:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. When I came to Wikipedia I was notified I had new messages. As you suggested, they weren't for me (70.130.207.79). I signed all three of my edits. Appreciate your quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.204.130 (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)