User talk:Seresin/Archive 27

Sounds in the signpost
In the last signpost, the titles for the sounds were pretty much the nomination title, and in a couple cases this was confusing, for instance "Quami Tarana Instrumental 2" where the "2" is meaningless as a way to identify the sound.

If it helps, I pretty much do all the grunt work for featured sounds. We used to notify OhanaUnited when he was doing it with a pre-formatted list, as part of the closing instructions. Would that help? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 209 FCs served 11:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally just use whatever the nomination says just above the play button. If there is a better title, then having that in the closing notes would be nice. ÷seresin 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Im gunna go ahead an nominate it. Tim1357 (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. ÷seresin 02:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

iCan Benefit, iCan Group and MDLiveCare
In May, you deleted iCan Benefit Group. These article have the same creator and don't appear to have or assert notability, but I read a discussion you had with the author in which you expressed the opinion that a mention in this Businessweek article would likely be enough to avoid a speedy deletion. Do you still have that opinion? I've become aware of this through his persistent addition of a iCan Benefit wikilink in the Billy Mays article, which I have been watching to discourage the opportunistic advertisement that occured just after his death. I'm thinking of taking it to AFD, perhaps along with Health Care Credit Union Association. Do you think that is a reasonable approach? I'll watch this page for your response. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That Businessweek article, if drawn to my attention, would make me wary of speedy deleting a relevant article. Not because it grants any particular notability, but because someone would probably complain. Taking to AfD is fine, and they will probably be deleted there. My only advice would be not to list them together; AfD is filled with process wonks and multi-noms have a tendency to fail regardless of merit. ÷seresin 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Is it OK to put the four noms in at the same time, or would it be better to space them apart? Celestra (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay is such a tricky word on Wikipedia. There is no rule against nominating four separate but related articles at the same time, if that is what you are asking. That's all I will say without inking the air. Sorry if that wasn't very helpful. ÷seresin 02:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Say no more." You've been very helpful, thanks again. Celestra (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me?
I apologized for that like two posts later, in fact in the same hour probably. The person I was talking to was even ruder and you come across my one post that I had already apologized for and warn me? That is arrogant and unneeded. Perhaps you should read the entire thread and the harrassment, uncivil, taunting, and misleading information bandied about me by the people on the other side. Perhaps you should tone down your warning on me and it is being deleted from my talk page. Perhaps next time you will not worry about things that happened days ago and start reading things in context. Please dont respond to this on my talk page, it is my right to decide I dont want a conversation with you and to request you dont post to it.Camelbinky (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Arbitration
You are involved (mentioned in my reply to Rjanag) in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for terming you an "involved party" (my 2nd over-add, then, in addition to the admin who closed theAN/I). I've never been at arb before, and have had difficulty determining who is considered "involved."  See .  I as you see only added reference to you because -- in replying to Rjanag's suggestion that his misconduct was limited to me -- I saw that similar problems had arisen with you this month, and wanted to reflect that his alleged misconduct was greater than that relating to the already-indicated AfD (which was what he was suggesting).  Again, apologies if listing you as an involved party was over-zealous; to be safe I added anyone mentioned in the arb request as discussing his behavioral issues with him.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. ÷seresin 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

MIT-Faculty undo
re 03:11, 26 October 2009 Seresin m (116,480 bytes) (The other is better phrasing.)

But compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College#Academics_and_administration

"Dartmouth employs a total of 597 … faculty members, including the highest proportion of female tenured professors…."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown_University#Faculty

"As of 2008, Georgetown University employs approximately [1,957] faculty members…. The faculty … are predominantly male by a two-to-one margin."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Wesleyan_University#Profile

"The faculty is 37% female and 63% male."

And see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FA-Class_Universities_articles "Dartmouth College … Georgetown University … Ohio Wesleyan University …"

Am recommending you undo the 03:11 edit and then delete my "(including 359 assistant and associate professors)" or delete only my "359".

J.K.Herms (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC) than ", of whom 198 are women." I saw this edit (the 3:06 edit) before you made the second edit (3:10). Because of how I made the change, both edits were reversed. The :10 edit seems to be good, and so you can re-insert it (or I will, whichever). But if you prefer the :06 content, I take issue. ÷seresin 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you recommending I restore the content of this edit or this one? My intent was to revert the former, because I do not think "; 19.6 percent are female." is better phrasing