User talk:Seraphimblade

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

• Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.

• If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond, it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
• If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
• If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email.
• If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
• While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
• I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.

Hello Seraphimblade: I'd like to move beyond the Arbitration Enforcement and wondered if to begin with, would you reconsider your judgement on my case? Thanks for considering my suggestion.(olive (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

@Littleolive oil:: I would consider what you have to say, but I would need to know what you're requesting I change it to and why. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy off Wiki so its taken a while to get back to you. Apologies for the delay. I also wanted to give myself space and time to look at this AE again. Even with time, I still don't see reason for or understand a discretionary sanction, although I feel I made a couple of comments that indicated frustration. You did mention tendentious editing, but I walked away form every thread leaving the discussions even when I knew to do so would leave wrong content in an article. I'm afraid I don't know what "I didn't hear". If your comment was about the deletion of sourced content, the standard was set for all editors on the TM articles (below) when I moved one source and content to the talk page because I initially didn't see that the content was supported in the source.

From Will Beback:

Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational."

Deletions like this are disruptive and harmful to the content. Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement. Will Beback talk 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is not the standard, I have no problem with that, but the standard has to be consistent for all editors. Maybe this is something the arbs should clarify.

At any rate, I wonder if you would consider taking another look at this AE, and lifting the sanction.Thanks for your consideration.(olive (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ultimately, the ArbCom can't make policy, only enforce it. Only the community can make policy. The Arbs make their "principles" section to clarify their understanding of how policy stands at the time of the case and which policies are relevant to the case, but not to actually set it. That being said, being properly sourced is a necessary but not sufficient condition for material to be included in an article. Material must also be relevant, neutral, and given proper weight, for a few other requirements. In this case, the removal was not "peremptory", but was instead clearly based upon objections for reasons other than being unreferenced, and the removing editor was willing to provide those reasons. To then continue to focus on the material being referenced, rather than directly address the objections that were actually raised to it, is a type of I didn't hear that. Does that make things a bit clearer? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reply, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you clarify what you are referring to here,"To then continue to focus on the material being referenced, rather than directly address the objections that were actually raised to it, ...(olive (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Let me give you a more general overview of the problems. As to your specific question, note that the ArbCom principle refers to peremptory removal of sourced material, which would generally indicate that the removing editor is unwilling to discuss the removal either beforehand or upon request. It is not an edict that "Thou shalt never remove a line having a source", which seems to be the attempt at use here: [1]. In this case, two editors above had clearly indicated why they believed removal justified, and that had nothing to do with the material being unreferenced. I'm not saying they were right, mind you, only that they had articulated a reason unrelated to the material having or not having references. At that point, if you disagree with their decision, the correct way forward would be to engage that objection directly, rather than referring to an arbitration principle that's at that point largely irrelevant. If you think they made the wrong call, just address their argument and directly state why you don't agree with it. What you're doing there raises significant concern of refusing to acknowledge what's actually said.

This also goes back to the concerns of casting aspersions. Here are some examples of what I mean by that:

• Here was a veiled reference to BLP violations and also a reference to another editor as "unconscionable" by you ([2]). Accusation of a BLP violation is serious, and I took a careful look at this article and its edits to check for them during the enforcement case upon seeing that, but could not find any. I noticed that as far as I can see, this was never brought to the BLP noticeboard, or in any other way was the BLP violation you claimed to see addressed. This is concerning, as one would hope if you really did believe a BLP violation to be occurring, you would have at least asked for some more eyes on it. If you knew it wasn't a BLP violation but threw that out there anyway, you were accusing another editor of a serious policy violation without cause.
• Here, you accuse IRWolfie of "threatening" when he made this edit [3]. There's no threat there. IRWolfie explains the reasoning behind why an edit was reverted quite calmly, as part of the normal BRD process, and offers to solicit more input if the other editor does not agree with that reasoning. The veiled threat is actually yours ("You are skating on the thinnest of ice.") [4].
• Here, in the midst of a discussion with IRWolfie, where IRWolfie has clearly laid out the reasoning behind his editing, you claim that IRWolfie is refusing to discuss the matter: [5]. That is probably the best example of "I didn't hear you" that I could give here, but it's certainly a clear example of it.

When I reviewed what IRWolfie presented at the AE request, I saw a clear pattern where you would refuse to engage or even acknowledge what was actually said, and instead would respond by slinging an accusation of wrongdoing or a veiled threat of sanctions. This is not appropriate conduct or conducive to a calm discussion of what article content should be. I hope the examples clarify what the problems are? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 

• While I don't agree with the way in which you have characterized those talk page discussions, I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. Meantime, I will consider my other options. Thank you.(olive (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

 

Hello Serephimblade: I understand that you recently deleted this page due to article is inappropriate and useless, and may contain significant copyvio. But from my understanding, people already came in and deleted most of the violation areas. And I really did not see the content being useless, there is third party references as well as book references. Moreover, people are suggesting to keep the page just improve the content. I am just wondering if it is possible to take it back and work on the content, add a warning on top of the page asking people to help with the content instead of deleting the whole thing. Please let me know, thank you very much. 2A00:FE00:BFFE:2201:0:0:0:200 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having been stubbified at AfD does not prohibit editing of the article—indeed, the idea is to do so when the consensus at AfD is that a subject may be appropriate for an article, but the article there is essentially unsalvageable. While my job in closing an AfD is to interpret the consensus of the discussion rather than going based upon my own call, I did go and take a look back at previous versions when you made your request. What I see there is junk and marketese, pretty clearly written by those who have a connection with the company or are paid by them. (See the previous "Market Position" and "Ecosystem" headings, themselves marketese buzzwords and filled with glossy brochure material, for one example.) At this point, better to start over. I hope the AfD will raise its profile enough to get some neutral editors involved and drive off the paid ones, but at this point there was just nothing salvageable in that text. The old references might be used to write an appropriate article, though, and the history is intact for anyone wanting to go back and view them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your quick respond and explanation. I understand what you are saying and I do agree the previous content is really bad full of marketese. Is there any way we can call some neutral editors to help the page? As a encyclopedia， and when everyone agree there is no notability issue here, we really should have more than one sentence here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.56.68.216 (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to look for more editors, you could try putting in a request at the WikiProject for databases. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you shine some light about how to put a request in that page? I went there and I am so confused about what I should do to put a request. Should I put it under New articles? Should I talk to the participants? And I am not really sure this is the right place since I glance through the Categories and assessment and I did not see anything familiar. thank you thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.145.89.204 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, noticing you already have a section about SAP HANA, I will not start a new section then. First of all, thank you for editing my service pack part away from the SAP HANA page. But relax, I am not here to argue about reposting my section. In the end, I am really just starting to contribute to Wikipedia and not an expert to it. I just would like to know what is necessary for a database page to have. You see, the reason I started adding those lines was only because Oracle database has a section called version numbering and that seems ok without causing any concerns. Also you can see IBM DB2 has such section introducing their editions, Microsoft SQL Server has a chart on the right with the name: SQL Server Release History. What would be the best way to approach this if I want to contribute more? Should I start writing on my talk page and ask an editor to go over it? or something like that?VaStanley (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With Oracle, especially, it's a bit different, since each release version of Oracle gets a huge ton of material in reliable sources. I would presume the same might be true for the others, but I don't follow them as closely since I mainly work with Oracle at this point. So, what I would focus on, is: Is each revision something that occasioned significant mention in reliable and unaffiliated sources? If so, what's actually better than a changelog is a prose version of what those sources had to say about those versions, i.e., which improvements in each version they focused on as significant, and whether the consensus of those sources is that they were successful, buggy, unnecessary, or whatever else they had to say about them. If the version changes weren't significant enough to occasion much mention, then they're probably not really significant enough to mention individually in the article.

With this article in particular, do excuse me if I'm a bit reactive. That whole thing was a glossy brochure when I closed the deletion discussion on it, and while there was no consensus to delete it, something definitely needed to be done. I've been keeping an eye on it to make sure it doesn't turn right back into the same. If you're looking to improve coverage of databases in general, it's something we could very well do with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make sure that this article get deleted? It have no references for almost 8 years, and it have only one external link. I'm more then sure that this article is a G11 violation.--Mishae (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've tagged them as such, and they'll get checked (I see one already has been deleted, and one is awaiting evaluation). When you speedy tag an article, they go into a queue that admins go through to evaluate. You don't have to directly let someone know, we'll see it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I letting you know in case if you will be one of the admins to review it (although I don't know if you are).--Mishae (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I read Sandstein's most recent comment to that page, prior to yours, I don't think it's the case that he sees the appeal as non-actionable. He remarks "we can process it as an appeal." Perhaps you did not read that the same way, but I think a close based on standing, etc. would at least have opposition, though it may represent a majority opinion. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that the first step before taking an editor to a noticeboard is to have a discussion with them. Just because you dislike somebody does not give you a free pass to skip that step. It is also wrong to accuse people without evidence. Your ban proposal is thin on diffs, and heavy on rhetoric. Would you please stop and have a think about this before proceeding? Jehochman ^Talk 01:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was already discussed with them in several venues, see the diffs I provided for exactly where that happened. They indicated clearly there that they have that position and do not intend to change it. The requirement is that discussion be had with them, not that I personally start another one when they've made it clear their position won't change. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't address your second point. I guess I'm not sure how it's "thin on evidence" when it contains several references to the editor in question's own words, explicitly stating they'll treat one of our guidelines with disregard and contempt. I provided diffs to those statements. Having made those statements, and presumably engaging in the behavior they clearly admit to, is exactly the problematic behavior I'm seeking resolution for. What else exactly do you want? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is a guideline, much disputed, not a policy. You cannot ban someone for COI alone. It may be considered an aggravating factor if they are violating content policies. You provided no evidence whatsoever that any content policy was violated. You provided no evidence of sock puppetry either. Jehochman ^Talk 12:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, unilaterally, can't ban anyone at all. I can block them on my own authority in clear cases, like repeat vandalism or clear sockpuppetry, but that's not a ban. However, I can bring disruptive behavior to the attention of the wider community. If there is community consensus that this behavior is unacceptable and a ban is warranted, the community as a whole most certainly does have the authority to do that, for any reason whatsoever. And "guideline" doesn't mean "ignore it at will", it means "You should be doing this in almost all cases." If someone announced that they, for example, intended to ignore the notability guideline and create a bunch of inappropriate articles, they may be blocked or banned as a preventative measure, because they've stated they intend to disregard that guideline and act in a way we've stated is inappropriate. If this editor thinks the guideline is wrong, they have every right to visit VPP or the COI talk page and argue in favor of changing or removing it. They don't get to just unilaterally ignore it, though, that's point making. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin Seraphimblade, I have been uploading this image on the title 2-3 times

each time it gets nominated for deletion based on false Copyright issues by this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerevanci

I kept telling him this is my own work and do not delete it, he keeps deleting it.. then I noticed he is Armenian which led me to believe he has bias on this topic due to history.

here is my proof of raw image, that image is mine, please do not keep deleting it.. http://orhunyazitlari.appspot.com/media/tonyukuk5.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tonyukuk_Monument_in_Old_Turkic_Alphabet.jpg

turkiclang (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you issue notifications for AA2 for both User:Urməvi and User:HistoryofIran. Their edit-warring has now spilled over to a second article.[6][7] --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and definitely needed. Thanks for bringing it up, hopefully that will settle things down. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would User:Bilge88[8][9] appear to be a sockpuppet of User:Ismet11 to you? Or am I hearing quacking noises because the Baltimore Ravens could not beat the lousy Green Bay Packers? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this IP[10], is also Ismet11. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Sandstein referred you to WP:SPI, and would echo that. I don't really have time to check on it personally, but someone there will. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd seen this as I was took action on the article itself. I do believe that changing an article to a redirect and not merging any of the content is side-stepping our AfD process. See my comments at Talk:Islamophobic incidents. And if it does end up as a merge, which it might well, and no content is merged, what do you think the next step should be, if any? Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do a merge, so long as the history stays intact, which in cases of redirection it does. Unless someone objects to merging the material, I'd say just go ahead and merge whatever you think is appropriate to the redirect target. The intact history allows for the attribution requirement to be fulfilled. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks. The editor who proposed it has been blocked indefinitely now. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to this [11], i have to try to discuss it with him on his talk page, but i don't really see there is anything to discuss. I already tried to explain it to him on the history page that he had no sources for it, but then he suddenly began saying things that didn't even made sense (Azerbaijanis are not persians!).

Do you think i should try again but this time on his talk page? i don't think i will get any answer from him but i could try. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk page would generally be best, but you can drop a note on his user talk to let him know you're interested in discussing it there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will try, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having just been reverted by Urməvi (talk · contribs) when I tried to make sure an article showed both sides of an issue, I noticed your editing restriction. I see a number of reverts since then and no talk page discussion. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the October blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 07:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 16:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just letting you know this matter is now being discussed at Wikipedia:AN#Ban_Appeal_of_AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've appealed the Littleolive oil AE here[12](olive (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]