User talk:Seraphimblade

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please do be nice.

Please read before posting!

I don't always post a full rationale for everything I do, since doing this would take an inordinate amount of time. I do always have one, though, and will be happy to tell you why I did anything if you ask.

PLEASE READ HERE FIRST before asking deletion-related questions.

If you haven't posted a comment already, please put it under a new section at the bottom of the page using markup:

==Section header==
Your comment ~~~~

or click here.

If you have, please post it under the section you started. Responses will be made on your talk page unless you request otherwise.

This page will be archived regularly, generally by an automated process, but that doesn't mean I consider the discussion closed if you have more to say. If your old comments are archived please start a new section on this page for further comment. Please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~.

If I contacted you on your talk page, I'll keep it on watch. Please feel free to reply either there or on this page, whichever's easier for you.

Please refrain from personal attacks. Personal attacks made against me made on this page will be left on it, but this in no way indicates that I approve of them or will not report them if they are severe or continuous. Personal attacks against other editors will be removed or reverted.

Deletion of Legal Week

I'm writing to request further details about the deletion of the Legal Week page. I note you quoted A7 and G11 as the reasons for the removal of this page, yet other comparable articles such as The Lawyer and The Law Society Gazette still exist. What was the particular problem with the Legal Week page that set it apart from these other two articles? I'm totally new to Wikipedia and hoping to learn. Thanks. --Solicitor1 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many articles don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a article exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist. The article failed notability and both WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. We've gone over the WP:COI and other issues. you yourself said I'd rather not have the page in Wikipedia at all if the COI template is permanent [1].--Hu12 12:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - I came across the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rule after I made the above post. But thanks for confirming that for me. My crash course in Wikipedia law continues. I appreciate I am 100% guilty of the COI charge, and as I'm sure you've seen me write already, I promise never to post anything to do with Legal Week again. But as for the other charges that relate to the validity of the page, I feel the 'blatant advertising' charge is a little harsh. I think it's naive to assume that all the other contributors creating pages are in no way affiliated to the subject they are editing. I just gave myself away with my ridiculous former username(!) and the link-adding (which, incidentally, wasn't done by me, rather a colleague who no longer has access to the page after the username change). I still stand by my claim that nothing I wrote was overt 'sales-speak' (unless you want to identify something in particular for me?). As for the non-notability charge: Legal Week magazine has a circulation of over 30,000; is read by all the major commercial law firms around the world; has broken stories that have been referenced in the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, The Telegraph and the Financial Times (among others); and legalweek.com features regular blogs from many of the top names in the world of law, including member of the UK Parliament Jonathan Djanogly, and Fiona Woolf, President of the Law Society of England and Wales. Apologies if this does all sound a bit 'salesy', but I'm just trying to counter the charge of non-notability! --Solicitor1 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Seraphimblade is busy in real life for the moment, let me jump in here. Addressing just the notability issue...a good case could be made, as you just did, for notability. The problem is that the article didn't make that case. Generally, reputable publications that qualify as reliable secondary sources for articles are themselves generally considered notable. The fact that other pubs pick up stories from Legal Week, if that can be demonstrated by refs, is a valid argument. I can't speak for Seraphimblade, and I don't want to appear to be countermanding him, but I can see a case for an article being built in someone's sandbox, as long as that editor doing the writing wasn't involved in COI. I might even be willing to do it, if I can find some time. As far as the COI thing goes, it's something that takes a fair amount of self-discipline to toe the line with. I myself have to be careful, for instance, not to edit Air Methods, since that's my employer. Instead, two other editors were willing to pick up the torch and run with it. This needs to be the case here, Solicitor1. There's nothing wrong with you working with another editor, as long as he's the one writing the article, and your involvement is limited to commentary on factual matters, and providing source refs. Having said that, if you can provide refs for LW articles being used in other publications, and would like to dump them on one of my sandboxes (see my user page), have at it. We'll see what we can come up with. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(And of course when Akradecki kindly helps me out, I get an edit conflict with him, isn't that how it goes? Thanks in any case though. :) )Alright, I think an article might be possible here. The big question is: Has any reliable source which isn't directly affiliated with Legal Week written about it? If so, we can certainly create such an article, using that as verification. As to "Wikipedia law", there isn't really such a thing-we just write down what tends to happen in practice. As to a COI template, those are usually removed if an established editor looks over the article and decides it's not problematic (or reworks anything that is), no templates are intended to stay on an article forever. They're just there to call attention to needed maintenance and tasks, we remove them once those are done. If you can direct me to some source material, I can certainly help to evaluate it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"those are usually removed if an established editor looks over the article and decides it's not problematic (or reworks anything that is)," ... which is what *I* did just before the deletion. I didn't use my normal user name, because I ran into COI issues on articles that I had written. I decided to help others who had run into the same problems. I would use my normal user id, except that I feel that everything I do is suspect. With most admins, once someone is tainted they are presumed guilty and evil and there seems to be no way to remove the taint. I chose this article because one overzelous new admin with questionable judgement is the same one who dinged both of us for COI. I've had the desire to contribe to wikipedia beaten out of me by history revisionists and finally by overzelous admins. I thought I could at least bring some relief to other well-meaning editors, as a type of carthartic (sp?) release of my own frustration. So far, I've found two or three articles that I felt deserved a place, but had COI issues and made appropriate edits. I've waded through many more that didn't deserve my efforts.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.146.65.6 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 July 2007.

Thanks for the help and advice guys (although I'm a little confused by the unsigned comment above!). I will endeavour to provide some appropriate source material and references in due course. --Solicitor1 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merrill Chase spelling correction

Thanks for the "move" tip on the name correction. Someone seemed to have done it before I got to it but I had a further question - Before I created the "Merrill Chase" stub, (soon to be expanded), A search on his name yielded another hit in an immunology article where I think it also may have been misspelled - but now, since there is a perfect hit on his name, there are no more "suggestions" from wikipedia as to what I was searching for - is there anyway to get at those? Thanks again for your help.

RfA thanks

Hi Seraphimblade. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate your beat the 'crat message on my talk page, too. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 07:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Cambridge Rangers WFC page

As a newbie to Wikipedia I was sad to see my Cambridge Rangers WFC page deleted and would welcome advice on how to make it appropriate for Wikipedia. My general area of interst is of the History (and current) of the Womens' County Football League in Cambridge - an area that, I would agree, probably has a limited audience but one that, I feel, should be recorded for others to view (more generally I am interested in the History of Womens' Football within Cambridgeshire). I had intended to produce a page for the league history etc. and then add pages for each individual club who has won honours in the league.

I started with Rangers since I happen to have had a meeting with one of their players to get some history of the club etc. (having trawled local newspapers etc. to get some information too).

Is this an area that is suitable for Wikipedia or one that is of too limited interest to meet the "sum of human knowledge" criteria?

Many thanks in advice for your guidance

Steve

Replied on editor's talk. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Gandhi Information Center / Christian Bartolf

Thank you again for your very good advise, Seraphimblade, I will do so now. Chrbartolf 30 June 2007

The combination of the two articles to the one now on "Gandhi Information Center", successfully prepared by LaughingVulcan, will do. In case you agree, please roll it back to Main Space. After all, I am too shy to do so - thank you! This message goes to DGG, Seraphimblade, LaughingVulcan. Chrbartolf 30 June 2007

After reading your fine comments (DGG and LaughingVulcan) I think the best continuation is to follow your proposal, LaughingVulcan when you just wrote: "I'd rather take a day or two now to reduce the chances of it being deleted again, then take the risk and see it disintegrated instantly by a passing Admin." This is why I remain without action during this day, before you will have finished your editing of the text for which I am very grateful to you, of course. After all, I just want to express that I do not complain about other editors at all. On the contrary, I am lucky about your cooperation and willing to follow your advice. To avoid any further misunderstandings, I communicate openly on the talk pages. It would have been easier for me to observe and just resign. But I identify with Wikipedia readers - that's it. The better the article, the higher the standard of the article, the more the article fulfills the criteria, the better for all. So, please inform me about the result. If there is anything I can do for you, please inform me as well. Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

RE:Your report to WP:AIV

Who did I report? I haven't reported anybody recently, are you sure you're talking to the right person? Bsroiaadn^Talk 10:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem, man. Peace. Bsroiaadn^Talk 10:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Emperor Tony

Thanks for the block. Thought you might be interested in this list. Would it be appropriate to block II for being a vandal-only account and / or an obvious sock, and block VIII-XIV for being obvious socks? Previous editors had put suspected sockpuppet tags on some of the accounts, I've added the rest.

• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu - indef block
• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu II - warned for page move vandalism, no block
• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu III to User:Emperor Tony X. Liu VII inclusive are indef blocked
• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu VIII - new account, no edits
• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu IX - new account, no edits
• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu X - new account, no edits
• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu XI - new account, no edits
• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu XII - new account, no edits
• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu XIII - new account, no edits
• User:Emperor Tony X. Liu XIV - new account, no edits

Regards, Bencherlite 12:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to let you know, I didn't realise that there was a sockpuppet issue when I filed the AIV report. It was only after I'd put the name up that I thought "hang on, I'm sure I've seen that name before on AIV recently" (sad, I know!) so went into the history and found the earlier report. Noticing VI and VII, I wondered whether there might be more around, so checked Special:Users and found the above list of socks. I would have put more information into the first report had I realised! The vandalised pages are on my watchlist now so if he returns under a new guise and returns to the scenes of his previous crimes, I might put two and two together... Regards, Bencherlite 13:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Common Phrases AfD

I sent you this on June 26th, but you never replied. I'm ressurecting this question from the archives.

To a fellow admin - this is in regards to the common phrases AfD. I know there's no magic number for rough consensus, but (if I'm counting correctly) only 13 out of 34 participants in this particular AfD were of the opinion that it should have been deleted. That's not even close to half. It's pretty evident that the AfD resutld in no consensus. What sayest thou?

BTW.. as far as verfiability is concerned, I am surprised that this criterion is even being taken seriously. It is quite simple verifying phrases in another language. All that one has to do is pick up literature in that language to do so. What am I not seeing here? Thanks. --Chris S. 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am planning on putting it up for deletion review just to get other opinions. I hope you don't mind. I feel that there is a place for it in Wikipedia. Thanks again. --Chris S. 03:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Common Phrases Part Two/Dos/Zwei

I appreciate your statement that this will be preserved somewhere. In the Internet age, we have so many more languages available than we've ever had. I remember when dictionaries other than the European ones-- Spanish, French, German, and sometimes Russian-- were available only at a large college library. I'm not kidding when I say that the only exposure that most of us had to the other languages of the world was in certain editions of the Bible that showed John 3:16 as rendered the world around.

To my knowledge, a list of common phrases in 100+ languages was never published in book form, nor would it have been feasible to print a such a compilation. Verifiability is a valid concern. I think that a team of interested persons could verify the accuracy of the information, however, within a set time-- say 60 days. Vandalism is most definitely a concern, and this one should be off limits. Linguistic comparison is of scholarly interest, since it shows the similarities between branches of a linguistic family. Mandsford 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

>>It is a very interesting concept, it looks to be the type of thing that would be perfect for Wikiversity. I'm going to be moving this week, but if you'd be interested in doing the transwiki, I'd be happy to userfy it for you<<

Thanks! Please let me know what steps I would take after that. I'd say I can probably just click on a link of some sort. Mandsford 23:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of common phrases in various languages. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Chris S. 07:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)