User talk:SebastianHelm/archive2009

Everything's mine in '09

Cheers! Thanks for the message. Sorry about the slow response. I downloaded some java application and now I have a MSN toolbar that seems to be making everything slow. Anyway, Happy New Year! Comedy is a tough business, but it's all I've got... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I finally got rid of the tool bar that glommed on somehow. It's like the clouds have lifted! Why did you semi-retire? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote down the reason here. Although I have some more time for Wikipedia right now, I kept the "semiretired" box up, because I don't want to get too addicted again. To be honest, I am fighting with that addiction. On one hand, there are a lot of interesting topics and people with whom I enjoy working here. On the other hand, I am not happy about the large-organization problems we're experiencing now. Technically, we still work on a foundation that was meant for a much smaller website, and we try to compensate for this with ever more rigid rules and regulations. Back when I joined, there was still demand for very basic work, such as creating stubs about encyclopedic topics like Ted Stevens, and one could start stubs without the constant threat of speedy deletions. I got a lot out of participating here then; particularly when I was pulled into mediation two years ago, which was a great way to practice the necessary people skills and grow personally. But nowadays, I don't much chance for further growth here. — Sebastian 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation here and pointers to discussion elsewhere. Happy New Year! Don't get sucked back in... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement

Thanks for your encouragement on the Pinyin topic. I meant I would make no more modification on Pinyin item, not all items. I'll continue to contribute to other items. By the way, happy new year to you! -Percyboy (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from Iross1000

Thank you for your comments & also thank you for your effort to take my name off from the block list -Iross1000 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC).

FYI

Hi, as a person involved in mediation issues, I saw this message in talk page, this was my reply. If you want to help out in this situation, u are more than welcome. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know, the right place to discuss this is WT:SLR. You could either ask the user to post bring this up there, or you could post it there yourself, using the format I used at talk:torque#Does the GIF fit to the text?. — Sebastian 18:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Sri Lanka or SLR issues. It is out of SLR scope. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I really ought to get the computer guy in

I have a wireless network in my house. I think someone broke my security code and has been useing my connection to acess the internet. I think that someone in my house is also User:Ipatrol and judging by the contributions and the times I'm on the computer I think I know who.--216.118.68.193 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Please relax

Thanks for the heads up. I'll try to be more calm about situations like that in the future. Friginator (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Still need help

You had offered some assistance to me here [1], but I think you may have misunderstood. There has not been serious ongoing difficulty with edits to the encyclopedia. The user in question is disruptive but only sporadically, and the community of other editors has (so far) been able to cope. It's annoying, but only annoying, at this point. My difficulty is not with that, but with the personal attacks against me on his talk page. At this point, I would be happy to simply delete my comments from his talk page and be done with it, but he insists that he has the right to keep them visible, and to add further personal attacks. Your suggestion was to engage in WP:DR, but in response to a question whether he would be willing to discuss the matter, he simply deleted the question--evidence that he saw it, but he did not agree. I find it extremely unlikely he will listen to me productively because the relationship has deteriorated. I do not know the proper way to deal with an editor making personal attacks on his talk page who refuses to even engage in discussion; it is for this reason that I asked for admin help. Tb (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please relax. Take a walk in the park, or call a distant relative to wish them a happy new year. Sleep over it. This will look less urgent tomorrow. We all have been in situations like this; it is only human that we can't think clearly when our pulse is at 170. When you're calmed down, read the recommendations of WP:DR again. If you reread it calmly, you will realize that there's more to it than you're currently realizing. — Sebastian 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's always good advice and I'll do that first part. What might be helpful is specific pointers to particular sections of WP:DR from an editor experience in conflict resolution, rather than just a generic pointer. That's what I was hoping for. You know, "hey, try this one" sort of thing. Tb (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What I would recommend, after "Stay cool", is "Ask at a subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page.", since we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism, which seems pretty appropriate for your case. (I'm wondering if the headline "Ask about the subject" could be changed to make it easier to find it in cases like this. Let me know if you have an idea for improving it.) — Sebastian 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see you leave (@ User talk:Digitaleon)

You seem like a nice person, and it makes me sad when good people leave. If you would like to, please feel free to send me mail with what made you take this step. I deleted your subpage per your request. — Sebastian 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for helping process my CSD U1 deletion requests earlier on today, and for your kind comments above. I would like to take up your offer to discuss this further on e-mail, and will look at sending you one within the next day or so. In the meantime, allow me to offer you all the best for the future, and finish by saying: Thanks and farewell! — digitaleon • talk @ 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sent the e-mail. Look forward to your reply (if you choose to reply, that is :-). — digitaleon • talk @ 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

ltte edits reply

Yes, I am very well aware of what you have mentioned. As explained in the edit section, I created 2 charts using the existing information. Reason is to reduce the overall length of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iross1000 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sri Lanka

Hi, Sebastian! Thanks for your message here, but I believe you are mistaken. I have replied there. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 11:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Humor warning

Does you unwatching of my talk page serve as notice that I'm no longer funny? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:-) Of course not! It's only that I have to stop watching talk pages after a certain time. On the other hand, I promise people that I will reply on their page, so I need to watch them for a while. To reconcile these two, I made a habit of alerting them when I'm not watching the page anymore. It's not the best system, but I can't think of a better way. — Sebastian 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I feel better. :) Comedy is hard business. I'm nothing without my fans. ;) But I accept no responsibility for contributing to your possibly being drawn back into being a regular contributor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want me to remain your fan, you could stalk me, and whenever you see me being drawn back, tickle me. — Sebastian 01:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm practically a celebrity, so I have no time for that. Here's an autograph. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

eo:Kategorio:Komponaĵoj de Bach and eo:Kategorio:Verkoj de Johann Sebastian Bach

Hello, Sebastian!

I saw that you started the category eo:Kategorio:Komponaĵoj de Bach in the Esperanto Wikipedia. But there is also the category eo:Kategorio:Verkoj de Johann Sebastian Bach, which was started by an IP. I would like to propose to merge those to categories. As there is also eo:Kategorio:Verkoj de Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, I would like to propose to name the Bach category eo:Kategorio:Verkoj de Johann Sebastian Bach.

Furthermore, it would be good to create a main category for all those work-by-composer categories. As I can't speak Esperanto, someone who can (like you) should create this category.

What do you think about it?

Greetings, --Darev (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at eo:Vikipediista diskuto:Sebastian#Kategorio:Komponaĵoj de Bach and Kategorio:Verkoj de Johann Sebastian Bach. — Sebastian 19:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just asked Longharulo about his opinion in this matter. Now, we just have to wait for his answer :) Greetings, --Darev (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Longharulo answered on your Esperanto user page. What do you think about his opinion? At the moment, I can't say anything about it because I don't speak Esperanto. --Darev (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sebastian, it's me again! Thank you very much for the cooperation. Still, I have left yet another question on your Esperanto user page. Thanks and greets, --Darev (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

?

[2] - please clarify, onus is on me for what? What accusation? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking here, which is a good way to deescalate the discussion there. E. wrote "So just because they say I'm involved, does not mean it's true.", to which you had nothing better to say than (paraphrased) "you did, too!" without a diff, and then even add a roundabout accusation "you're breaking the rules". I have to ask you, too, to calm down. What is in the air today, that everyone is acting up like this? — Sebastian 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been so misunderstood the last few days you have no idea how grateful I am you didn't assume I asked here for some evil and nefarious reason. I'm so relieved. AGF is alive and well. :-) Oh, and you were right about the reason, (deescalation) too!

As regards the involved, several editors have already posted numerous difs, and quite frankly, her heavy editing and arguing ws already mentioned to her in that very section on her page, above my post. I see how it looks as though I failed to provide evidence for my concern; however I object to the characterization of my concern about her involvement as a "personal attack". Saying someone is involved is hardly a personal attack. Breaking the rules, also, is a continuation of something said on another page - "uninvolved admin" being the crux again. What is in the air - do you really want an answer? It will be from my viewpoint, of course, as well as paragraphs long. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding, please let me know if you want difs, I will paste if wanted. (other editors posting; etc.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I realize that I, too, could be less shrill. My concern is actually not so much about the diffs; I was only, somewhat clumsily, trying to calm down the discussion there. We are all volunteers here. It is a normal human reaction to repeated accusations to become defensive, and ultimately to just give up altogether. I think Elonka is a great asset to Wikipedia, despite her inability to find the "off" switch sometimes. (We also have differences about the conflict resolution approach, but I highly respect her for being the only one who actually tried and reported dayly about the approach for which she argued at the workgroup*.) The best for Wikipedia would be if she could calm down.

I didn't expect an answer to my question about the air, but if you have an idea, it might help me understand the situation. — Sebastian 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Short version, and I want it understood this is with full disclaimers - i.e., I do not necessarily agree with what I'm about to say, I'm going to phrase for clarity (I hope) for the overall situation and not for fine accuracy, etc - this is going to be as brief as I can make it, and deals with general perceptions not so much specifics and difs. Basically a number of editors feel Elonka is bad for the pseudoscience articles, that she mis-interprets the arbcom ruling, that she plays favorites and her favorites are the civil POV pushers of fringe junk, and hence, she is involved with the pseudoscience articles to their detriment (as they become more Fringe and less NPOV). Further, that she promotes herself, with no one knows what degree of belief, as completely uninvolved, and dismisses all concerns that she is involved, regardless of who brings them to her. Finally, that she has made A List on the talk page of a list article[3], which has raised the temp there about 2,0000 degrees, as the editors view it as "the good, the bad, and the rest"[4] - and altho most are in "the rest" they object to Elonka being in "the good" and to "the bad" in general, and to the list overall. She doesn't need the damn list; she could keep it on her computer if she needs a memory aid, but she put it there where it is wreaking all kinds of havoc. She states lists of editors like that have "calmed" other articles (no examples given) and ignores that its done the opposite here. She then added "the really really bad" to the list by notifying Orangemarlin of the ArbCom ruling and adding his name to the Notification list[5] as well as her list (the one on the talk page of the list article)[6]. Dang, this is getting confusing with so darn many lists. Anyway, that's when I and several other previously uninvolved admins popped over to her page and said, Elonka, you really are not the person who should be doing this (adding to the ArbCom notification list) oh and btw that list of editors on the talk page? Making things worse. She responded by saying that the people saying she's involved "are people I've(Elonka) warned in the past" and/or friends of the Bad - she didn't put it that way - and that's where we are right now. Oh and she's been edit warring to keep the Arbcom notification of OM on the talk page list of the G, the B, and the R. Gak. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A helpful stalker sent me an email, and corrected me: Elonka did give a couple of examples of articles she feels were calmed by an editor list - although it seems those were not opposition-less either. I have struck the (no examples given) accordingly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying to my question about "what's in the air". That of course only describes one person's actions. What I meant by my question was about what does affect all of us to be less calm than we usually are? I would hope that we all could learn how to remain calm. What's the hectic? It's not that someone will get shot if we don't act immediately.

I'm aware of Elonka's shortcomings, but I haven't given up on her yet; I am still hoping that she will reply to my e-mail. I tried to nudge her towards calming down and disengaging, but that is very hard, as we can see when we take an honest look at ourselves. — Sebastian 19:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: It has been pointed out to me that my above statement might be misunderstood. In the above, I meant that calming down is hard for all of us. I am happy that KC understood it that way, as can be seen by her reply below. — Sebastian 20:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, why is everyone a wee tad less patient than usual? Hrm... Well, the economy went somewhere warm and tormenty, that's one thing... Here in the US there is a record cold spell, that might be affecting some people. It is a feeding frenzy kind of thing, you know. One person is a bit snippy, another becomes so in response.. it grows. I don't think its much worse than usual here on WP, but it tends to collect in eddies, in certain spheres, so it appears to be worse at times. Quite frankly that darn list of editors has everyone who edits that list article very touchy. Is that more where you were going?

And good luck with the email attempt btw. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's where I was going, and I think you're right about the bulk of the reasons; it affects me, too. (As for the cold spell, though: Here in Seattle it is sunny and warm now. :-P )

Thanks for your good wishes; unfortunately, I didn't seem to have a lucky hand at it. :-( — Sebastian 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For you

There's no template I can find for it, but ...

		The Constant Barnstar
		I hereby award you, Sebastian, the Constant Barnstar because you're a kind of anchor around here. Encore, Julia Rossi (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I don't know if I've been steady enough recently to qualify as an anchor, but, as RTSI's Gatto di Schrödinger made me aware, in Italian, "ancora" can mean both "anchor" and "encore" - and the latter fits better to my recent activity. — Sebastian 00:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Encore it is as well then, molto bene... ~: ) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your barnstar. I had been reluctant to put it on my talk page, because it is the same image as the one for the The Real Life Barnstar, which I don't deserve. (Also, it took me a while to get the connection that this was a star anchor.) Incidentally, there are other "anchor" barn stars available - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 6#Proposed WikiProject Ships barnstar. May I ask you to change the image here to one of these? (There's no conflict with WikiProject Ships since they decided to use a wheel.) — Sebastian 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gladly, Sebastian (Helm is fitting too). Please adjust anything to best fit the aesthetic of your page. Appreciate your suggestion and if this isn't quite "it", let me know. I had fun building it,  :) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks really nice! As for helm, that would have been one of the wheel pictures. I guess I'll have to get active with WP:WikiProject Ships to get that one! — Sebastian 06:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Of all things it's only now I put helm and wheel together! :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Chola Mediation

Hi Seb. I have made two new submissions on 18th and 23rd Feb. pertaining to Decline (18th) and Greatest Builders (on 23rd i.e. yesterday). Could you pls examine them on the page Talk: Chola Dynasty? The submissions of 18th are longer due to reasons.. my sincere apologies.. Thanks.

Srirangam99 (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sebastian. I wish you a happy new year. Thank you for you recent attempt to bring concensus to this article. I am sure you have done the best you could given the circumstances. The Tamil work group, consisting of well established users such as User:Sundar, User:Taprobanus etc. normally take care of this article. User:Nmadhubala recently did a great job in expanding/cleaning the article during a recent FAR with numerous established sources and citations. I was merely trying to protect a good FA from undiscussed edits. The conflict with User:Srirangam99 started about 6 months back, when he started to edit multiple articles, this included, adding information from a web page [[7]] which at best should be handled with care. This web page contains information on medieval inscriptions deciphered by epigraphists of Archaeological Survey of India. But this information needs to be handled with care because it is not published in books– balancing the info here with other contemporary sources. A deciphered inscription is just that–a deciphered inscription, which does not indicate the complete authencity of the inscribed content. It is quite common for kingdoms to overplay certian victories and underplay defeats, or the other way around, which is why historians balance information from various sources including contemporary literary sources. Srirangam99 refused to start a RFC or even a nominal discussion with a group of editors but instead continued to switch content using that web page, thus creating a disconnect between the original citation and the content. I quickly went thru your edits on Chola dynasty and the only question I have is regarding the change from 'Chalukya Cholas' to 'Later Cholas' and I hope the Tamil work group digs in to see if that's okay. Contemporary historical articles regarding contiguous kingdoms are all tied together and it's important to ensure that any unintended mis-information on one does not create conflict on another. I am also concerned that once Srirangam99 comes back, he may go back to mass removal/change of data furthering this dispute here and other articles. However, if he brings published info from well established historians to the table, it is welcome. Best Regards,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes and for your vote of confidence!

As for the content related issues, I would like to keep them on the article talk page so the discussion remains in one place. Generally, I understand the problems with using single sources, and you have a point that not all of them can be taken at face value.

As for edit wars: Don't worry - I already said that I will warn and not shy away from eventually blocking any editor who behaves disruptively. I wrote that only on the Chola Dynasty article because that seemed to be the only one where the conflict escalated to the stage of requiring permanent protection. If there is a need for that same level of protection for other articles, then I can do so; please let me know which articles you have in mind.

As for Srirangam99: This is a new user with only one sixtieth of your experience. That reflects in the quality of their edits; and I took it in account by choosing the better version whenever possible. Being a senior editor gives you advantages, but it also contains obligations - above all not to WP:BITE new users. Our policy WP:NPOV even expects editors to "write for the enemy", but I'm not asking for that. I only ask you to look at the merits of each changed passage individually, and not to simply revert all together wholesale. That way, you will show the other editor concretely which part of their changes needs improvement, and you will contribute to a constructive working environment. — Sebastian 04:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the reply. Srirangam99 had tried to make edits to Western Chalukya Empire to a large extent and Hoysala Empire to a smaller extent, both FA's I wrote. Needless to say, these two empires are contemporaries to the Chola dynasty and were competitors over the 10-13th century time frame. So its important to keep a balance of views and even cross verify the content. I have left a message for Taprobanus to keep a watch also. One thing I would like you to convey to Srirangam99 is to leave concise messages in points so readers dont get lost in verbose 5-10K long messages. Makes it all the more easy to solve a dispute. RegardsDineshkannambadi (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sebastian, with regard to Dineskh Kannambadi's message above he mentions that the Chalukya and Hoysala empires were contemporaries and competitors over the 10-13th Century. Well certainly they were contemporaries with Chalukyas having been adversaries of the Cholas. For certain under King Vishnuvardhana the Hoysalas also fought over the territory of Gangavadi. However after King Vishnuvardhana till the time of the last King of the Cholas Rajendra III under whom the Cholas lost to the Pandiyans and went into extinction any number of books or inscriptional sources can be verified to show that the Hoysala Kings after Vishnuvardhana and all kings after Vikrama Chola maintained either peaceful or friendly relations. In fact Veera Ballala II Hoysala was a father in law or son in law of Chola King Kulothunga III (1170-1218) and their sons Narasimha III and Raja Raja III also had the same relationship. These are not abstract pieces of information but firm. It is also true that the last Chola King Rajendra III also had initially adversarial relations with the Hoysalas (Kings prior to him had friendly, even marital but ultimately peaceful relations with the Hoysalas) but later allied with the Hoysalas and fought with Hoysalas against the Pandiyans under first Maravarman and then Jatavarman Sundara Pandiyan in his last battle in which he lost Tanjore, Tiruchy and Gangaikonda Cholapuram was sacked. In a subsequent war, Jatavarman also fought and killed Hoysala Someshwara near Samayapuram on the outskirts of Tiruchy, ending Hoysala presence in Tiruchy-Tanjore-Karur-Kovai belt forever. It is only a subsequent Hoysala king Veera Ballala III after being routed by the invading Muslims and having surrendered his son Veera Virupaksha to the Muslms, took refuge at Tiruvannamalai during the times of Kulasekhara Pandiyan, after which the Pandiyan empire at Tiruchy and Madurai itself came to an end in the fight with the Muslim invaders.

If you see the pages edited by Dinesh Kannambadi, he has tried to portray the losing Veera Ballala III as some sort of Chakravarti of all of South India and as having occupied Tiruvannamalai. In Tiruvannamalai and Chenji (modern Gingee in Tamil Nadu), he was only given refuge in a fort built first by the Kadava Pallava Kopperinchunga which later was controlled by the Pandiyans. Dinesh Kannambadi has also manipulated his Hoysala and Chalukya pages by filling in abstract information. His 'reliable sources' have caused him to write thus:

Veera Ballala II was an overlord of the Cholas (false, because he was a father in law or son in law of the Chola king Kulothunga III who is credited with occupation of Kalinga, Karur, Ilangai --- his conquest of Kalinga and subsequent building of the Kampahareswara temple, the fourth grand Chola temple (among the bigger temples built by Cholas which number over 3000)is available in every record.

Someshwara (son of Jayasimha II) also called Someshwara Ahavamalla 'MAY' have occupied Kanchi.

Vikramaditya VI invaded and occupied Kanchi 'FOR A FEW YEARS'.

Why is there no one to question such edits and ask about the 'reliability' of such 'scholarly' work?

Such is the quality of edits of Senior Wikipedians. No wonder, after reading such passages shown by me to senior historians in Delhi University and Mysore University, they laughed it off saying that they never recommend Wikipedia pages for study or information on historical events because Wikipedia tops in the list of 'UNRELIABLE INFORMATION' and that 'IT IS LITTERED WITH JINGOISTS' having a field day with manipulative writing and representation of historical events.

Sad no one there to question such acts.

Dinesh Kannambadi also wrote, grudgingly acknowledging my sourcing of material of Archaelogical Survey of India, but blatantly lies, when he states that these have not been published in books.... Please visit the pages on Chalukyas, Hoysalas wherein information on these empires have been liberally sourced from the website www.whatsindia.com/south_indian_inscriptions/. So the rules of the game are different for people like Dinesh Kannambadi and for people like me. When he sources information on Hoysalas and Chalukyas from www.whatsindia.com/ it is 'reliable and scholarly' but when he resorted to blatant deletion of my contributions (consider his recent questioning of Chalukya Chola pages, which was in a surrogate manner, sought to be restored by user YellowMonkey, you know on whose prompting, despite you having clearly given the reason that on the internet the phrase 'Chalukya Chola' appears less times than the phrase 'Cholas' or Medieval Cholas or Later Cholas) it is the act of a senior wikipedian and my sources and contributions were based only on POV material!!!!.

I have also left a note for you on the Chola discussion page wherein user Yellow Monkey (apparently at the behest of a clique operating in Wikipedia) has entered the Chola article despite it having been locked permanently, in the name of restoring missing links or something, he has ended up deleting some names from the list of important kings of the Chola empire which was added by you when you intervened for mediation on the Chola article.

I openly accept and am at peace with your description of me being a new editor, less experienced hence, which probably also reflects in the quality of my edits. For sure, I too do not presume any expertise or too much knowledge about editing of pages, but I have for the present, confined myself completely with posting and sourcing of reliable and unimpeachable sources, whose truthfulness cannot be questioned and these are very sources which are sourced almost by Indian and World Historians. I would like to point out however, that with each post or contribution, I have always left a message, 'neutral analysis or verification of reliability of sources is most welcome', meaning thereby that any senior and neutral editor can always first examine and take a decision whether the information sourced and posted by should be retained in any article. For me at least one point was proven when you decided that the phrase or term Chalukya Chola should go. It is only issues like these, not something or anything earth-shaking was and is sought to be done by me while making contributions on wikipedia history pages, but funnily, you see that it is the same thing which is resented out of sheer jingoism and consequent insecurity, by 'Senior Wikipedians'. Please take this not as a personal comment or even attack, but as baring of their attitudes.

Sure as a Senior Wikipedian Dinesh Kannambadi while resorting to wholesale edits should have opened a discussion thread and explained to me as to how or what was wrong with my postings or contributions. But he never thought it fit to do so. Rather earlier he replied to a user Mahawiki in the following words: 'Go get your sources, I have sourced from Suryanath Kamath. Don't soil my talk page, that book is available in a library close to my home, if you like go get it'. This he did rather than indulging in any meaningful discussion with a fellow wikipedian. Senior or Junior people might be on wikipedia. But should that mean that some are wikipedians but others are not or in the words of the great JFK.. all men (nee wikipedians) are equal, but some are more equal than others..

(Also Dinesh Kannambadi's favourite source, Mr.Suryanath Kamath is also not politically neutral, I will prove it to you whenever anyone wants).

When we try to give detailed responses backed with facts, Mr.Kannambadi finds it fit to be dismissive (quite irresponsibly at that I am constrained to comment) that (whatever he doesn't like) are 5k messages or Ph.D. theses. But my contributions are not phony, by the way.

Pls. consider this, on 5th January, knowing fully well that you have taken over as neutral mediator for the Chola article on a date prior to that, he has still found it fit either to comment about the contents of the Chola article or on my contributions (methods, sources, rightly or wrongly on my part) to the Chola article only... not on the talk page of Chola article (as correctly instructed by you in your message to me on my talk page), but on your talk page.

It is only after noticing such wanton acts, on your talk page that I have responded.

Feel free to tell me anything.. on either the Chola talk page or on my talk page..

Thanks..

PS: I have complete faith in you. Can you please examine and check if the deleted Chola kings' names can be restored -- maintaining and retaining your action as a neutral admin/mediator on that article??

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

convenience break

I'm sorry, I'm really busy now. I took on an assignment by ArbCom which takes most of my Wiki time. So please, can you keep your messages brief? I simply don't have the time to read such long messages.

I did read a little bit, though, and I noticed a lot of vague complaints about Dinesh. It may be that he has been dismissive, which is not good. But what you're writing here on this very page, is not good, either: Accusing him of "sheer jingoism" is about as bad as being dismissive. Before you complain about others, I need you to make sure that your own behavior is better than that of the person you complain about. Otherwise, if you want me to do something about the other editor, I would have to do the same about you.

Also, I wrote to Dinesh above that I would like to keep content related issues on the article talk page so the discussion remains in one place. Naturally, I have to ask you the same. But please, keep it short! — Sebastian 09:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to apologize, though. I only now noticed that you posted a message on Talk:Chola Dynasty on 8 January, and another one today. I will reply to the former now, and to the latter within the next two days. — Sebastian 09:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

I totally accept your remarks and contentions dear Sebastian. I should not at all argue with you but would limit myself to just this:

As was pointed out in my previous message to you (above), while not claiming any perfection or experience in contributing or editing wikipedia history pages, Dinesh was one of the first persons whom I interacted. What happened thereafter for most of the time was he either altogether started deleting my contributions and at times did also ask me to open discussion threads, if you see Chola, Hoysala or Chalukya pages, I always initiated a discussion either placing my views or objections or seeking change in the text of the pages... at that point he either found it convenient not to reply or he has indeed done on several occasions is to complain to another admin Yellow Monkey who as he has done now with the Chola page, locked that topic permanently, without at all indulging in any discussion about the contents of that page.

thats all. sorry for taking your time.

Srirangam99 (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Srirangam, we have to move on. What you need to state now is what is your current objections to the article status. Are yu happy with the changes or you want more done. We just have to keep it short to the point. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well put, Taprobanus! I couldn't have said it so concisely. Just one more thing, Srirangam: If you have any objections, please write them at the article talk page according to my instructions there. — Sebastian 09:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian, I have replied to you on Talk: Chola Dynasty page. Pls. see it.

Srirangam99 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Seb, hello. I have left a message yesterday (12 Feb) regarding (change sought) on Decline of Chola Dynasty on [Talk: Chola Dynasty] page. Pl. examine. Thanks

Srirangam99 (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Srirangam99, you don't have to post a message when I don't reply immediately to your message. I am watching that page, and I reply there within due time, and when there is someting to reply to. In this case, I see nothing to reply to. Your message is about new issues, issues that were not under dispute when I started the mediation. They are not part of this diff. I clearly wrote, in a big orange box, that I will not look at issues beyond the current content dispute anymore before the mediation which I started on that page is completed. Did you overlook that box? — Sebastian 06:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy SebastianHelm/archive2009's Day!

User:SebastianHelm/archive2009 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as SebastianHelm/archive2009's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear SebastianHelm/archive2009! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

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 • 01:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I celebrated the day by giving a barnstar to someone else! — Sebastian 07:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Duke

Hello, Sebastian, it's good to see you around. I just caught your post at WP:JAZZ regarding these. Bravo for creating the article! How I'd love to plunge into Ellingtonia again. I'm upset about losing my Duke Ellington Reader while relocating. I was only able to incorporate some of it in one article and didn't know anything about inline referencing at the time either. :-( ---Sluzzelin talk 17:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! I'm happy that it caught your eye, and I would like to spend some more time at the article with you after this weekend. About the lost book: Wasn't there a German proverb along the lines of "Dreimal umgezogen ist wie einmal abgebrannt"? But don't be upset with yourself. Take an example from the guy who had to move his record collection into a barn, and considered himself lucky when only about a hundred of them broke in the process (according to Norbert Scheumann of the Bayerischer Rundfunk programm Schellack-Souvenirs). And now, in the day and age of the internet, you're even luckier - you can buy the book used for a few dollars: http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0195054105/ref=ed_oe_h_olp. If I didn't already have more books than my bookshelves can hold, I'd buy it myself. ;-) — Sebastian 18:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is also a Dutch idiom Jantje van Leiden van iets afmaken and there is the Kikuyu proverb ciigwatagirira mareru meaning "Goats fall that take hold of lichens" (or "unsatisfactory excuses are insufficient defence" ;). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks for my barnstar! ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 11:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ducks

Please do not remove other users' comments and/or ducks at WP:ANI. --Cyde Weys 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree with me that the picture was off topic? It was inserted at the top of the section and not signed by anyone, which gave the misleading impression that it was put there by the OP (me). It had mislead more than one person to make off topic comments that fit more to the duck than to the topic of the section. If you have any better way to remedy that situation, please let me know. — Sebastian 02:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, ducks are in different sections now. But ducks are hardly off-topic here, or anywhere. --Cyde Weys 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:DyceBot for our project?

MiszaBot II does indeed archive WT:GL/I (or rather WT:GL, as WT:GL/I is a redirect), but DyceBot archives WP:GL/I, as in the project page itself. Basically what DyceBot does on WP:GL/I is a combination of three things: If a section has no templates, it will mark the section with the stale template (signed and dated) if the latest time stamp is two weeks old. If a section has a resolved template it will archive the section if the latest time stamp is three days old. If the section has a stale template it will archive the section if the latest time stamp is seven days old. I can alter the time delay for any of those three actions. I could also turn off the functionality relating to marking and archiving stale sections, and just have it archive resolved sections. If you do choose to have it do it's stuff with the stale template, any time after the bot has marked a section stale you can delete the stale template and add a new comment with timestamp, and the bot will treat it as if it never had a stale template. (For obvious reasons, if you delete the stale template without adding a new timestamp the bot will just re-add it on its next run.)

From what you've described on WP:BOTREQ it sounds like what you want is just for the bot to archive sections that have been marked resolved a certain period of time after the resolved tag is applied. I just outlined the rest of what the bot can do so you could consider whether or not it would be worth using the stale functionality on your page, and if so you could discuss this with your fellow project mates and see if they agree. When you've decided what you'd like me to set up, I'd just need the following information to do so: Whether or not you'd like the functionality regarding stale sections, the three time delays I specified above (one if you're not implementing the stame template stuff), the full title of the page(s) you'd like archived, and the archiving scheme you're using (location of the archive(s), whether archives are filled to a certain size and then a new one is made or the archive names are set by dates, and any other archive specific information you feel is relevant.) It will only take me a couple minutes to set this up for you after you send me this stuff.--Dycedarg ж 20:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll post this at WT:SLR/H and will get back to you! — Sebastian 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Eleanor_Parke_Custis_Lewis.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Eleanor_Parke_Custis_Lewis.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year!

No, I'm not gone, but real life became exceedingly busy from Thanksgiving on, and it still hasn't really let up. I was also getting a bit burned out from some of the nuisance figures, so a stretched-out break wasn't uncalled for. Still, I'm not sure when I'm going to be able to return to serious wiki-working. (Oh, and thanks for the "props"!) Askari Mark (Talk) 04:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - there's still plenty of time remaining in the year to be happy. :-) — Sebastian 07:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm Robertcoolh. Nice to meet you, Sebastian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcoolh (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't remember having met you. — Sebastian 01:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying as hard as I can to be a good faith editor. 89.101.46.212 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ever dealt with 79.97.111.90 or one of his many socks? ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 10:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you know what gender I am? And I'm reading WP:Welcome at the moment. 89.101.46.212 (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for sockpuppets, but I also don't have a problem with them. See user:SebastianHelm/Sock hunt. — Sebastian 17:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-done Article After Restore

Hi Sebastian, First thanks for your help in sorting out a deleted page. I have redone the page and removed any opinionated language by simply stating facts about this mall. I don't want to save it lest it is deleted again. Since the objection was on the tone of the article having too much advertisement i would appreciate if you would help me in determining if my redone article conforms to the sometimes difficult criteria in factual reporting. I tried the Kenyan Wiki paid but most users there, are not regulars and might not respond to my query in reasonable time. Your response will be highly appreciated and looked forward to.Wamaina (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

classes of sources

ich weiss ja nicht was das Problem mit der Diskussion ist. Es liegt mir fern, mich wegen so was streiten zu wollen, aber Sinn und Zweck von SLR ist ja nicht allein Disput. Man kann ja auch mal über nebensächliche Dinge reden. Mir ist schon klar, was auf der Projektseite steht. Ich stelle nur fest, dass die Argumentation auf der Diskussionsseite dem nicht folgt. Wenn du einfach geantwortet hättest: "no need for attribution for AI" wäre das Thema damit erledigt gewesen. Ich will auch nicht per se neue Quellenklassen einführen. Aber über die Diskrepanzen zwischen Soll- und Ist-Zustand sollte man schon reden dürfen. Was das Runterkommen betrifft: dieses Quellenthema berührt mich emotional echt kaum, da bin ich noch ganz entspannt Jasy jatere (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Aber das habe ich doch gesagt! Zuerst ganz geduldig hier, und dann nocheinmal hier. Aber ganz abgesehen davon, wirst Du doch hoffentlich verstehen, dass es nervt, wenn jemand immer wieder behauptet, dass in der Tabelle was falsch ist, ohne auch nur mal einen Blick auf die Tabelle zu werfen. — Sebastian 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ich sage nicht, dass die Tabelle falsch ist. Ich sage nur, dass das, was Taprobanus sagt (und was von anderen Leuten klaglos hingenommen wird), und das, was die Tabelle sagt, nicht übereinstimmen. Aber damit auch genug der Diskussion. Ich brauch erstmal Pause von der ganzen SLR-Hektik. Und das, obwohl ich persönlich kaum betroffen bin. Will nicht wissen, wie es bei Leuten aussieht, die direkt involviert sind. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wind-Tower-and-Qanat-Cooling-1.jpg

Thank you for the beautiful and instructive picture! I only have one question: Why does the illustration show wind coming down the tower? Since I'm not often on Commons, could I ask you to reply at en:Talk:Windcatcher, or notify me by mail, if you reply here? Thanks! SebastianHelm (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed response - I rarely get to Commons anymore since I'm not editing that often these days.

The figure is pretty close to the representation in the Scientific American article referenced. I believe - but the article didn't say - that the inflow is restricted (presumably by a damper) and the pressure is reduced by the lower pressure from the opening downwind. The net effect is to draw air through the qanat, cooling the basement. However - as i recall - the article didn't show a damper.

Skaal - Williamborg (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, as the old joke goes, read the instructions - so I did. Wikipedia is getting pretty good these days - someone took the trouble to properly link this article to the reference. Take a look at the reference.I think it supports the current figure, but... it does indicate they use doors as dampers to control air flow. We probably need to change the text to more closely match the reference. Hope this helps - Williamborg (Bill) 05:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! That is definitely what the SciAm article shows. I don't understand why, though. I guess I'll have to read that article some time. — Sebastian 05:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa

Why the following should be deleted on Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. RS supports the following content. Melienas (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

===US Allegations of Genocide Against Tamil Minorities===

Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has been recently served with a genocide indictment charge, filed with the US Justice Department by former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Bruce Fein. The 1000-page, 3 volume case has been submitted and is currently under review by the US Justice Department for 12 counts of genocide against Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

My previous account is blocked by User: YellowMonkey, a Psycho ArbCom Troll on Tamil issues and my post is deleted by another sock subsecuently. please disscuss this issues at SLRC or take this for RFC. Thanks.Meliioure (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not deleted the text, nor do I remember having stated an opinion about the deletion. The correct places to ask this question is on the article talk page or on the user talk page of the user who deleted it. When that fails, I recommend bringing it up at WT:SLR. Since you already did that, it is redundant here. — Sebastian 08:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Chola Dynasty

Is it possible for you to unprotect this? I know you aren't the protecting administrator, but have been involved with the article most recently. I dislike leaving articles at full protection, as I feel it is not ever really necessary to do so for extended periods of time. Has the edit war subsided, in your view? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. I agree that emotions probably have calmed down; and under normal circumstances I would have long unprotected it. I don't think if we did so now that it would result in another edit fight; or at least we could always protect it again. However, in this particular case, there are some other factors: (1) There is a big benefit in the page being protected, because we don't have to mediate against a moving target. (2) I allowing others to edit the article as they please, while the parties of the mediation have to follow the progress of the mediation would also be unfair to the parties. (You may have noticed that I put their non-mediation requests on hold for after completion of the mediation.) (3) The two parties have little time, so that the mediation is very slow. This means that we're not yet at a point that corresponds to the time when articles usually get unprotected. (4) One of the parties is good willing, but a very slow learner. He's just beginning to learn that reliable sources are more important than original research. I feel that if I let him edit the article now, he would just continue as before. (5) I also would like to reserve the unprotection as a sign of a concluded mediation, as the reward for our cooperation.

Are you asking because you would want to make some changes? If so, you can make them at Chola Dynasty/sandbox, and if they don't interfere with the mediation, then I will add them. This is of course an inconvenience, but I think it is worth it. — Sebastian 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Marinecore88‎/Melienas‎/Meliioure‎/Sobberrs‎/Cheares

Hi Sebastian, I saw your message about the ban of this user on East718's talk page and commented about what I think of the situation there. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on talk. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus to unblock. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Make your point at WP:AN#Stopping a vicious circle of blocking and account creation, then. But you need to make your point based on Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which says that "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". — Sebastian 14:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sebastian, User:Marinecore88 is not a part of my accounts. Cheares (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about that account, then. I got you unblocked not because things you have done or not done in the past, but because I vouched for your future actions. I'm only concerned about the future; please help me prove the naysayers wrong. — Sebastian 14:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am marinecore88. Thank you for your support. I've made a comment explaining my situation on the administrators webpage. I am not involved with any of those accounts. I'd strongly appreciate any help you can give. thanks again. --Marinecore888 (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what a messy story this has become! The WP:Checkuser findings (that's what "CU" in the message I just replied to stands for) certainly didn't help. I understand that it may be the wrong finding, but this is the best we have. If it is any comfort, I think in the past it hit people from the Sinhalese side harder. This was a main reason why I have pushed for rules and structures in our project that make it irrelevant if people use sockpuppets. You may want to send me e-mail. — Sebastian 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Double redirect + lost history

FORWARD post from Help Desk:

Is there someone more technical that can fix this history to merge into this current history? There is a double redirect also here that should probably be fixed also (removed). The end result there should be one redirect of the spelling "Tertia Aemilia" to the current article of Aemilia Tertia. This way then all the history of the article will show, from "Started Article" on 18 January 2007. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, user:Teratornis just pointed me to Help:Moving a page#Fixing cut and paste moves in a similar case. I'm too tired to try this now, but I can try it tomorrow. If it still needs to be done in 18 hours, please drop me a note on my talk page. — Sebastian 08:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I still need help on this. It seems to be beyond my technical ability. I would like to work on the article for it to become a G.A. and I want to get the histories correct. I originally started the article -AND- I messed up the histories when I was still newer to Wikipedia. I should have Moved instead, but did not know of the feature (anything for an excuse). Thanks for your help. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's the same mistake I made in the case where Teratornis helped me. I'll look into this later today. Don't worry, we'll get it figured out! — Sebastian 14:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no hurry. I have plenty to do meanwhile. Take your time, as accuracy is more important. I won't get to editing it for awhile. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm very happy about that as I've already exceeded my time budget for Wikipedia today. — Sebastian 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

My pleasure to meet you. Green Squares (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, too. — Sebastian 19:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

This one seems to be part of your bailiwick as it deals with contentious editing over Sri Lanka. Rklawton (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Washington's slave.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Washington's slave.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pd-art. I've fixed it. Cheers - Rklawton (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deadline for WP:IECOLL

Please see my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Status. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Your comment is right. I had taken some time off, and when I got back I felt indeed like the March Hare thinking it was time for the next step already. I am sorry about the confusion this caused. — Sebastian 15:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

Just to explain the double revert that I just did on your /principles page: I accidentally clicked on "rollback" on your last edit on my watchlist, and then had to put it back the way it was. Sorry about that! ::blush:: -- edi(talk) 17:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I'm afraid of such errors myself. When I became an admin, I was afraid that I would accidentally click on any of the "block" links that appeared next to each user's name. Since then I realize that nothing bad actually happens when I click them, and I've learned to live with it, but still don't think it's a good idea to tempt admins into blocking so easily. — Sebastian 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration

I wanted to make you aware that ArbCom has formally thanked you for your time and efforts with the Ireland collaboration project: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ireland collaboration. I also wanted to extend my personal thanks to all three of you for the hard work you put into it. If at some point I could be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me via my talk page or email. Thank you again and best wishes! --Vassyana (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Redking7

Hi - Not sure if this is a good place to ask but as you are a moderator you might be able to help. Some one created the user page redking7. I would like for that to be deleted so that it appears "in red" again. This happened before and was fixed. I have never learned how I can do it technically. Thanks. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

wp:link

Hi, I see you made some good edits to the guideline. I've created a stub of a show-and-tell tutorial on linking that received such a slamming from one regular user (on his talk page) that I've been frightened off. I do accept that the exercises could be less wordy, but ... I wonder whether you think it's useful? User:Tony1/Build_your_linking_skills Tony (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback, Sebastian. It won't be a quick job, but I'll let you know if/when it's more advanced. Tony (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Time to run

Hi, Sebastian! It's good to see you here again; I thought you had retired. Thanks for your offer to nominate me for adminship. As you said, I was just joking. I didn't intend to run anytime soon for adminship, but four editors have suggested that I go for it after this. If I do run, it will be mid-september at the earliest; I'm a bit busy right now. I will inform you if and when I decide to run, and it would be an honour if I had a nomination from you. ≈ Chamal ^talk 05:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm only active now because I have a little bit of time on my hand; I don't know if I'll be active here in September. But what's the problem with running now? You don't have to commit to doing a lot - I didn't either in my RfA. My long absences bothered only one voter, who eventually supported me, too. The only reason I can see not to run is if you're afraid it might make you into a Wikoholic. — Sebastian 05:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not like that. I'm working on something in real life right now, and I might have to turn my attention completely to that anytime. It wouldn't do if I disappeared in the middle of my RFA :) Shall I email you when I'm ready? ≈ Chamal ^talk 02:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see! Yes, the RFA process takes some attention. Please do email me. — Sebastian 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Linking

Hi Sebastian,

When you get time, I'm still very interested in your thoughts about how one can effectively deal with piped links that introduces subtext that is controversial or does not follow NPOV as was discussed here. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I left some comments at the Linking talk page. Ward20 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks a lot for your efforts to improve this guideline. However, some editors are concerned about the pace at which the text is being changed, and the large changes that are being made. Could you discuss it, please? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

After almost a week of fruitful and constructive discussion with several editors there, I am quite surprised at this sudden outbreak of resistance against change. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised: That page is probably not the best candidate for change, anyway: It is almost five years old, and if people could use it to write links then, they can use it today, too. So, in the bigger scheme of things, it's good that the page is watched by people who oppose change. It is also good for me: It reminds me that I still have the "wikibreak" banner on top of this page, and it's better if I spend less time here; I've already become Wikiholic again. I will again be more frugal with the time I spend here, and I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. — Sebastian 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sebastian, it's not that everyone who asked for a slow-down "oppose[s] change" - we just wanted a chance to discuss the proposed changes before they got implemented. but anyway: have a good break! Sssoul (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message; this is indeed an important distinction. I realize my use of the words "resistance" and "oppose" can be seen to mean "block" or "prevent"; that's not what I meant. I just meant it in the same sense as you would say "friction opposes motion": I know that it can be overcome, and in the past I would often have been happy to do so by taking the time to understand people's needs; we often were able to find a solution that works for everybody. But that takes a lot of time. The reason why I started this was not because I feel strongly about internal links, but because I saw that there was a page that was in a mess, and it seemed like there was a team of editors who agreed that it needs to be cleaned up, and I thought it would be a breeze to work on it together. — Sebastian 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, thanks for discussing with me the finer points of linking on the talk page. I learned quite a bit and you are very cordial and easy to work with. Ward20 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! It has been a pleasure working with you, too! — Sebastian 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Chamal N

He told me you would like to co-nom him for adminship; there's a slot open for you at User:Dylan620/Chamal/RfA. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 23:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination, Sebastian. Real life issues are now out of the way (much sooner than I expected) and I'm now back to normal editing. So I'll take your advice and go for it when the noms are ready. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. I will do my best to take heed of the concerns voiced by many editors and work on improving my non violent communication. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct or communication as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

source required JK Wedding Dance

Apologies for not being clearer in my edit summary. I had added the tag when I first wrote the article [[8]] as it sounded like original research, when I saw your comment I realized that you were correct and that no one would question that fact... I have removed it again, but if you want it added back in I will not undo again... RP459 (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the message, and sorry! I wasn't aware that you were the same person. In that case, I agree with your edit, of course. — Sebastian 03:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yan Sun

Hey there, I noticed you've made pretty much all the meaningful edits to Yan Sun. That redirect is currently up for discussion at RfD, I was wondering if you wanted to give your thoughts? I believe your idea is to preserve it as a redirect so that it points correctly once Sun Yan is created, is that correct? Thanks. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your notification. I've already spent too much time on this one redirect, but I will reply there when I find the time. — Sebastian 03:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Munchie Strikes Back

The film is bad. Strange how the very bad sometimes get more attention than the very good. Heck, one reviewer went so far as to call it "a pile of shit" [9]. But I've expanded the article and sourced it. It was good exercise. It now meets the requirements set by WP:NF. Thanks for bringing it someplace where it could get the needed attention. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I agree with you. — Sebastian 03:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your own keep !vote is an appreciated affirmation of my work. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: "a pile of shit" Like the Pip (South Park), it is one of the most famous because it is sooo bad. LOL. Ikip (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Peace
		The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. This barnstar is awarded to SebastianHelm. When someone changes their mind on an issue on wikipedia, it is incredible, because it is so rare. You seem like someone who can comprimise and change your mind when new facts present themselves, for the good of the project. Wikipedia desperately needs more editors like you. Ikip (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I believe that peace is linked to the ability to change one's mind. My role model for that are bees: When they are trying to reach a decision, such as where a swarm should establish their new hive, they vote by dancing. The important difference to human votes is that none of the bees is personally attached to their vote. That mindset is much harder to maintain for us, but I will keep in mind that it is appreciated. — Sebastian 22:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:speedy deletion declined for Evdile Koçer

Sorry, you're right. I got a bit too carried away flagging new articles. Aupajo (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Okay Uzoma

I was wondering if you had any suggestions for how to help Okay Uzoma (talk · contribs), given your recent move of his articles to his userspace. Rather than make any changes to the article, he just put it back into the mainspace, this time under the title Nigerian Police Officers (obviously, the title is not appropriate for a bio article about a single individual, but that could easily be dealt with by renaming the article). Okay Uzoma seems to believe that the reason you moved the article out of the mainspace was because of the title issue, not the notability issue, despite your comments to him.

He's made some other good minor edits outside of this article, but I don't think he understands what the problems are with the article he created, and I'm not sure where to start with explaining it. Singularity42 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice message! *Sigh*! I'll look into it. — Sebastian 02:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

New Concorde

How could you think I'd let you down (chuckle)? The article is begining to shape up. Yes, there is much more yet to do... but its being done. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, when you wrote above "Strange how the very bad sometimes get more attention than the very good", I thought you felt some remorse about investing your precious time in an article about a very bad movie. So it's hard for me to understand that you now continue on that track - investing your time in the article about a company whose main claim to fame is that very same bad movie. I'd be mildly interested in why you don't dedicate your time to movies and companies that are worth it. — Sebastian 15:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not remorse (chuckle)... just a befuddled fascination. I took the original film article as a special challenge... as its easy to improve articles about pouplar and well-received films. When reviewers hate it... that's when an article needs some wiki-love. And now the force behind that film and hundreds of others of similar ilk... Roger Corman. He's an industry legend... a very prolific producrer and one who has literally influenced many hundreds of today's top actors and directors. In the 80's he recognized the growing market for home video and made a killing. He creaated Concorde/New Horizons which became New Concorde. They may make and sell lower quality films (hundreds of 'em) but they are very good at doing what they do and have posted some amazing profits. It is in they results where they built their notability. Had they made a couple bombs and then faded into obscurity, notability might be hard to asssert or source. But they are still going strong 27 years later. And cheap as their films are... people are buying them... lots of them. Go figure. And surprisingly... many actually receive nice reviews. So their claim to fame would more be like recognizing a niche and filling it... affordable films (good and bad alikle) intended for the small screen. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to revist the article at this point and compare what now exists with what we both first saw. I have more sourcing and cleanup to go... but I think its now a keeper. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh Michael, you're killing me! You must have driven your mother crazy, bringing home birds with broken wings and one-eyed puppies from the street! I only apply WikiLove to people, not to articles. But your dedication touches my heart, and I will retract my AfD nomination. — Sebastian 05:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Sebastian for your good reply, and been so friendly. happy wiki 21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs)

Re: Watchlist count for articles with names in Cyrillic

The script doesn't follow redirects (I should probably note that in the software or mark them somehow...). I think http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Roger+Joseph+Boscovich is what you're after. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Thank you for checking into this. To be honest, I didn't even realize that I had entered the name of a redirect. And thanks for the helpful tool! — Sebastian 00:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Dinah

Paul Dinah, was an excellent writer!

I do not agree with your action of deleting informations about him! He has written an "autobiography" about his "passing to the future"-"near death experience", that many scientists explained as "A consciousness slide through time". He talked about the Valey of Roses... a civilization based on a NEW to us concept. (The Venus project).

Unfortunately, his book has been translated only in Greek (he was German) by a student of his. S.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.187.96 (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The page Paul dinah (sic!), which I deleted, contained nothing but the short text "PAUL DINAH (PAUL AMADEUS DIENACH) ΠΑΟΥΛ ΝΤΙΝΑΧ.". If the author was really notable, you can of course write an article about him, but you clearly need to put a lot more effort in it than that! I recommend using our Article Wizard — Sebastian 06:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.187.96 (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad you saw it. I had been thinking about writing a notice about my reply on your talk page, but didn't do so since you weren't logged in, which meant you only appeared as an IP address. Often people's IP address changes, and they don't see the same talk page. It would be great if you could log in with a user name; that would help our communication. — Sebastian 15:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ellington's Sacred Concerts

Thank you for your interest on my improvements. I am very new to Wikipedia and have a world class knowledge of Duke Ellington and Ellingtonia. If I had my way, I would break it up into 3 seperate album pages listing all the tunes and personnel. Or should each album be listed on the page? That would be my next goal on the page. Making it one page would be easier for me. I don't know if I inputed the books right. If you are truly interested in this music, I suggest you read Janna's book. --Ellingtonrecords (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Replying at talk — Sebastian 18:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Ellingtonrecords

RfD nomination of Ali Zahedi

I have nominated Ali Zahedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MirrorLockup (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have tagged this redirect for speedy deletion instead...it is a link to userspace and as such qualifies under CSD R2. MirrorLockup (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. My bad - I forgot to uncheck "leave redirect behind" when I moved the page. I just deleted it. — Sebastian 18:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Trout Lake Sports deleted?

I didn't see anything wrong with Trout Lake Sports, I had all the criteria, but it was still deleted because of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasking94 (talk • contribs)

The page Trout Lake Sports contained only the words "Boys High School Soccer", and a list of 3 games and 5 goal leaders. How does that assert notability? — Sebastian 05:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD's

Moved to User talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching

Admin coach

Moved to User talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching

Did revisions on Sacred Concert page

Please read and advise. --Ellingtonrecords (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I will reply at Talk:Duke Ellington's Sacred Concerts. — Sebastian 19:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

New Hope?

Sebastian - you are certainly one of WP's dream editors! For me, you are unsurpassed particularly in the diligent, terrifically effective, thoughtful and caring pursuit of collaborative editing. I so admire what you were able to do with the Buddha-related pages and elsewhere. Thanks so much again.

For me, I do check my shrinking watchlist on occasion, sometimes once a month, sometimes twice a day, but rarely do I try to amplify or otherwise intervene any more. (FWIW, in my spare time, I've been cobbling together a web site on Pali chanting, http://chantpali.org [please forgive this product endorsement ;-) ].) Perhaps like yourself, at this time I just don't have time to pursue collaborative editing with such a diverse population in a manner consistent with my values (that is, in an honest, caring, egalitarian manner). My New Hope Creek image addition was simply out of my unique fondness for that creek which my toddler and I visit often.

Thanks so much again for all you've done! I hope you are well and happy! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment! About the time spent here, I know what you mean: It takes a lot of time to adjust to people who are so different - especially when many of them seem to be encouraged by their anonymity to forget the restraint they would use if they met someone in person. (Have you ever noticed how people patiently wait in line in front of a bank counter, but behave like wild animals in the anonymity of their car, cutting in line whenever they can, just to spend a few seconds less in their air conditioned, dolby surrounded metal living rooms?) Your website looks beautiful! It reminds me that just the other day I was wondering about the connection between "throat singing" and Buddhist chant. I looked at Anapanasati#Meditation with breath, and it seemed to me that the second paragraph doesn't seem to apply Anapanasati in particular, but I didn't know enough about Buddhist chant to move it there. — Sebastian 16:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you too for your kind words & I enjoyed your observations about bank lines and inconsiderate drivers :-) I wish for you good things, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at ConcernedVancouverite's talk page.
Message added 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LRC

Moved to User talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at ConcernedVancouverite's talk page.
Message added 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerned about ConcernedVancouverite

It certainly appears that ConcernedVancouverite has a biased and emotional basis for his edits to the revisions to Richard Arsenault's entry.

CV has systematically reduced the article to nothing and refused to even include verified data from IMDb making the article is even smaller than it was for the previous YEAR.

Frankly CV's behavior has been emotional and unscientific. He/she seems to demand sycophantic behavior from his victims, a position we refuse to take with anyone. Furthermore, ConcernedVancouverite's ruthless intimidation tactics may have cause Mr. Arsenault direct harm from any professionals who may have looked him up during VC's assault.

Sebastian, your wiki history has proved much more balanced and professional, so I bring this to your immediate attention. We would like to assume in good faith that this one person's tactics are not representative of Wikipedia's editing process as a whole. We request that ConcernedVancouverite BACK OFF and let more rational minds take over this entry (which admittedly was not perfect, but did not deserve this treatment).

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raproducer (talk • contribs)

Well, ConcernedVancouverite may not have handled this situation ideally, but the problem is bigger than just ConcernedVancouverite: At Wikipedia, there is a very distrustful atmosphere of people editing articles about themselves, their companies or ideas. It's even more so when the editor has no editing experience outside of their own articles. Please read our policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There is a reason why Wikipedia has to be distrustful: Because everybody can edit it, and because it often shows up in top places in search results, it is constantly abused by people who don't care at all about Wikipedia, and only want to promote themselves. I'm not saying that that's the case with you, but that's what many people here are concerned about. You could alleviate these concerns by showing that you care about Wikipedia. The way to do that is by helping with articles where you don't have a conflict of interest. I'm not particularly interested in films, but I recommend you could join WikiProject Films and offer your help there. I think they would be happy to have an editor who knows so much about the industry as you do. Once you got a reputation as an honest and dedicated editor, you will be in a better position to work collaboratively on the articles. — Sebastian 00:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ogbonna Okechukwu Onovo

I have recently been on a roll editing articles on prominent Nigerians. I just started the one above, which is clearly notable: the subject has a powerful and highly visible position. While checking for sources, I came across a Google link to User:Okay Uzoma/Ogbonna O. Onovo, which led me to Okay Uzoma's talk page and your notes there. I can see the problem. Not sure if the user page should be kept. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My compliments for that well written little article! I wasn't aware Onovo was that high ranking. I hadn't read Okay Uzoma's version thoroughly and just assumed with everyone else that he wasn't notable enough. My only concern at the time was to keep Uzoma as an editor, which apparently did not succeed. (I wholeheartedly agree with you about the need for sympathy!) On the off chance that they comes back, it would be great if you could write to Uzoma that you created the article. As for User:Okay Uzoma/Ogbonna O. Onovo, it would probably best for Wikipedia if it were changed that to a redirect at some time (tagged as "{{R from duplicated article}}"). We should put {{Mergeto}} on top of that page, and alert Uzoma on their talk page. After that, I would wait a month to give Uzoma enough time to reply. Do you feel Uzoma's version contains text that might improve your article? If so, then it could be merged there. (In which case the tag could be "{{R from merge}}".) I would think that Okay Uzoma would be happy about that. — Sebastian 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have been doing a string of these thumbnail sketches, which I find rather addictive. I think they are accurate as far as they go, but suspect they are missing important aspects. With luck, editors who actually know something about the subjects (perhaps Uzoma) will improve them. As for the Uzoma version, I came across most of the same material in the first source cited, and drastically summarized it into one paragraph. I don't think it is useful to list all junior positions and dates in detail, and did not mention any of the awards because I have no idea whether or not they are significant. Perhaps I am being too minimalist. I will leave a note for Okay Uzoma though, encouraging contribution. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at User_talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching.
Message added 04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Irbisgreif (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with welcoming

Hi Sebastian, could you help me out help out a new user, User:Abs85? The user used some copyrighted text which I removed and wants to know how to do better. I saw you're on the welcoming committee and I'm not sure what to write. Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you see that? I am not a member of the Welcoming committee. However, I try to help new users, especially when they are interested in an area that may be underrepresented here. In the case of the message on your talk page, it seems that Abs85 didn't understanding the problem. For you as an experienced editor, it may seem obvious when you mention the copyvio in one of your summaries, but with a new user, you can't even be sure that she saw - let alone understood - that. It would be great if you could patiently explain that in your reply. Some people would include a link to WP:COPYVIO, but that page isn't so easy to read for a new user, so you might want to keep that for a later part of the conversation. For the moment, all the user needs to know that there is nothing wrong with the text you deleted, and if she writes the same information in her own words, it will be fine. — Sebastian 17:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at User_talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching.
Message added 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Additionally, would you be interested in joining WP:PSRP as well? Your advice is proving invaluable. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete my Stony Brook DMA concerns page?

Why did you delete my Stony Brook DMA concerns page?

Why?

We have a program which is in need of additional information from all participants. It is very difficult to disseminate information across a wide consituency. No, it will not be a completely thorough, thought-out page. But it has to grow somehow??

What pleasure do you get in deleting my work?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialMediaWorks (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the page Stony Brook DMA concerns because it didn't even remotely resemble an encyclopedic article. Deleting such articles is not a pleasure in itself; my motivation may best be compared with that for weeding a garden. You do it because it has to be done if you want to get a nice garden. I want Wikipedia to be a nice encyclopedia. If you want to create information collaboratively that is not encyclopedic, I recommend using one of these other wikis. — Sebastian 07:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments, suggestions, and re-framing the information are all things that can shape information to its most useable and useful form. Deleting is certainly the quickest. Perhaps you disagreed with my intent, who knows...

May we spare the metaphors of 'diligent humility'? As they are unencyclopaedic.

Best Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialMediaWorks (talk • contribs) 04:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. Where did you see the "metaphors of 'diligent humility'"? — Sebastian 18:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SebastianHelm. You have new messages at User_talk:Irbisgreif/Coaching.
Message added 19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just making sure... Irbisgreif (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in Turkey

(This section was originally named "WikiProject Human rights")

I saw that you are a member of that project and was encouraged by your remark that you like to help newbies. My "problem": I wanted to provide some kind of guidance on how to structure articles on human rights in particular countries. The project page did not give me any clue, since much on it (such as the title Projects) have only a ? The only idea that I could come up with was to create a subpage to my user page, but that is completely outside the project. Any idea?

Just in case that I did not express myself clearly enough. I have restructured Human rights in Turkey as a draft under User:Sc.helm/Human rights in Turkey and believe that this could be a sample for similar pages. Small note at the end: it may be considered silly that two people with German as their native language correspond in English, but other visitors of your page may not understand that. BTW, my last name is not Helm, my first name is Helmut. Sc.helm (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite an effort! I will look into this and reply by tomorrow. — Sebastian 22:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right that a good article can serve as a guide for others, but for that, you first need that article to be accepted by at least a majority of other editors. I am concerned that that may not be so easy. Any major revamp naturally runs against resistance: Many people already worked on that page (it has almost 1000 edits!), and it's just human nature that not everybody embraces a change of what they have become used to, especially if the change is so different from the original that they can't assess it with a simple diff.

So, I would rather be concerned about getting your version accepted. What advantages does it have over the existing version? I noticed that you distinguish between "Main Issues" and "Further Issues". Is this a generally accepted distinction? If not, then you will already have all the groups that are now delegated to also-ran status against the change.

I would recommend investing some good time in explaining your changes. The best place for that is IMO Talk:Human rights in Turkey. I don't think it's necessary to turn to WP:HR; there probably will be enough people watching the HR in Turkey page to get a constructive discussion going there. — Sebastian 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I actually expressed my idea at Talk:Human_rights_in_Turkey#Complete_rewrite four days ago and there has been no reaction. What I meant with structure is not so much to separate human rights into main and further issues (that can be renamed), but since international conventions have some kind of structure like "right to life, ban of torture, freedoms of ...." I thought that people might find it useful to have a similar hierarchy. Sc.helm (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I overlooked that. I applaud your patience in giving it a month.

Let me first say something about the layout of your post: You indented the words "a new structure"; this stands out, and I presume that is because you wanted to highlight them. But that's very unusual. While on other occasions it might be nice to show originality, I'm afraid it might backfire here, where you want to convince others that your way to structure information is better than theirs. The accepted way to do that would be italics or bold text. But I don't see a need to highlight this in the first place - it's already clear from the headline. I would just remove the formatting.

That there has been no reaction may be because it's really hard to compare. Comparing two such articles side by side takes hours, and few people have that time.

You write that "many sentences got lost". That's scary. Don't get me wrong; it's good that you're so honest to write that, but the fact is disconcerting. Editors who contributed to that article don't want any number of unspecified sentences to simply get lost. Think about how many hours of work are in these sentences! Really, if you want people to accept such a major change then you need to meet them at least halfway. (I like the German translation "entgegenkommen"). If I were trying to convince others of my changes, then I would make it as easy as possible for them to understand my changes. That will probably take several hours. But remember that you'd be saving each of the other editor several hours, so, in the overall picture, the sum of editor hours spent would be much reduced. Moreover, it is easier now than in the midst of a heated discussion with someone who opposes your changes because he feels overwhelmed by them.

One possible way to explain the rewrite would be by chopping it up into 5 to 12 easily understandable changes. I would begin with a new page that's an exact copy of the current page (with the categories and interwiki links nowiki'ed, as you did), and I'd then number each change (or give it a simple name for easy reference) and explain it on the talk page. Once you've done that on your private page, you could use the same approach on the article. You don't have to use the same steps, and you don't have to wait a month for that, as long as you keep in mind to make it easy for others to understand what you're doing, and why you're doing it. — Sebastian 16:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to deal with my problem. I must admit that for many entries on pages written in the English Wikipedia in my area of expertise (and that are human rights in Turkey) I have great difficulties in showing much politeness. As an example you may look at Crime in Turkey. The things mentioned there should be somewhere else and the missing parts could be drawn together from better (not brilliant) pages such as Legal system of the Republic of Turkey or the de:Strafgesetzbuch (Türkei) and (of course) other sources. You have articles such as Human rights in Chile and Freedom of religion in Turkey that are not much more than copies of existing reports. The article on Human Rights in Turkey, too, has phrases that were obviously copied from such reports such as recently or during the reporting period.

In these cases I cannot assume that someone has spent a great effort in improving existing texts. Therefore, I do not feel bad, if I remove passages that are not relevant any more or have been documented elsewhere with greater care and precision.

As far as your suggestion is concerned, I have used a different method. I have added three paragraphs to Talk:Human_rights_in_Turkey#Complete_rewrite, explaining why the current structure is bad and the new structure has a logic that is derived from the order of human rights in international conventions. I have also corrected the leading text taking your remarks as inspiration. Sc.helm (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that shows at least what motivated your changes of the outline. It seems reasonable to align that with existing official documents. Still, it seems that you removed not only individual sentences, but whole sections, such as "Minority languages" and "Violence against journalists and intellectuals". Such removals more often than not lead to vehement disputes. That, together with your frank admission that you may have great difficulties in showing much politeness in this area, worries me. (That said, I am grateful about your openness - I take it as a sign that you are working on yourself, which motivates me to help you. BTW, you can also write such things to me by e-mail; I will treat that confidentially; no need to make public confessions here.) So, what is your plan in the event that someone reacts unpleasantly to your changes?

Minor note: I see that you were using tables in your post to place two lists side by side. Tables are meant for arranging information in cells, so I feel that it would be more appropriate to use columns. I am pasting an example of that at User talk:Sc.helm/Human rights in Turkey. — Sebastian 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet, another thank you. I corrected the tables and switched them to columns. As for the rest, I'm rather afraid of getting no reaction than unpleasant ones. Or saying it in a different way: I have no problems if someone edits my work as gravely as I do with others. Regarding the omitted parts, "minority languages" is covered in "ethnic rights" and the "violence against journalists..." could become part of "extra-judicial executions". However, if you follow the style of listing individual cases and go back to 1979 or earlier (as done in the current version) you will have to write a completely new article since more than 5,000 people were killed before September 1980 (including journalists, politicians, jurists etc.) and in the 1990s 176 teachers were killed (105 of them by the PKK) and about 50 journalists were killed by unknown assailants, the PKK, Turkish or Kurdish Hezbollah. Many of them deserve to be named individually.

Thanks for your offer of electronic communication. At this stage there is no real need. Anyone can know what I have to say on the quality of certain pages (usually I say that on the corresponding talk pages as well). BTW, I take it as a must to be polite to all people who contribute, but I do not want to keep poor, misleading or even wrong passages just because I'm trying to be polite. Sc.helm (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! If that's what you meant, then I'm not worried anymore. As for the older cases: We are an encyclopedia, not a news site, so we don't want to have too much of a bias towards the presence. If a section gets too big, we can always break it out into a dedicated article. I have some suggestions for changes of of your outline; I'll write that at User talk:Sc.helm/Human rights in Turkey. — Sebastian 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I do have to say, I don't see the note about languages on TV in the "ethnic rights" section. — Sebastian 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Admin Commandos

Sebastian,

I researched on Wiki that you have helped new users. I have been recently attacked with an onslaught of "Speedy Deletion" notices on a page I didn't create. They took the whole page down (i.e. 21 Magazine) without any research on their end. I kept asking them to help! One Wiki Admin guy has a Stat Graph on his user page bragging about how many "speedy deletions" he has made with no stats on helping build or edit a page. One other, has a Trojan with a Spear image and Awards for "speedy deletions". This is like a game for these guys.

In any event, I need help building a page with the knowledge and protection of keeping the page up after my hard work researching, etc.

Thank you!

Modelmanager (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager

That's sad - you and the other editors got yourselves locked in an ugly escalation. You're right, you came across a number of people who enjoy fighting. Unfortunately, you gave them just what they needed to rev up their hunting instincts: Repeated reversion of edits, and personal attacks. Why act that way? If you came across a pride of lions, you wouldn't pelt them with pebbles, would you?

I understand that the threat of deletion feels like an attack. But the intention of the "Speedy Deletion" notices is actually to help you. If someone wanted to really hurt you, they would just delete your article without notice. The notices contain links to relevant pages. They are there to give you the chance to address the concerns, and convince us of the value of your contribution.

I would like to demonstrate to the deletion game players that they're wrong. As you noticed, I often step in and decline speedy deletion requests. I do that when I feel an article has potential and when I can assume that the new editor tried to do what's best for Wikipedia. But, I'm sorry to say, what I've seen so far in your case doesn't give me that impression. All I've seen so far points only to a very strong interest in a certain business. If I now stand up for you, and you proceed on the same trajectory, then they will be vindicated, and they will have great ammunition to ridicule my engagement. I need some reassurance that the article is worth saving, and that you really care for Wikipedia. For the former, I need reliable sources that proof the subject of the article is notable. For the latter, I would recommend you show that you can work together with others harmoniously by helping in areas other than 21 Magazine. — Sebastian 06:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of content from ongoing AFD discussion

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination), you will be blocked from editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Relax and assume a little bit good faith. Why would I delete part of a "keep" vote, when I'm voting "keep" myself? This probably was some fluke in the software; such things happen on busy pages. I just wanted to fix this and realized you did it already; thank you for taking that time instead of simply reverting my edit. And thanks for caring about Wikipedia. — Sebastian 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Given some of the server lag weirdnesses that have been going on today, I can go along with that being what happened -- especially since my (separate) edit reinstating the Lady's comments never showed up, and I didn't notice that for quite a while. From my perspective (or maybe in my defense), I did wait to see if you put the material back in a subsequent edit; the software fluke was particularly flukey (it left some intervening edits in), making the deletion appear deliberate; and somebody had just proposed moving my comments elsewhere, reinforcing that impression. Something of a perfect storm moment . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Waiting doesn't help; I usually don't look at a talk page again when I already looked at the preview before saving. It's not worth worrying about; I can live with the risk of running into a software glitch once every 10,000 talk page edits. You don't have to write a defense, I can live with getting a message like this. So I regard your last message not so much as a defense, but rather as you being open with me. It's interesting to see what drives other people to react in certain ways. But if I may be equally open with you: If you were running to become an admin, I would not vote for you, because I would expect an admin to be not so flustered by one polite request that he/she is unable to assume good faith with an unrelated third person. — Sebastian 06:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here to note that: I think you accidentally removed some comments in this edit [10]. It's been restored I think, but some of the editors following up seemed to take offense, so you might want to clarify. People get mighty bitey around the holidays. :) Cheers.

But the warning mongerers beat me to it. The level of civility around here could sure use some work, and I'm sorry to see our community so often fail to assume good faith, but I hope you don't let it bother you. Thanks for your contributions Sebastian. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yeah, the biteyness sometimes bothers me, too. But that's what we get for having the user waring templates; I contributed to that myself when we designed them.

Maybe we include this as an example in Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars? — Sebastian 21:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely something wrong with the software. Even after Hullaballoo fixed it, there still was some part of LadyofShalott's comment missing [11]. I'm tempted to add a big box to that page to warn people, but that would only further clutter the page. — Sebastian 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've answered your comment

At the AfD discussion. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road Comprehensive (2nd nomination)

I just wanted to mention that you might want to rewrite your rationale for this, since the tool you used looked at the first AfD and not the recent one. The page you want to look at is here. ThemFromSpace 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you - I will do that. Sorry about the confusion. — Sebastian 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, SebastianHelm! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Vedavyasapriya Swami Maharaj

I see you removed the CSD from the article. Please see [12]. ttonyb (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not the link to a deletion discussion. I thought my edit summary was clear about that: "Speedy deletion declined; no link to previous discussion. Please read template:db-repost for instructions how to use this template."[13]. There was an AfD for this or a related article, but result was no consensus, default to keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedavyasapriya Swami. — Sebastian 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies I somehow missed that it was a no consensus result. ttonyb (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not just that. My point was that you would have made it easier for others to find this if you had inserted a link, as per the instructions. Can you please do that in future? — Sebastian 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

List of doctoral studies in Argentina

Wait a minute I found the correct data to support my work!!! Carau

Please see User talk:Carau#Don't recreate deleted pages. — Sebastian 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (geometer)

First, I wanted to mention that there is some sort of a technical error in the closing template for this AfD: your signature is missing but there are two extraneous visible }} symbols. Please take a look. Second, I find your close Change to article about book The Geometrical Foundation of Natural Structure: A Source Book of Design rather perplexing and, in my view, incorrect. There was a fairly clear consensus in the AfD against having a biographical article about Robert Williams. This problem cannot be simply solved by changing the title, since there was almost nothing in the Williams article about the book and almost all of the article's content was and is about him. If there is to be an article about the book, it would have to be written almost entirely from scratch. In a situation like this a plain "delete" outcome is appropriate, with a possible userfication. Nsk92 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I at least added an {{unsigned}} template but replacing it by a proper signature would be an improvement. Also, I agree with Nsk92 regarding the content issues here. Especially in connection with the editing issues we've already had in the article, converting it to one about the book is going to be highly nontrivial. I might add that I just did a search on the book in Google news, Google scholar, and Google books, and came up empty, so sourcing your proposed replacement article is going to be difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your friendly messages. You are making good points; I probably underestimated the severity of the change. There is a reason why "change" is not one of our standard options. I wanted to preserve those parts that could form a basis for an article about the book, but Nsk92 is right that userfication would have been a better way to do so. Since there doesn't seem to be one primary editor, incubation might be an even better choice.

I am busy with other things right now, but I am amenable to changing the close. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to just change the AfD, or if we have to go through deletion review. Do you have experience with that? — Sebastian 17:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be Ok if the AfD is closed as delete and the closing statement includes saying that you (the closing admin) would be willing to provide a copy of the article for userfication purposes if somebody requests it (or something along these lines). Nsk92 (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read the deletion discussion very carefully, and I cannot see any basis for this move as being viewed as a consensus decision, and I therefore find the decision bewildering. It seems to me that the logical thing to do is to close as "delete", and, if anyone thinks the book is notable enough for an article, then they should start a new article on it. At present the article is clearly not on the topic indicated by its title: the topic is, in fact, only briefly mentioned.

If the closing admin agrees I see no reason why the AfD result can't be simply changed, without deletion review. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see at least one reason: It could be considered unfair to the editors who invested their time in this article, voted "keep", and now may not expect such a change and not have the AfD page on their watchlist anymore. But that can be addressed by notifying them. Since the current page is really not something that should stay in this state for long, and since there hasn't been any enthusiasm for changing the page, I will now (1) change the AfD page, (2) delete the page and (3) notify the "keep" voters. — Sebastian 17:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to drag this out further, but the debate looks more like 'No consensus' to me, and relisting may have been the appropriate option. Unless anyone else objects though, I'd settle for deletion for now. Incubation for a few months may be worthwhile in case a decent source or two can be found - Google isn't the be all and end all of finding coverage.--Michig (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, given that 4 good editors voted "keep", you may be right that other admins may have found this "no consensus" (which, BTW, would have resulted in "keep", not "relist"). However, per Wikipedia:Consensus#Community discussions and polls, we have to look at the arguments themselves. My impression was that all "keep" arguments were arguments for keeping an article on the book, not on the author. Still, your objection gives me enough pause to wait before I proceed with the AWB removal of links. I will incubate the article tomorrow per your request. — Sebastian 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing But Treble

Hey, that was a thoughtful and very nice comment you left on Jnw39's talk page. (I had tagged the article for deletion). Good work! --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I feel that the way we treat new editors is vital to our success and the best safeguard against organizational sclerosis. Once in a blue moon I succeed in keeping a new editor, but most of the time they just move on after their first article is deleted. — Sebastian 17:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Adult documentary

good call on this difficult afd. i have changed the language, it already reads much better. still not a great article, but a start.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment! As I see from the afd, you even voted 'delete' - so I'm doubly impressed: Once because you are complimenting me for a decision that was different from your preferred choice, and twice because you, rather than one of the 'keep' voters, took the article under your wings! — Sebastian 07:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Concentration camp Wester-Faengle

Greetings, Sebastian! Just wanted to be sure you'd see what I added in response to your query. Re: Ref Desk dynamics in general, please note: had you not mentioned Denmark I wouldn't have been likely to tackle the International Tracing Service catalogue, whose two volumes are non-alphabetical and only vaguely indexed. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, thanks! It got me interested in reading the article on ITS. Would you know, by any chance, what's the deal with the two different Schindler’s Lists[14]? (BTW, I think the translation from Spanish seems to contain a misunderstanding; the box already belonged to the Australian library. But I'm not proficient in Spanish, so I left it.) — Sebastian 10:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the details of these lists, which I suppose would each have been vetted to the best of the provider's and/or recipients' abilities. Am sorry, too, that I'm not in a position to follow this up; my work at present involves preparing catalogue entries of primary material in our archives, reconciling spelling discrepancies and typos along the way, translating to English, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I remember where I met you - at the Roma discussion. I wish you good success with that exhibition! Do you need help translating from German to English? — Sebastian 22:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I wanted to add that it's a shame that the ITS was so secretive for so long. I am from Germany, and I know that privacy is really a bigger issue there than in most countries, but I can't see how you can keep up the argument that you're protecting the privacy of a group of people, when the same group of people demands more openness. — Sebastian 11:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As that content documents the perpetrators as well as the victims, I don't suppose all those involved would demand more openness; rather the contrary. Meanwhile we archivists on the international scene have our hands full and hope that our efforts will provide material for future researchers who won't be working against the clock as is now the case. Thank you for your interest! -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the ITS would be so concerned about the privacy of perpetrators. The laws are another matter; Germany, Austria and Switzerland have strict de:Datenschutzgesetze ('laws for the protection of personal data'), and I can easily see those bureaucrats following them to the letter. (BTW, at least in Germany, these laws have been set up precisely because of our bad experience with the Gestapo. That distrust is deep rooted in Germany now, and has to do with my outrage at BB's post: I still remember that my father, e.g. kicked himself for having indicated a unique visible trait when filling out his driver's license application.) But it's rather unlikely that an international institution as the ITS would have been set up under German law; especially not right after the war. At least the installations of the Allied Forces followed their own laws; German police couldn't even fine a car for a traffic violation if it had a license plate issued to US troops and their families. — Sebastian 22:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB 4.6 is broken

AWB 4.6 is broken due to MW Changes. We cannot roll out a fix yet, due to other blocking bugs due to IE. Feel free to download a SVN snapshots, and use 4.9.0.2. This will also help us with testing, and help us release it to you quicker! -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at WT:AWB#AWB thinks I'm not logged in. — Sebastian 18:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thakuri

I gave user MallArun a general notice for not including reliable sources. Given that no sources were given in the Thakuri article, I think the warning was valid. Regards, PDCook (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)