User talk:Seicer/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Sorry to bother you again so soon, but at least it's on a different topic ... =

Resolved

 – Taken to User talk:DionysiusThrax#January 2008. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Seicer,

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but I have been warned before, via an outside email message someone sent me, that there is a lot of political game-playing going on on this site. I feel at this moment that I may have been the object of someone throwing their weight around, although I am willing to look at it differently, if perhaps I just need an "attitude adjustment".

I wonder if you would be so kind as to look at the most recent exchange on my Talk page, involving someone called Kwamikagami, and similarly, the Discussion page for the article entitled "Consonant". I made a change this evening to that latter page, where frankly an irrelevant statement figured prominently in the article that imho did not belong there. I have studied Linguistics formally for eight years -- four undergrad and four graduate -- and I felt I was making a pretty safe change which I was qualified to make; then along came this Kwamikagami person, someone who is clearly very active on Wikipedia -- more active by far than *I* will *ever* be -- and backed out my change, on the excuse that I did not cite any references, in an article that is plainly labeled as having had no citations or references at all, in the first place.

-- I'm afraid I got a little irritated at this person, and it shows in my reply to them. But I don't want to have someone clobbering edits of mine which I consider *very* safe, for lame excuses that don't hold water, and heaven knows what *actual* motivations (The one given, about citations, is nonsense. Also the person is a big talker, making claims to vast knowledge that no one person is likely to be in command of, without offering any citations of his or her *own*.)

I was warned by somebody once that there are bullies on Wikipedia; I'm thinking maybe I've run into one, somebody who feels they *own* an article, apparently even the badly-written parts, and is determined to protect his or her "turf". -- Now maybe I'm overreacting; I admit that's possible: So I'm asking you for your unbiased take on what is really going on. And if, by chance, you agree with me that this person (regardless of the appropriateness of my reply :)) is just lording it over me, I would like to know who polices this sort of thing and whether in your opinion my appealing to *them* could come to any good, or whether on the other hand I'm just asking for more headaches.

Sorry to bother you with this; but you've been a voice of sanity in the recent past. DThrax (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I removed un-sourced text that had been labeled since September 2007 and applied a general unreferenced tag to the entire article. Since you are a former student, you might be able to source the remainder of the text and apply the changes that you committed with a citation. I believe that is the major sticking point at this time -- and if you can produce that (e.g. book with page number, or another reliable source, that would be greatly accepted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Just when I thought everything was finally okay again!

Kwakikagami removed our conversation from certain pages; he also removed part of our conversation from the "Consonant" talk page iself, sometime in the last two days. I figured if *he* could take out part of *his* contribution to the conversation when indeed it was no longer relevant, there was no reason for me to leave *my* part of the exchange there, or for that matter to leave *any* of the exchange there. -->Everything it pertained to had been removed days ago! Please, you have to believe me -- No vandalism of any kind was intended, on my part at least -- there was just no more reason for *me* to leave that unfortunate dispute there, just as *he* had removed part of it, and had removed other copies of it, elsewhere in the Wiki pages. Have you flagged *him* for vandalism, too? I have to take exception to this, because there was no vandalism intended, and the discussion -- one that I don't imagine either he or I would like to see there, especially now that all the material from the Article itself had been obliterated -- was simply no longer pertinent. He definitely removed text, even from that same Talk page, without explanation, first. I was just finishing the clean-up, of now-irrelevant material, that he had started.

I then added ACCURATE, APPROPRIATELY SOURCED material to the "Consonant" article in good faith (actually, I was doing just *exactly* as you had suggested a couple of days ago that I do... That's ALL I was doing). Apparently Kwakigami is taking it personally however, because he has undone my legitimate, well-sourced and well-intentioned changes without any word of explanation. Did he contact you with a complaint? --What I did was appropriate, properly documented, and perhaps most importantly, done in good faith. His actions, on the other hand -- removing my well-documented, appropriate changes this evening from the "Consonant" article as he did -- I can only understand as some kind of immature expression of his "ownership" of the article (i.e., vandalism). PLEASE RESTORE MY CHANGES and tell Kwakikagami not to vandalize my work!

Take a look at his actions. He is out of line, not me. Geez, I thought this whole episode was over with.

Happy New Year, by the way... But I sure don't understand why you're doing this to me. (So upset I forgot to sign...) DThrax (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't find instances of where Kwakikagami removed talk page discussions at the Consonant talk page, only your mass deletions. If it was on his/her own talk page, that is covered under WP:TALK. He/she may also refactor the comments posted under his username, albeit limitedly. If you can provide recent DIFFs, I may be able to provide a more detailed answer.

Note that two wrongs do not make a right. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be mistaken about how a couple of things work, but I did nothing intentionally wrong. The "two wrongs" advice is apt for someone who has bad intentions. I did not and do not. --->SO TELL ME: IF I give a *reason* for deleting that conversation, can I please get rid of it? DThrax (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken to User talk:DionysiusThrax#January 2008. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Run this by you

You have shown a lot of interest in the Waverly Hills page so I thought I would give you an update on the death rate debate. We have over 2,500 death certificates now which includes 21 complete years worth at an average of 107 per year. We also found that the worst year for deaths at Waverly was actually 162 NOT 152 (likely a typo in the autobiography). I started compiling the facts at http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~waverlymemorial/Facts/deathrate/drmain.html I need to make a few updates for some recently compiled years worth but it's still quite a bit of info. Let me know if this interests you or if you can advise a way in which this could fit on the Waverly page without conflicting with the no original research rule. Thanks 74.241.4.231 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realize that I wasn't signed in John (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct way to add Michael Douglas refrence to the Cave Clan page

I note the refrence to the real name of the founder of the Cave Clan has been removed. Why? Censorship? NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.37.70 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I inteperted it as a reference to the actor, Michael Douglas. It's been readded in, sans the inter-wiki link, given that any bio if the founder on WP would be considered non-notable on its own. If you want to include sourced information regarding the founder, the Cave Clan page would be a good start. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. He is notable kind of. He started a world wide underground revoloution and is a role model for thousands. If Ninjalicious has one, Doug should have one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjalicious Ninj never did half the stuff Doug did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.37.70 (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide enough sources? And provide some pages? If you start a page and provide some sources, I can assist in citations and formatting of the text. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we should ask him if he wants one first. But there is some stuff here - http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=17093 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.37.70 (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not reliable

Resolved

 – User blocked previously for edit warring; seems on the track for another. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to ask you why my link to the cities in North America was unreliable?. Cocoliras (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You should check the talk:North America page. You are adding information that is relevant to Central America in an article that regards North America about the top-10 cities. No central America city makes the list, according to the UN, which is a reliable source. Your strong bias has been noted here, where you state that "Central America currently has more influence and popularity than North America." Sorry, original research in articles isn't favored. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You do not know what I mean, do you? I'm just trying to let people know that these are among the ten largest cities, but that other latter cities are also among the largest. Also, as you said, the list was for metro areas, you changed that, cause it was originally based on the population of the cities, well, you aren't taking in fact their size and extension.

Man this dispute is a headache to me, and possibly to you as well. But I never wanted (well I did at a certain time) to cause any damage. I just want to tell the ones who read the article (readers) in what way do we refer to it, since North America has a dozen of meanings and we just refer to one, that's why the hatnote and to let them seek the largest cities that are above the 10 largest, but that instead, are among the 100th largest. Cocoliras (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm done with this. You have been reported for the second time at 3RR for your violations and edit warring, to which you are editing against consensus and fail to initiate discussion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Universities!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Universities! Our goals are to standardize the structure and content of all college and university articles, improve Wikipedia's coverage of these articles (hopefully propelling them to featured article status), and serve as the central resource for all discussions and information related to colleges and universities on Wikipedia.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The university infobox is one way we hope to standardize our coverage of university articles. All university pages should have this infobox, and relevant fields should be filled in and sourced.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has a few expanding departments, which handle article quality assessment, member recruitment and project awareness and article improvement collaborations.
• We have a Student Affairs task force that focuses on Student affairs-specific articles.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask one of the project participants or post a question on the talk page. We'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! —- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding..

My article summary. It was a typo, I meant "I've known OF this band.."

Just making things clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takenforaride77 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dominican Day Parade

Please assist me not to sure what this means " (Reverted 1 edit by UnclePaco; Per discussion, POV: please introduce something a bit more substantial with more RS. (TW)) (undo) " thanks UnclePaco (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated on the article talk page for Dominican Day Parade, and by others,

• The image is a generic image and provides little to no context to the article. It's not related to the topic of the main article, which is the parade itself, and really doesn't serve a clear, illustrative purpose, per WP:IMAGE#Pertinence and encyclopedicity.
• The text is pushing a slanted point-of-view in an article that has very little text otherwise. While it did have a reliable source, it included nothing of a secondary/opposing viewpoint and very little context outside of some arrests.

Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at both the photos on the page you'll see that I am the author of both of them. The image I don't think was generic it was actually one of the individuals who had committed a crime mentioned in the links.

I have actually elaborated on the article and inserted it. If you look at these two articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day_Carnival#Violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade#Controversy they have controversy and violence sections that were less developed. Anyway thanks for the help UnclePaco (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear Seicer, Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 34 support, 2 oppose, and 0 neutral. I appreciate your support! I promise I will wield the mop wisely, and do my best to improve Wikipedia. -- AKeen (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

block

so why dont you block humanusticus--Orkh (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but your edit history shows great incivility towards other editors and you have been warned as such. Given that, Humanusticus may be a bit winded, but hes not overly incivil. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanx

For the revert [1].--Sandahl 04:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Just noticed it from recent changes. Not like the obnoxiously large header gave it away. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cayra

Thanks for your help. That was definitely a situation where I was too lenient because of my own involvement. I'm thinking that in hindsight it would have been best to take it to WQA. Other thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Seicer, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

UK GA Review

Tell me when you are through editing (adding facts) to UK, and I will review the article for you. I am currently in the process of reviewing UF. So, please take your time. (Hint: the UK image in the beginning needs a rationale). Thanks! :-D miranda 10:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe it has been adequately taken care of. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ACTC GA Nom

Thanks for taking some interest in Ashland Community and Technical College. If this article passes GA, we'll have a model for getting the other KCTCS colleges to GA. Perhaps that could even become a task for WikiProject Kentucky and its child projects. Let me know if I can help with the ACTC GA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're more than willing to contribute! I found some information regarding the consolidation of something in the Big Sandy district, which I'll post and link to here later today. I can find some for Bluegrass, which was a part of UK's system (like Ashland years before) until IIRC, 2006. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nearly all of them were members of the UK system at one time. Big Sandy used to be Prestonsburg Community College, I think. Let's just say I'm close to KCTCS, so I'd like to see those articles improved. Hopefully, Ashland will become a model so we'll know what we need to accomplish to get the others promoted to GA. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thats good to hear. I couldn't find much in the way of articles for ACTC outside of record enrollment and some plays. I lived only minutes from ACTC for 20 years, and now I pretty much live a minutes walk from UK, so both are pretty personal projects for me. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

False anon IP AIV

Resolved

 – See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist‎ for further updates. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted a stern warning to the talk page. However, since this has happened before, if you provide diffs for previous spurious AIVs (and their removals) I will block. I take a very dim view of misuse of AIV ... this is the first time I've ever come across one done to try to and harass another user. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With pleasure!

• [2] 22:28, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
• [3] 22:06, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
• [4] 21:54, 8 January 2008 by 75.8.98.85
• [5] 20:17, 8 January 2008 by 75.7.233.121 (cumulation of two)
• [6] by 75.7.233.121
• [7] 01:24, 9 January 2008 by 75.3.251.3

Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I found some of these on my own and blocked the IP for three months and CompScientist for four days. I am really disgusted by this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. I came across it at WQA and thought that it was a routine content dispute, but it was just one sock after another. Thanks for the assistance, it was much welcomed! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Prime Signature dispute

please be patient ...I am working on a response ...--Billymac00 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just let me know if you need any assistance. It's on my watchlist as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Romney

Resolved

 – Not enough time to become involved in another page dispute. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You left the following message at my talk page: "You have essentially turned Mitt Romney's history into an elongated rant against his religion, imposing not text relating to Mitt Romney, but to the religion. Please cease and take your discussions to the talk page."

Seicer, if you look at the history of the article, I have been opposed to the exact thing that you criticize me for. On December 4, I wrote: "If it were up to me, his great-grandparents wouldn't be in this article at all." [8]

Others demanded extensive discussion of Romney's religion, and I have always said it is excessive. When others refused to acknowledge the inappropriateness of turning the Romney article into a lengthy discussion of Mormonism, I tried my best to alleviate the undue weight given to that topic. As recently as today, I again urged that the section on his religion be dismantled, and the material dispersed to appropriate sections, including sections located much later in the article.[9]

Would you please reconsider the message you left at my talk page? I am a Romney supporter and contributor.[10] However, I have always tried to be even-handed and neutral at Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was misdirected. I should read further into the WP:ANI case. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you read about it. This article definitely could use more eyes watching it, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Commitee

It is my pleasure to inform you that your request to become a member of the Mediation Committee has been successful. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks template, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You are also encouraged to join the Committee's internal mailing list; please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it. If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations!

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a difference in Wikipedia. I assure you that I will strive to be upfront and responsible for my actions and duties. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No respect and honor among Wikipedians?

Resolved

 – Filed at WP:ANI#Long-term WP:AGF and WP:NPA abuse. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Civiled? You and Tenebrae are not civiled Wikipedians. I do not see why I should have a good faith with Tenebrae who has failed to inform me about his poisition and policy when he changed Vampirella article. Real administrators require to inform Wikipedia the reason why they changed and stated the policies which they have duties. This Tenebrae is not qualitified as an administrators. Neither you, Seicer. You are acting like a king or boss more than administrator, you forgot that you don't own Wikipedia. You disrespect my message in my talk page -"Wikipedians and guests, please fill your opinions, discussion, and others about me as Cculber007 only, placing here. If it is about pictures, articles, and other issues including Wikipedian policy in legal way (illegal ways will give you suspendion in the policy of Wikipedia that protects the rights of Wikipedians) must be in Cculber007's Talk archive, not User talk:Cculber007 otherwise they will be deleted. if I get disrespectful treats". I have to delete your disrespectful message because I got dispectful treat from you. I prefer to speak with a real administrator. I think that Tenebrae needs some lessons. Vampirella picture is legally cover and 1969 Vampirella cover is in a museum, we need new cover of Vampirella. I am not cooperating and respecting with unfair, unrespectful, immature, and senseless Wikipedians like you and Tenebrae. I do not give good faith for bad Wikipedians! I can file a deaf discrimination lawsuit. Cculber007(Talk Archive) 05:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's long. Per WP:VANDAL: "If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia, you should revert the changes and warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them."

Note that it states that a user, not administrator, may approperiate the warnings. If an administrator agrees with the warning templates, which are required before report to WP:AIV or WP:ANI (and etc.), then you could be blocked. I'm not an administrator, but I can easily report vandals, those involved in an edit war, etc. to the appropriate noticeboard for resolution. Your last sentence pretty much sums up your belief and outlook for WP, which is quite sad and highly undesireable; you should always have good faith no matter what. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF issues

This has been brought up earlier but it is escalating amongst other users. Cculber007 (talk · contribs) has been warned many times and has been blocked previously for incivility. Here is a list of DIFFs, also catalogued on my talk page:

• [11]: Belief that any warnings appropriated by users is nonsensical and would appreciate warnings/notices from administrators only, going against WP:VANDAL.
• [12] Wholly inappropriate edit summary, per WP:AGF.
• [13] Creative reuse of a header.
• [14] (the second message)
• E-mail from Cculber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:20 PM: "That is not vandalism, that is my complaint. I think I contact Wikipedia about your bad faith. I am not accepting that you think I vandalised your pages but you vandalised my pages. I get news for you, You are not right person for Wikipedia. Remove vandalism words and changing to correct. if not, I will call you as vandalism on my pages."
• E-mail from Culber007 (66.230.200.216 (talk · contribs)) sent at Jan 12, 2008 6:26 PM: ""You start to make a fire, you do not want to finish this fire but you want to bring more fires." It means you do not want to solve the problem, you want to start flame war against me instead of others. I think you has something against me as a deaf person. This is last time, changing your comments in your pages from vandalism to complaints. If they are spams and vandalism then Wikipedia is deaf discrimination. Do a right things and solve them will give you a chance of Mediation Committee."

Just making a list. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia policy rights, that was not vandalism

I tried to tell Seicer that was not vandalism, that was my complaint that I believe in the best of Wikipedia's interests but Secier gets a different impression of Wikipedia policy. As my right, I only said what I believe. Seicer does not want to work it out like other administators that I had in the past and pushed it to be a bad side as I called bad faith. Seicer did not cooperate and listen to me but he chose to be on his wrong way. This is last time, it is not vandalism I wrote on the page. Cculber007(Talk Archive) 05:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Loperamide Edit

I think this is the correct way to go about this, but if not, please let me know. I've repeatedly attempted to edit the loperamide page to include the ongoing discussion of its abuse potential. I did make the mistake of saving before I added citations, which I corrected when it was pointed out to me. I'm not positive why it's being sent back now. The sources I provided were not "credible" as in scholarly, but they were original sources- directly from the mouths of those who had actually been doing the 'abuse.'

I don't see what better citation you're looking for for this sort of thing. There's hardly a better source for information regarding the abuse of obscure substances (and those with little recreational value) than the mouths of the users, who are seldom reached for traditional research.

The final citation I provided was direct to the abstract of a journal article that detailed the proper preparation of O-Acetyl-Loperamide, which anyone with any chemistry experience would see negates the possibility of using acetic acid in place of acetic anhydride.

Do you want a journal source to say directly that O-Acetyl-loperamide *can't* be prepared from acetic acid and requires acetic anhydride? It will never exist, it's just common sense for anyone with training in the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.78.223 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the info

I'll add a note to my report about his pattern of abuse. Thanks again! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Need guidance

Hi Siecer. I'm new to the WQA board and therefore seek your help in mediating in the User:Ronz case. It seems to me that Ronz's position is more correct on the Quackwatch page contents; however the other writers are right in that Ronz is too terse in his messages & accusations. All in all, both sides have a history of good edits. Also Ronz hasn't tried to defend or explain himself even once at the WQA board or at the RfC. Could you guide me on how to help? Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.

Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: e-mail

Seicer, you can use the "E-mail this user" link on my user page. -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2008

U.S. Roads Newsletter, Issue 1

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —^Mitch32^contribs 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Cave Clan issue

Resolved

 – Users attempting to spam or defame Cave Clan. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noted, several people have been trying to make changes to the Cave Clan web page. Notably people from Melbourne have been trying to add the Urb-X web site as a comparative link, while people from Sydney have been trying to add links to media articles about deaths in the Cave Clan.

These keep getting removed.

So work with these people, please provide some advice on how to legitimately add these links, and once they are added, how to prevent them from being removed.

Also, why is Michael Douglas's name been removed? Surely if Wikipedia wants to provide accurate information, why remove his name? It is not like half the planet knows his name. Certinly the athoraties do, so why remove it?

Perhaps the page should be moderated? Eg, any changes must be approved before appearing wild? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.206.254 (talk • contribs)

I wonder why? I have noted it extensively in the edit summaries and on the talk page, and on various talk pages of various editors. The Urb-X web-site is not related in any part to the Cave Clan, and is just a general urban exploration web-site. It is also considered spam per policy. As for the "sources" relating to any deaths within the Cave Clan, you might want to read up on reliable sources to find an appropriate medium outside of a forum or blog posting. If it has been noted by the media, then use that as a source -- not a non-credible forum.

I make note of this in the edit summary and elsewhere. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

North America, January 2008

Resolved

 – Please inform and discuss with others and gain consensus on the talk page before committing to the edits again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to reach consensus but no answer has been given, you appear to be the only one who is trying to help and hear. I don't know what are the problems of adding a hatnote to tell readers how we do refer to North America in this article, at least, when they read it, they will know that the article is written like that and that other ways of reference can be found on "Usage" section. As with the largest cities, people needs to know more, as people says, "the more, the better!". I'm just trying to add a link if people wants to refer not to the 10 largest cities, but to the 100th largest and beyond! We are not working with limited resources and we aren't limiting the article cause just someone likes it like that. Another editor called "Corticopia" appears to have a complex since when he edited the page before my blocks, he answered to its revert asd "No". I don't know how are we solving this, and I don't know what's bad about placing more data. I think it will be better if we expand the knowledge horizons. Cocoliras (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And that is not done without discussion, since your additions have been controversial and really quite unneeded on the whole. Just because a discussion may not receive the overwhelming number of replies (or support) that you wish, doesn't grant you a right to override consensus. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And what if I inform anyone related to the case? Cocoliras (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I need you to discuss as well your opinions on the talk page, I need urgently help. Cocoliras (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. You are well on your way towards another block, having reverted three times today at North America alone. You could care less about discussion or consensus, and only want to see your edits put forth. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for stating your rationales why I should not be granted this time and I'll try my best to deal with it. I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WQA/AGF

Resolved

 – I was being sarcastic :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by your reply to me at WQA. I am very self-critical and always prepared to learn from a more experienced editor such as you. (At least that's how I see myself.) One thing I have learned is to unwatch WQA and stay away until another matter is taken there that affects me directly. But I would like to take away something more substantial from this situation. Therefore I would appreciate it if you could say a few more words about your impressions of my behaviour, and what led to your reply. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for sure what my reply was towards. My watchlist is quite long and I only have a small amount of time to devote to everything. Can you provide a link to the section? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's at the end of this long section. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh that. It was meant more of sarcasm, in reply that you were accused of pot-kettle-black. No harm meant, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. Perhaps I should reconsider my plan of leaving WQA then. I think I am quite good at detecting sarcasm, only in this case I just didn't expect it from someone with your experience. I wouldn't be surprised if Zenwhat has taken it at face value. If you doubt it, have a look at his response to a message I left on his talk page. (All of this happened before your comment, so it's certainly not your fault.) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the topic "Ghosts" External Links

Resolved

 – User is spamming Ghost. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia's rules regarding spam links, but it is also included in the rules that External Links may be used to add additional information on Wikipedia's topics (information that is not present on the page). Some people who visit Wikipedia looks for possible (not entirely accurate) clues, which may prove or disprove its existence.

External Links are like additional resource to the researcher. If you save only one source, which cites only one experience that is not paranormal related, and remove the rest paranormal-related sites. Then you leave room for doubts of bias information.Ursa Gamma (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to paranormal ghost stories are hardly considered scholarly and per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, the links...

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.
3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
4. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well, so be it. Of the many users that viewed the page, no one contradicted that change, only until now. They are not my personal websites. One link there Ghostvilla was created under my design but it belongs to an independent group of ghost hunters. I added it on Wikipedia because they have ghost-related videos, which are what I thought Wikipedia lacks, and I think some people here would agree to that.

You may say that ghost stories are not scholarly but I disagree with you. What science could not explain nor can't prove does not entirely mean they don't exist. Science, in fact, created Parapsychology to deal with it, to study it. However, you have mentioned some strong points, and since it does conform with Wikipedia's rules, I'm afraid, I have to stand down and accept it. I'm sorry if I have caused any troubles but you know, I was just trying to help.Ursa Gamma (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: our discussion at WT:ER

Hey Seicer. I didn't mean to imply that you should blank the editor review, I think you should add the review back. Looking at it, I don't think there's evidence of bad faith, and it can be helpful to additional reviewers to see what others have already said. Plenty of people get >1 review, so don't worry about that. If you do want a blank review, I'd archive it and submit a new one rather than removing the comments, in the interest of transparency. delldot talk 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put a link here and have it archived for the sake of having a prior second review. Thanks for the comments, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That works fine, sorry to be a pain, thanks for being agreeable about it. Hit me up in a bit if you still haven't gotten a review from anyone. Peace, delldot talk 22:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it would be better anyways to at least let other people know my thoughts behind the prior review. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting attention

I would humbly like to draw your attention to [15] where the editor User:Inder315 has been indulging in egregious breach of wikiquette on the WQA page itself! Nobody seems to be paying attention. I'm sick and tired of his personal attacks. I beseach you do something about it, please! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it after dinner. Thanks for bringing this up. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The user is continuing his personal attacks even as I'm trying my best to keep my cool. I'm not even reverting his edits pending the RfC. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you messed up an edit.

I'm not sure what you were going for here, but you cut out like, huge amounts of the page. I reverted it, but feel free to re-do whatever it was you were trying to do. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF? That wasn't what I had intended at all. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much. I haven't been paying any attention, but when I saw (-7,951), I figured I might want to sure your edit hadn't gone awry. PS I think there's something wrong with the last one of your icons in your Icon page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue V (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:040804 26.jpg

I have moved your image to commons and taken the opportunity to give it a descriptive name, Image:Mercer County Courthouse.jpg. Could you please update your gallery link to "[[Image:Mercer County Courthouse.jpg]]". Thanks. Finavon (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In the future, if an image has been moved to the commons (as what's being done to the rest of mine), feel free to edit the filenames. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's good to know - simple moves will require no action, only if a descriptive name is used. Finavon (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:KYint

A tag has been placed on Template:KYint requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:KYintlegend

A tag has been placed on Template:KYintlegend requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{tranclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement and Mediation

Resolved

 – I am recusing myself from further discussions regarding this topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As the mediator for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion, please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#ScienceApologist (talk · contribs). The complaint relates to behavior on the mediation talk page. Do you think that the functioning of the mediation has been disrupted? GRBerry 20:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the edit warring is why it was brought to mediation in the first place. I've asked both to recuse themselves from the lead, and to use the commenting section below to discuss proposed changes. I've made some edits that are in the spirit of the discussions preceeding it, and to hopefully satisfy both parties. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cincy"

Even the Reds' official website uses the expression "Cincy" frequently. [16] Perhaps you can suggest a way to word it better than I did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn't realised that you were a rather established editor and should have just applied a CN tag instead. In the future, please assume good faith upon other editors, especially since I am well versed with the city of Cincinnati and its numerous nicknames (there was a large debate which I mediated long ago on WP). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I should have cited it also. I just assumed it was well-known but didn't happen to be mentioned in the article. Typically, a citation tag would be the best thing, unless it's either so obscure, outrageous, or downright false that it makes more sense to remove it as being uncited. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another nickname, possibly harder to validate, is "Sin City", used ironically by CB talkers, given Cincinnati's reputation as a fairly straight-laced city, compared with Cleveland, for example... such as in 1989, when then-Bengals coach Sam Wyche made the unusual move of taking to the mike and chastising some hooliganistic fans, "You don't live in Cleveland, you live in Cincinnati!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of this myself, and if I'm not mistaken, it was listed as one of the nicknames but no one could find a valid source for this. Feel free to re-add it if one can be found. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's hard telling what would be considered a "reliable" source for CB radio slang. I think Las Vegas is also called "Sin City", but in that case they mean it. The song "Convey" refers to several cities by CB slang nicknames, but Cincinnati is not among them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the first couple of reference I found that link "Cincinnati" with "Sin City", though I don't know if they would be considered "reliable" or not. [17] [18] However, I keep running into stuff about a town call Newport that was apparently being called "Sin City". [19] So maybe it wasn't intended to be ironic after all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now to check it out further, but I recalled an article regarding Newport to be "Sin City" due to all of the XXX-rated theatres and various pleasure-shops. It made no mention of Cincinnati though. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Resolved

 – I am recusing myself from further discussions regarding this topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but have you considered asking for additional assistance with the cold fusion mediation? You should be aware that one of the parties to the mediation was blocked for 96 hours due to a comment related to the mediation - it was my understanding that mediation was, barring a substantial disruption, supposed to be controlled by the mediatior, rather than various adminstrators asserting that comments in the mediation were disruptive. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The comments itself was not disruptive, it was the pointless reverting and edit warring, followed by acts of incivility and a breach in prior Arbitration that led to his extended block. His comments have been heard loud and clear many times, and I take both sides into consideration when appropriating my edits and notes accordingly. The dispute came about not over initial discussion, which is now over, but in editing the lead section. As I stated in a note left on the page, anyone involved with Cold Fusion is free to edit the lead to their desire and to take into consideration the desire of others, but when disputes occur, to take it into discussion as to avoid conflict. That process worked quite well until SA began edit warring, followed up by more edit warring from another editor -- which is why this was brought to Mediation in the first place.

His comments are more than welcome when he returns, but the fact is, he breached prior Arbitration (which I was unaware of) and it was dealt with accordingly. As you can note, discussions have once again resumed, and the lead section is all but satisfactory for both camps. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will review the top of the section myself as a member of one of those "camps" (I belong to the one that believes the encyclopedia should be accurate) but I believe it was your responsibility, as the mediator, to mediate the conflict. If it was becoming disruptive, you should have taken steps to limit that before it reached the point that a block was appropriate (it appears you said a block was appropriate). A failure in mediation is not a failure of the parties, it's a failure of the mediator. Unless you take immediate steps to repair the credibility of the process, I think the exit of one side from it is reasonably assured. That you were unaware of the prior arbitration, to be blunt, is negligent. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean, the exit of SA? He doesn't wholly represent one side, and per his e-mail that he sent me, he sees Arbitration enforcement as something as a mere joke. I can't be here 100% of my time, as much as you would love to see that, and discussions and edits occur while I am out in the hospital, working on a project/exam, or at my job. The credibility is not in question -- only the actions of SA are. And it's quite clear from his (lack of) discussions in the mediation, that he is only here to assert his viewpoints and nothing more. I was unaware of SA's prior arbitration because he had not initiated or participated in much discussion regarding Cold Fusion in Mediation, and only began editing when we were working with the lead. Move along, if your only concerns are with SA's block, then you can take that up elsewhere. To be blunt, I'm quite satisfied that he is blocked for an extended period of time for violating prior notices, and would appreciate it if you can step out of the discussion -- given that you were not involved with the Mediation of Cold Fusion in the first place. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:PouponOnToast is sock of User:ScienceApologist

Please see this diff of PoT's comment on my talk page and my response. Note that PoT has shown an unlikely familiarity with the issues of debate in the Cold fusion mediation. See the ArbCom case for more details about SA's abusive use of socks and his restriction on using more than one account. There's much more, including coincident times of SA being blocked and PoT starting to edit going back months and I'll be filing a complaint shortly. I would like to suggest that you consider banning PoT from the CF mediation page as an obvious sock of SA. Ronnotel (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator (I think I'm one of the only ones on the Mediation Committee to have that distinction), but I will just remove the comments if it is confirmed that PoT is a sock of SA. He's only made one comment and it is one that has been beaten to a pulp, so its being ignored for the most part. Much thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a copy of an e-mail I sent to another administrator (who PoT had sent a notice towards) --

Regarding the refactoring of comments, as indicated in here, was timed in accordance with an e-mail from SA. The e-mail is at the end of the message, but it is dated 14 February around 4:57 PM EST (20:57). I received rather snide comments regarding my editing abilities around that time frame, seen here.

And the user has been forum shopping, or at the least, leading on with an editing style consistent of SA, seen here.

Another administrator believes that this is a sock of SA or an SA apologist, and I have had no part in it until I was called upon to make a statement on SA's edit warring -- here and original notice

It seems as if the comments by PouponOnToast were in retaliation for SA's 96-hour block, where I endorsed a censure of pointless edit warring and snipes by SA at the Mediation. SA had not participated in early discussions or in arguments prior to beginning a POV-push starting with the lead, and PouponOnToast has not participated in the Mediation _at all_ until today, and it was with a comment that was long ago answered.

Actually, in light of PoT's "retirement," I am not recusing myself in further discussions or actions in regards to the socks that PoT is perpetrating. I no longer believe that it is SA after engaging in healthy and rather amicable discussions with SA, and with PoT's "retirement," then it is no longer a consequence to engage in further action as he was never fully involved in mediation procedures. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Get well

Seicer, thank you for your mediation on Cold Fusion. I understand that you have (had) some nasty illness (recently). I hope you'll get well soon. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I look forward to working with you on Cold Fusion. I've done some general queries that will add in some of the (many) missing citations. I've also used a 2006 version of Cold Fusion, as it was much more exhaustive in terms of text and featured far more citations -- after coming out of FA. I felt that even if it was somehow an "incorrect version," it was at least easier to take apart and examine. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 04:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Best pic I've seen

RfM of Cold Fusion

I don't know where to start beyond deleting the whole thing. I mean:

• A: it's a copyright violation
• B: from a fringe publication
• C: that characterizes the article in its worst throes of pro-CF excess.

Why depart from editing the Featured Article version? JohnAspinall (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed two instances of copyright vios., and will continue to review it to ensure that there are no others. I don't know if it is considered as much as a fringe publication as much as some of the other sources, per discussions held earlier. I feel that it is at least worthy to include, given that it explains much of the background history of Cold Fusion, which is not as controversial as the latter sections. The version that the History follows is essentially the Featured Article version, but taken from a Good Article nominee from 2006. It features much more sourcing and explainaton over the 2008 version, and is slightly better than from the Featured Article, in my opinion.

Would it be okay to continue on with other section editing with either the FA or GA-nominee version? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to give it a try, but I predict slow progress. Thank you for your efforts. JohnAspinall (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see slow progress than none, and a version that is compatible with most of the interests in the vested parties, than with a version that is indefinitely locked for edit warring. Remember that not long ago, this was a featured article, and a good article nominee! It still can be with diligent work :O) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note, that I've left it up to anyone involved with Cold Fusion to edit, so if you see a copyright vio., feel free to remove it, use strike through, refactor it, etc. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 03:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Because things get rough

Cheeser1 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CompScientist community ban

Thanks for letting me know ... I had wondered what was going on with that because he had stopped vandalizing my page. He's a perfect candidate for a community ban, and I indicated my support there.

This is also great because I have been pondering a community ban against another long-term abuser for a while, and it was good to get an example of how to propose one. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't for sure how to go about proposing one either, and even left a note at B (talk · contribs) who was proposing one against another user I've been battling for numerous BLP vios. There was a dedicated noticeboard for a while, but its now pretty much at ANI. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had started watching this when I realized an edit I had seen today by User:Mcknight11 was virtually identical with an edit I reverted by User:Wikipeadian last week or so. I'll keep eyes on and watch the pages in question. BusterD (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Thank you for the support during what is ultimately a time wasting activity. To be honest his M.O. gave him away long ago, it was only when his harassment ventured into that ridiculous wikiquette alert report that I was motivated enough to swat him away. Prester John (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Let me know if he rears his head again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just got your email

I just got your email. Emails sent by a user can, should an Arbitration case arise, be forwarded to the ArbComm as evidence. You'll have to judge germaneness when and if it happens.

Without seeing them, all I can recommend is to use your judgment. GRBerry 13:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I have just resorted to keeping them in archive, since the issue has quietened down to where action is no longer necessary. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Warn!

Hey, I was wondering if you could tell me how I can be part of curbing vandalism on this website? I recently got your "good-faith" warning..... I am not a vandal. I'm just new to the whole warning thing. ApsbaMd2 (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are ready, based upon this edit. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)