Jump to content

User talk:Seraphimblade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) at 08:17, 27 October 2023 (→‎Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada: Already answered.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


Please do be nice.

Please read before posting

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

Page Deleted

Hi,

I have seen that the page regarding me has been deleted. Could you please explain me why?

Thank you

Best Regards

Arianna Di Stadio 5.171.43.7 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was created by an editor who was evading a block. Generally speaking, contributions from editors who are evading a block and/or ban are reverted or, in the case of page creations (unless other editors substantially contributed, which wasn't true here) deleted. It's almost certain that this editor was also violating our policies regarding editing for pay and the requirements to disclose that, as well as conflict of interest. If you state you're the individual in question, I don't of course have any way to know if you were somehow encouraging that—if you did, I would suggest you stop doing that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientelensia

Hi,

Just to let you know that I have updated my statement on the arbitration board. Scientelensia (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting of Coco Lee (Exposed)

I just wanted to say surprised at the relisting. It's not something I'm highly invested in, but the article was substantially revised. We've got one redirect that was prior to the revisions, and everyone since then (other than the nominator) ended up at keep, 3/4 were policy-based.

It's a judgment call, and I know I'm second-guessing, but it was a bit disappointing considering the work that was done to retain the article. I guess we'll go another week, unless you want to reconsider. Oblivy (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid not. Right now it seems to be leaning keep, but not so definitively I think another week's worth of discussion will hurt. If you're worried the outcome could change with a relist, well, that probably means additional discussion was the right call, and if you're not, then a bit more time on it won't hurt. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, but in the absence of support for deleting in the current state that it seems pointless to relist it. And because there's always a risk someone will take up the argument for deletion, people advocating for the article have to keep vigilant for another week. So it's not cost-free even if it's a defensible call to relist. Oblivy (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say the same thing. How long should it normally take? Vacosea (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Persian Gulf on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Paul Bettany on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Angela Lansbury on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial agriculture: Case opened

Hello Seraphimblade,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 8, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hanlon's razor on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientelensia

You say “ I was quite unimpressed by the initial response here, which basically amounted to "Well, I'll keep doing it anyway"”, but I heavily disagree! I’m sorry that I gave you this impression, and I reject it expressly. Please read my statement.

Warm regards, From Scientelensia (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I discuss open AE requests only at AE. Please do not discuss them further on my talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Scientelensia (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada

Hello Seraphimblade, Id like to start by saying at no point do I find any fault with any part of what you did here, but I have some concerns about the effect. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (2nd nomination) as a delete for only List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, leaving List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, both nominated alongside List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, unaddressed. Star Mississippi, who I also find no fault in with their actions, later closed both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada as no consensus. Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada had previously transcluded the List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada in the section on Palestinian casualties. What we are left with now is a deleted List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, a remaining List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada that is also duplicated at Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, and a failed transclusion of Palestinian civilian casualties at Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Im at a loss at what procedural option there is to pursue here, but I find Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada to now be blatantly non-neutral, and restoring the contents of List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada to that article would violate the deletion discussion decision as well as the attribution requirements. I would have said I could appeal the deletion decision at DRV to argue all three should have been deleted in the original AFD, but given the later nominations and closings as no consensus I dont know how that would work either. Do you have any advice on what to do from here with this situation as it stands now? nableezy - 22:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note @Nableezy. This is complex indeed. I do think that any extant list should include both Israeli and Palestianian casualties as if one side's casualties are notable, both sides should be. (Using side here for simplicity, I know it's far more complex). re: DRV, I think world events are going to be an issue in terms of consensus. Happy to have "my" closes brought there though to see if we can attain the same close as, to your point, that would make sense. I do wonder though if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (2nd nomination) had been re listed and run over the events of 7-8 October, a consensus would have been reached. There is potential that a N/C there has it restored and all three are transcluded. I'm also going to leave @Liz a note as well to see if she recalls another recent discussion where there was transcluded content. It's not in my contribs because I recall looking at it and thinking while it appeared to have consensus, I had no idea how to enact it, so I didn't close it.
Hope this helps some. Star Mississippi 00:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with DRV is I think each individual decision, taken by itself, is defensible, and if I were voting, again looking at each thing separately, I cant see how the vote would be overturn. I dont know how Id avoid the WP:WAX counter-argument, even if the result of these three parts combined is a glaringly obvious issue. I dont think the two closes you made could be overturned, I dont see a consensus to delete there. And since they had more participation than the original I dont see how that one could overturn those two. And I dont see how the original delete would be overturned either, that seems to have a solid backing even if it has minimal participation, but if one were to go to DRV I think it would have to be that one with the intention of overturning it to no consensus and a renomination of all 3. But, again, I dont think that is going to really fly. nableezy - 01:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well...I would guess it doesn't. It is, like you said, other stuff exists. Articles are evaluated for neutrality based upon their coverage of their particular subject, not an article's existence on another one, and sometimes one subject is notable while a similar-seeming one is not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this particular deletion led to the imbalancing of another article, the Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Beyond that, I see that he opened three separate deletion discussions when saying he was nominating all three, shouldnt they have been instead been a multi article nomination? And do you really think this is just "similar seeming"? nableezy - 04:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles shouldn't generally be transcluding other articles; I don't know why on Earth that's getting done there. But someone's poor practice in a different article has nothing to do with what decision a deletion discussion came to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sweeping imbalance that the multi-AfD debacle has introduced - a huge tilt in content in a manner that quite clearly violates the principle of WP:NPOV, it might be time for someones to channel WP:IAR. At the very least, the material that was transcluded from the now deleted page to the main civilian casualties page could be merged to there. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a multiple at one point, and @Liz recalls closing another (User_talk:Liz#User_talk:Seraphimblade#Civilian_casualties_in_the_Second_Intifada)
There are a ton of issues with Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, namely that while there are some notable ones (i.e. Rachel Corrie), this should not be an index of everyone who died in every event. If I were looking at these articles as a reader, I'd expect Civilian casualties to be neither Israeli nor Palestinian, but other nationalities, non stated people.
I'm not sure how we accomplish that, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 13:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still want Palestinian Casualties restored so it can be cleaned up to standard, and the entire three article problem corrected. Seraphimblade, I previously requested an undeletion of the page, and would most certainly like to request the undeletion again to at least give the page a college try. Mistamystery (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You already asked that, and already received the answer. It won't change by repeating the request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade&oldid=1182124574"