User talk:Seraphimblade

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

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. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
• 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.

Use jbrolland1980 and pages deleted. Why?

hello you deleted my profile jrolland1980 and various academic-oriented articles I wrote about electronic invoicing in France, Latin America or Italy. There was nothing promotional about those pages. Is the removal really justified? What is the rational? Jbrolland1980 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Jbrolland1980, so far as your user page, it is for information about your activities editing Wikipedia, not for you to provide a gratuitous link to various sites about you such as LinkedIn. So far as the articles moved to draft, please read the note I left on your user talk page, and let me know if you still have any questions after you have done so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

hello. The linkedin reference was to not be anonymous. Maybe letting me know instead of bluntly removing the page would have me a more courteous thing to do, but I guess you wanted to make your point. I don't understand your guidelines on my articles. They are factual and are sequential. There is nothing on electronic invoicing and it is becoming an emerging topic. That being said, I will do my best to rework them and comply. Thanks for the warm welcome anyway.

Cool language use

Just wanted to say I found this comment of yours really exciting. It's not often that I see positive anymore in the wild, so thanks for adding to the diversity of language used around here! I'm looking forward to seeing it anymore — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! For my own part, I had no idea that we actually had an article on that, but it was quite interesting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me with redirect context

There is an actor whose link was re-directed to his one the notable project, now the person in itself is fulfilling the notability criteria. I am having issue in creating his personal article biography. Actor name Sunny Hinduja. Can you guide me?? PangolinPedia 14:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

PangolinPedia, the condition you agreed to in order to be unblocked is that you would cease attempting to create articles directly in mainspace, and instead create the article as a draft and request articles for creation review. So, use that process. If your draft is approved, the reviewer will take care of the technical parts of putting it into mainspace, but if this is a problem again I'm just going to reinstate the block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not creating the article. The problem i am asking is different and you are just stuck with your old opinion sir. I am asking i tried creating it but its getting automatically redirected to the same old article. And the actor is notable. Is there any hashtag which can be used to prevent automatic redirect. PangolinPedia 15:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If you are making a redirect into an article, you are creating an article, which you agreed not to do again. The answer is "Use a draft and AfC, or the block is put back." That is not a topic for discussion, it is a notice of what will happen if you continue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:In the news on a "Politics, government, and law" 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, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

closing at AE

Okay, I'll try to close that AE discussion for Ameer, if you'll make sure I'm doing what I need to. I would like to close it with allowing them to for the time being continue to edit in the area, but restrict them to using sources in English in that area, indefinitely. I assume that in addition to closing, I need to notify the editor of any restrictions (and appeals process?), plus probably log it somewhere (and with certain things included or certain sanctions cited?) Thank you for any help, I do try to find instructions for these kinds of things but sometimes there's so much instruction in so many places that even if it's there, I can't find it! :D Please ping on reply, I'm crazy busy IRL and have completely lost control of my watchlist. —valereee (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, it sounds like you've got the general idea quite right (though you do have a point with things being scattered; maybe I'll try to knock together a guide for it). For closing on AE, use the regular {{hat|Result of discussion}} right under the main discussion header (and make sure to double check the corresponding {{hab}}; I've fat-fingered that myself a couple times...). If you impose a sanction, as in this one, you can use {{AE sanction}} with the appropriate parameters on their talk page; that template will notify the editor of which case the sanction is authorized under, the appeals process, and all of that required stuff, so you don't have to worry about remembering it all. Finally, if the discussion resulted in a sanction or logged warning, log it under the appropriate case at WP:AC/DSL. (Logging is not necessary if the discussion resulted in no action or only an informal warning.) So that should take care of it, but feel free to ask if you have trouble with any of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've already f'd up the template. Care to school me? —valereee (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've done everything, though I don't know why I wasn't able to ping them in the closing statement. The closure below it worked with a ping inside the template. I'm stupid with templates. Check my work? —valereee (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hunnies Cheerleaders

I greatly appreciate your advice. I checked out teahouse and got a better idea of how to write the article. I applied all of the suggestions you gave and completely rewrote the article in the format you gave using citations, added credible sources for verification, removed external links, removed talk up, gave credible sources for awards, etc. My new article is pending and the draft is located in my User Page content. Thank you again for being so informative.

Thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

National processing, llc

This page has been taken down numerous times for being "promotional." I have taken out every element that I think can be considered promotional. This is a business that has existed for 14 years. It has ratings with organizations like the BBB. I have asked before and I will ask again; what part of the article is promotional? I see pages on Wikipedia for many companies large and small. Is the article about Microsoft promotional? How about Twitter? Are only large companies allowed to be on Wikipedia? Why are small businesses not allowed to be included on this online encyclopedia? National Processing, LLC — Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

NPshall, firstly, you have declared some type of undefined COI with National Processing, but it rather appears that you are editing for pay, which includes but is not limited to being asked or expected to edit Wikipedia as a duty of employment or internship. If that is so, which it appears it is, you will need to make the required paid editing disclosures before we continue. (Just a COI disclosure is not sufficient if you are editing for pay; you must say who is paying.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hi Seraphimblade, Your recent closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwater diving in popular culture stated that Ultimately, consensus is that this article is not suitable, and suggests the option of draftifying for improvement which implies that the topic is within the scope of Wikipedia, but the deleted article was not. Could you clarify how consensus to delete (within policy) is compatible with scope for improvement, and how one could improve the article given these constraints, based on the consensus you perceived. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood, I don't want to presume to speak for those who argued for deletion, but it looks like the most common arguments were, firstly, that the article was fundamentally based upon original research, and secondly that it was too indiscriminate. But you may wish to ask some who argued to delete and/or draftify for their particular thoughts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

An inspection of the article will show that there is very little identifiable original research, and none of those claiming original research were willing to point out what they considered original research, making it difficult to remove. When I last looked, there were no inline original research tags in the article. Articles should not be deleted because some of the content is bad. If that was an acceptable reason we would delete half the encyclopedia. Those arguing "indiscriminate" were also not forthcoming in suggesting better inclusion criteria, without which there is no way to know whether an attempt to tighten it up would be actually an improvement from their point of view, making that argument fundamentally weak. You may notice that I did ask those who argued to delete for their particular thoughts, but they did not choose to explain in actionable detail. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand some of those in the discussion thought that. However, that was not the consensus ultimately reached. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)