| Revision as of 01:58, 16 December 2009 editSeresin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,029 editsm →User:Camelbinky: That was some serious bungling.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:41, 16 December 2009 edit undoMattWade (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,247 edits →User:Camelbinky: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| ::Okay, though in the future, it would be nice if you included the past evidence as well, rather than anecdotally describing the situations. I don't perform blocks in my admin role, but if I were to do so, I would explicitly list the violations when it comes to an established user (especially one as positively productive as this user). ''']]''' 01:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | ::Okay, though in the future, it would be nice if you included the past evidence as well, rather than anecdotally describing the situations. I don't perform blocks in my admin role, but if I were to do so, I would explicitly list the violations when it comes to an established user (especially one as positively productive as this user). ''']]''' 01:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::He knows which warnings I referred to—there was no need to list them. ''÷]'' 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | :::He knows which warnings I referred to—there was no need to list them. ''÷]'' 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I mean in the case when others want to defend an editor. It would be nice to see precisely what the accused is accused of. There's nothing wrong with completeness. Again, this user's negatives are far outweighed by his positives. I'll end our conversation here. ''']]''' 02:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:41, 16 December 2009
| Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to ask me for something you need an administrator to do, or something that doesn't require the flag; whichever. Where I reply to posts here depends on how I'm feeling. Sorry, but I'm inconsistent. I will reply though, and if you ask me to reply somewhere specific I'll do that.
|
 Archives |
ArbCom Election Votes
My ArbCom Election votes, noted here for public record.
- Support: Cla68; Coren; Fred Bauder; Kirill Lokshin; Mailer diablo; Shell Kinney; Xavexgoem.
- Oppose: AGK; Hersfold; Jehochman; Kmweber; RMHED; Ruslik0; Secret.
- Neutral: Fritzpoll; KnightLago; MBK004; Seddon; SirFozzie; Steve Smith; Unomi; Wehwalt; William M. Connolley.
÷seresin 06:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Boxxy
I have nominated Boxxy (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. Closedmouth (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of File:Richard Marin Scrushy Mug Shot.jpg
Hi Seresin. You deleted the above linked image, only noting the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 November 12#File:Richard Marin Scrushy Mug Shot.jpg. As the discussion only included comments by the nominator and two editors disagreeing with the nomination, I'd appreciate hearing your reasoning for the deletion. The link does not provide that reasoning. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 04:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you feel an image should be deleted, participate in the discussion. It is not our job as administrators to overrule community discussions and delete/keep per our own opinion of policy. There was no support whatsoever for the deletion of the image during the discussion. None. Your deletion was not in keeping with the discussion or the role of an administrator. --auburnpilot talk 03:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of File:Richard Alden Samuel McCroskey III mugshot.jpg
You also deleted the above linked image, only noting the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 November 12#File:Richard Alden Samuel McCroskey III mugshot.jpg. As the discussion only included comments by the nominator and me strongly disagreeing with the nomination, I'd appreciate hearing your reasoning for the deletion. Klassikkomies (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Removed from my talk page because the discussion was started here:
Peripitus was pretty much spot on:
He is going to trial Someone could attend the court case and take a photo.→
Attending and taking a photo of this is no harder than tracking down a celebrity and taking a free image. That taking an image is difficult is not a reason to host a non-free image.
A free image must be nearly impossible to find to justify a FU image of a living person. This is not the case here. ÷seresin 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment removed by Klassikkomies (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- In Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 November 12#File:Richard Alden Samuel McCroskey III mugshot.jpg you claim that "The result of the discussion was: Delete". That is not true. There was no consensus for deleting the image. In fact 50% thought that the image should be deleted and 50% thought that we should keep the image. So how can you say that the result of discussion was "delete" when one person says that the image should be deleted and the other says that it most certainly must not be deleted. Klassikkomies (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can say that because one of you was wrong. Consensus is not numbers; your comments were not in line with our NFC policy, and so the valid arguments were in favor of deleting. ÷seresin 00:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. In Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 November 12#File:Richard Alden Samuel McCroskey III mugshot.jpg I gave many valid arguments for keeping the image and my arguments were clearly in line with Wikipedias NFC policy. Articles and files nominated for deletion can only be deleted by consensus and in this case there were non. Claiming that the other one was right is not acceptable argument for deleting an image. In Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion it is written: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." By deleting this file with out consensus (in 50-50 situation) just because of your own opinion you are clearly violating Wikipedias policys and I recommend that you revert the image where it belongs. Klassikkomies (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- WP:DRV is thataway. ÷seresin 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. In Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 November 12#File:Richard Alden Samuel McCroskey III mugshot.jpg I gave many valid arguments for keeping the image and my arguments were clearly in line with Wikipedias NFC policy. Articles and files nominated for deletion can only be deleted by consensus and in this case there were non. Claiming that the other one was right is not acceptable argument for deleting an image. In Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion it is written: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." By deleting this file with out consensus (in 50-50 situation) just because of your own opinion you are clearly violating Wikipedias policys and I recommend that you revert the image where it belongs. Klassikkomies (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Re:Your tone
Your message in my talk page, is within reason, however I did check the talk page of user which I warned and I did not see that you commented on the offensive and insulting way in which User:Damiens.rf referred to me in various occasions. Tell me why. I mean, is it O.K. for someone to act in an uncivil manner by calling some else an embicil, but it is not O.K. for that person to be warned that his name calling may result in a block? Tony the Marine (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion
Hi Seresin, can you take a second look at the IFD you closed as delete here? It looks like it should have been closed as 'keep' to me. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for File:KPCKim.jpg
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:KPCKim.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dreadstar ☥ 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Curriculum vitae
I have started a move discussion about CV, Curriculum vitae and Résumé. You have previously participated in this topic, and I would like your input in this discussion if you are still interested. John Vandenberg 01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
User:Camelbinky
Why exactly did you feel a need to block him? He certainly didn't say anything that hippo43 hadn't said before. And don't give me any "community" stuff- Camelbinky had been Wikihounded by this user for an extended period of time, so if it was a "community" issue, it never would have come to this in the first place. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I provided the reasons for the block in my summary and my note in his page. He has continued this behavior after two others have warned him about it, and it is not acceptable. ÷seresin 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't see the warnings, but I may have just overlooked that. I'll take your word for it, and I'll try not to get myself blocked over this. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- All right, now I see. This whole thing should never have been brought back up in the first place, and now it's getting a bit ridiculous. I really would like this to go away. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I would plead to you that Camelbinky be unblocked. In all sincerity, the wrong party has been blocked. But, of course, I leave that in your hands. Just know that others agree that hippo has consistently crossed the line. upstateNYer 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- He was not blocked solely for his comments in regard to hippo. He has a history of disparaging remarks, having been warned for two separate instances, and his last comment indicates he is not heeding the warnings. I will not be unblocking him, as he clearly sees nothing wrong with his behavior. I hope that he realizes this conduct is inappropriate and modifies himself accordingly, as he will be blocked again if he does not. ÷seresin 00:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, though in the future, it would be nice if you included the past evidence as well, rather than anecdotally describing the situations. I don't perform blocks in my admin role, but if I were to do so, I would explicitly list the violations when it comes to an established user (especially one as positively productive as this user). upstateNYer 01:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- He knows which warnings I referred to—there was no need to list them. ÷seresin 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I mean in the case when others want to defend an editor. It would be nice to see precisely what the accused is accused of. There's nothing wrong with completeness. Again, this user's negatives are far outweighed by his positives. I'll end our conversation here. upstateNYer 02:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- He knows which warnings I referred to—there was no need to list them. ÷seresin 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, though in the future, it would be nice if you included the past evidence as well, rather than anecdotally describing the situations. I don't perform blocks in my admin role, but if I were to do so, I would explicitly list the violations when it comes to an established user (especially one as positively productive as this user). upstateNYer 01:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)