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 Stvw80 (talk | contribs) at 02:30, 9 July 2016 (→SAP HANA Page Deletions). 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

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, 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 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.

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter.

June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

>>> Sign up for the July Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EnVyUs sockpuppetry

There is massive sock puppetry on EnVyUs. CLCStudent (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CLCStudent: Suspicions of sockpuppetry should be filed at sockpuppet investigations, for investigation if necessary by checkusers and clear socks to be blocked. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page should be protected. CLCStudent (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've got a place to request that too: Requests for page protection. Though if it's ongoing and persistent, often an admin at SPI will do so in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody already reported it there, but the vandalism is so persistent that it needs to be done now. CLCStudent (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been handled there. Have a bit of patience, vandals can't do anything irreversible. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc needed

Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser. I would suggest to add something to the closure. Namely that the ruling is ad hoc, in the sense that it does not mean to imply that any Rfc can not be overturned only by another Rfc. This seems obvious, but it is a potential misunderstanding IMHO. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, generally speaking, what you say is true. An RfC, especially one well publicized and well attended, is a strong expression of community consensus. Before acting against that consensus, it would be necessary for a new RfC to demonstrate that consensus has in fact changed, not that someone just "slipped one by" while no one was watching. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you support that opinion of yours by any policy or guideline? I think not, but I wouldn't mind if you prove me wrong. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has generally been policy that, once established, consensus may not be acted against except by a new consensus of at least the same gravity, and cannot be unilaterally overturned or acted against. I don't think that needs to be written explicitly into policy, it's simple common sense. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say this has been policy. Could you point to other examples?
As to the theory behind it, my common sense says that any type of consensus can overturn a previous consensus of any type. I would actually prefer the other way of stating this, that no type of consensus precludes other types. I do agree that 2 editors on a talkpage should not be overly eager to agree on something that would change a consensus that was reached in a project wide Rfc, but if there is good reason for the change and some reasonable participation, I see no reason why not.
In addition, I think that common sense is not enough of a foundation for such a restriction, and the fact that there is nothing about this at all in any policy or guideline, is fair proof that such a rule does not exist. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CCC says "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing." I think this is very clear proof that what you claim is not policy. Even the continuation of that paragraph "That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion." says clearly that this is not mandatory. Obviously, in view of that fact, the policy does not stipulate that if that discussion was an Rfc that the next discussion must be an Rfc as well. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no intent of engaging in a lengthy argument with you about this. That's the practice as it's done today. It may be true that a new RfC would not be required in all cases, but "should", on a policy page, is clearly language instructing that under normal circumstances it should be so. Regardless, the issue is settled for Jerusalem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The word "should" refers to "discussion". Which wouldn't usually mean an Rfc. Yes, regarding the Jerusalem article that seems to be the consensus of ArbCom, although that is precisely what I am not happy with. Debresser (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you're unhappy with the result, but I'm afraid I'm not intending to change it. If you'd like to avail yourself of the appeals process beyond discussing it with me, you may find the details here on how to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that link. I am fine with the final outcome in this specific case. It is more the approach, that this would be a general rule, which I reject. Debresser (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CIAPS

Hi Seraphimblade. You are guys a done a good job but we don’t understand why you have deleted the CIAPS articles. All efforts have been made to make it neutral. We have also noticed that it is more neutral than approved articles of the same category like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Business_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagos_Business_School We have carefully looked at this two and others to see we went wrong but with no luck. Anthonykila (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonykila: We don't "approve" articles, and other stuff exists is not a good reason for any article to be there. The two articles you cite are also very fluffy and not very well written at all, and I'll be taking a close look at them. Also, I note you refer to yourself as "we". Wikipedia accounts must be operated only by one individual; anyone else may make another account. If you mean by that that you are part of the organization, or another one, and are being paid or compensated to do this writing (including as an expected duty of employment), you must disclose that fact as outlined here. Let me know if that's the case, and we can proceed from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Associate Professional in Human Resources

I created a page for the Associate Professional in Human Resources certification, keeping it very educational. Making no reference to any organization or product other than the certifying body. I do not understand why it was deleted, when there is currently a page for the "Professional in Human Resources" (another certification from the same certifying body). The deletion, to me, seems contradictory to what is currently being permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HR Cert Prep (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HR Cert Prep: Taking a look at the article, first, it's full of the "™" symbol. In my experience, an article like that is almost certain to be spam, we do not use trademark symbols in articles. From there, it's a glossy brochure describing the exam and touting its benefits, and not citing a single reliable reference. The "Professional in Human Resources" is not blatant spam, but I may see if it also needs to be nominated for deletion. There aren't any good independent references there, either. Regardless, existence of similar articles is not justification for any other article, only sufficient reliable reference material to sustain an article is.
Also, your username seems to indicate you may be involved with this organization. If you are being paid or compensated for the writing (including as an expected duty of employment), you must disclose that fact as outlined here. Please let me know if this is or is not the case, and we can proceed from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it so turns out, it looks like there are several reputable published sources about the "Professional in Human Resources" one, so that one should be alright to stay. I don't find a similar amount of references for the "associate" one, though, so at most it might merit a brief mention in that article, not a separate one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletionist

Hi Seraphimblade I did not post the CIAPS article. I used the "we" because we studied your deletions (and some other deletions) with some mates to see if we could catch a pattern and understand the rules. The two articles we referenced were chosen because they were about similar topics. I wrote you using the CIAPS article as a case study because I was hoping for some specifics rather than the all-encompassing G11 code. Thank you for taking time to reply. Anthonykila (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how interesting of a project it'll be (maybe good for curing insomnia?), but you're welcome to ask questions if you have them. The rules are pretty simple, at least as to that: Wikipedia may not be used to promote anyone or anything. In the case of CIAPS, the article took a glowing, promotional tone throughout, and was just a list of "Look how great we are!". Some examples: "CIAPS has undertaken a series of projects designed and managed by its faculty and students. These are inter-faculty projects designed to provide students the opportunity to put into practice what they learn in the classrooms. Some of the projects include:", glossy brochure material, "Mprivilege is an online magazine conceived by CIAPS from the simple but powerful notion that motherhood is a privilege.", adjective overload and also glossy brochure, and so on and so on. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's an ad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Seraphimblade Talk to me

  • I approved your account request. :) Just as an aside, there's nothing forcing you to use a real-sounding name (or your real name, or whatever Todd Allen is) as opposed to OTRS. Most UTRS volunteers use the same UTRS account name as their Wikipedia username. Let me know if you want me to change it. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim: Sure, if that's the way it goes, that'll probably keep things consistent. So please do, if you would. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the UTRS account to "Seraphimblade" so that's what you should use to login. Let me know if you have any issues signing in or if there is anything else I can help with. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser/Jerusalem AE close

Any chance you could clarify that to permit non-substantive changes? It shouldn't affect WP:GNOME work, like fixing a punctuation error or updating a link to a page that moved. Someone cleaning up the same typo in 100 articles might not even notice that one page was under a restriction that peculiar.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that putting something like that directly in the restriction would just result in endless bickering over whether a specific change is "substantive" or not. That article has been like that for years now. Realistically, though, if someone were doing batch minor fixes or the like, and someone were to bring that to AE to complain, it would get quickly closed with no action and possible sanctions on the filer for frivolous complaints. De minimis non curiat lex, and such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Curat. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. That'll teach me to try typing on a phone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAP HANA Page Deletions

I tend to agree with the lack of neutral tone in some of the content you've deleted, but you're deleting the majority of the page and turning it into a stub entry. Can we please discuss on the talk page ways to improve the page, and remove any non-neutral tone content as opposed to mass deletion. It is hard to find a database page that is worse off based on the deletion level you just took. q (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my mistake. :( I am kind of new with Wikipedia edits and started to provide information about this topic as it was almost empty and I know some info. Thanks for your comments in helping me to become a better editor. I will make edits to remove some of the text I added that could be interpreted as promotional or biased. I am going to add more edits to other articles too. Thanks.

I will follow other database pages structure and text tone.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade&oldid=728992458"