User talk:Seraphim/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for your questions. Please accept my welcome below.

Hello Seraphim! My name is Eric, and it is my pleasure to be the first to welcome you to Wikipedia! I hope you will decide to stay a long time and help us continue to make this one of the greatest sites on the world wide web. Here are a few useful links for you to explore:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

In addition to that great wealth of knowledge, let me offer you this advice: do what you enjoy! If you enjoy contributing to sports articles, do so! If you like to correct typoes (...), write new articles, find better ways to organize articles, make useful templates, work on projects with others, or even welcome new members, do so! A happy member of our community is a productive member of our community. You can read all of the above links to the last word, or you can jump right into editing. Be bold!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions that aren't easily found with the above links, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or you can put {{helpme}} on this page with a question, and someone will come along to answer it. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia and enjoy!

Eric (EWS23) 02:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound impudent or rude, but I am curious exactly where on the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies it is listed that the infoboxes of a deceased person must be silver. I have always selected pink for her infobox since it had been a favorite color of her and brightens up the page a little bit. Thanks! --Ozgod 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on infobox colors - fascinating! I am guessing however their use is obsolete? --Ozgod 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Most useful. Bright colours are not respectful to the dead, that's why silver is used. Thanks, --Tovojolo 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal world everyone on Wikipedia would be nice and helpful towards each other and explain issues clearly. Sometimes that doesn't happen and often the worst response is to let yourself get wound up by it, if the other person is seeking to wind you up it just encourages them, if on the other hand they hadn't really thought it could be taken that way you tend to push them onto a defensive (which can be aggressive if that makes sense.)

We generally encourage people to be bold in editing and it looks like you've followed that. On the basics I can get from the other editors comments (I didn't look too closely as it what they are saying is correct) other than not being at all helpful to you, seems to be suggesting the content is not really great enough or distinct enough to split. Keeping the information together can be helpful and use of redirects ensures people get led to the information easily.

Regarding names, I guess I've been long enough here to not draw any inference from user names. We have all sorts of people here and with varying sexual and gender identities, the username may or may not reflect that. Additionally language issues can confuse things further. There are several editors who have what in the UK would definitely be feminine names, who I know are male. --pgk 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Got sidetracked. I agree content needs a chance to expand, but that is often done in terms of a single article and then split out if the topic is substantial enough to warrant it. There is a certain amount of personal taste and judgment if/when this is appropriate. As above we encourage people to be bold, but when you know there is some difference of opinion it may be diplomatic to discuss such issues on the talk page, generally there is no great rush to do things, we don't have a deadline to meet. I can't say it's a subject I'm that familiar with and you'll often get better input from those writing similar articles or the appropriate wikiproject, but you are always more than welcome to ask. --pgk 18:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're getting on OK --pgk 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the "third opinion" you offered at this talk page. However, I'm not sure it was very well informed, as you seem to acknowledge when you state, "I'm assuming that it's encyclopediac otherwise it wouldn't have been ok-ed with loads of people." In fact, there is no evidence that User:Doug Coldwell has convinced anyone that the dozens of articles he's creating offer any significant encyclopedic content; see my comments on the article talk page. While I can understand that you would want to assume good faith, it can be dangerous to try to mediate a dispute if you take at face value claims that may be untrue or deluded. The user is creating what seem to be inappropriate articles (cut and pasted translations of books). Please don't misconstrue this message. I wouldn't write it simply because I don't agree with your comments. Rather, it's that I feel the pages in question are very problematic, and I intend to pursue their deletion through AfD. I felt that it would be courteous at least to give you a heads up so that, if there's some valid argument in defense of these articles, you could let me know or bring it in for consideration at AfD. Wareh 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh God, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't see your edits to my talk page :( They must have been subsumed by someone else who had something else to say, or something similar. I hope that your editing goes well. Cheers, Gracenotes^T § 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Random students' home pages are not reliable sources. It also doesn't suggest that it is anything more than an average meme (mere use of the word "phenomenon" does not make it so). Chris cheese whine 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's between me. I told him that no matter that an image cannot be owned by the site or person who screencaptured it, we need to know where it came from. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed that you're interested in the video game articles. You might be interested in adding your opinion to the discussion currently taking place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Banning spoiler warnings completely. Kariteh 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. Thanks for the note, though. Cheers. --Aarktica 14:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Alice Practice, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Practice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[Insensitive and counter-productive comments made by Seraphim Whipp removed.]

Umm...I had a look over, and I'm sure the whole thing could be construed to flow a bit better. What specific sentence we're you having a problem with? -- Reaper X 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. This is my whack at it here. It is a toughie eh? It would help if the article was expanded. Cheers. -- Reaper X 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seraphim, your help would be appreciated. As you can see, the user is not willing to read the sources. He challenged the content without even taking the time to read the sources. Right now, he again added another tag, the V tag. I'm gonna add inline citations for each country, still I think that unnecessary because some share the exact same source and even page. I don't know what else to do. He just won't understand. He's not asuming good faith and, omg, he hasn't even read the sources. I'm desperate. HELP! AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

='( Thanks for all your help. It was really frustrating, since he was almost acussing me of faking info. I'm glad this stopped [?]. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 19:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your words and for sharing that terrible incident. I'm here to help you aswell, when you need it. AlexCov ^{( Let's talk! )} 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the vandalism by the other user. I wasn't reverting yours you can add yours back. Artaxiad 23:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No before there was a random comment I have reverted along with yours. I said add your information back I'm too lazy LOL. Artaxiad 23:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was going by Jason Chandler, though lol. I can have him post it or something so we'll have it in print if you want.--JUDE ^talk 02:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: This is the official site (It's six songs down after the video section). It's no big deal, though, the song gets mixed up a lot, but it's honestly about leftover Chinese food.--JUDE ^talk 02:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No way! You're like the only other person alive that even likes the frustrators anymore. It's really exciting and you do so much work on the articles. Seriously, you make my day sometimes. I should have said something sooner!--JUDE ^talk 18:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh! By the way: Jason wanted to make an article for Terry, but I'm worried it'll get deleted. I mean I have a hard enough time keeping Adrienne Armstrong's article around. Do you think it's a good idea? I mean it's worth a try, but it's a lot of work and research to be deleted if it is nominated.--JUDE ^talk 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

sry never spoken to anyone on here before so im not sure if im doing this right, anyway i found the thing about the ratings on the album template page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Album scroll down to the professional ratings bit, it says that stars should not be used to numbers out of ten as it can be visually confusing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkneon (talk • contribs)

That image still fails the FUC. It can't just say it illustrates a significant point. It has to say how it is illustrating a significant point, and since it actually doesn't, no one will be able to do that. Jay32183 17:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the dispute, your review was thorough and systematic. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But it completely ignored what I was actually disputing. You probably also should have removed Antedote's review tag since Antedote wrote the rationale. Jay32183 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You were disputing compliance with FUC, her review dealt with that. My review tag is a codification of what happened on March 30, when I decided not to delete the image after verifying that its usage complied with Wikipedia policy, as was my prerogative as the closing admin. If you wish to continue this discussion, lets do it somewhere else and cease adding clutter to Seraphim Whipp's talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are dead wrong and have no understanding of the fair use policy. Jay32183 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a source on Dallas Green's dating situation. This is bound to save a ton of frustration on the part of the Wikipedians watching the page and those annonymous users continually stating the fact. Cheers, Thereen 07:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

On my talk page, you wrote, "I don't think it needs to be ranked in the high school killings either. I understand shootings because it's a shooting but it just seems a bit repetitive to add that second ranking."

I don't have a strong opinion on that point. I reverted your edit just because I thought you were mistaken about it being contradictory (and, as we see, you were mistaken). Of course, it was an easy error and any casual reader could make the same mistake. This is a good reason to drop that claim.

On the other hand, I first learned about the Bath School disaster due to a similar comment on the Virginia Tech page. I found it a remarkably interesting article. For that reason, I have a slight preference for keeping a link to the Bath School incident on the Columbine page, but I don't think this preference is very well-motivated.

So I won't revert your removal of that sentence. Phiwum 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This case has been opened, please see the case page at [1]. You may want to assist or contribute. I think you were only on the periphery of this conflict. Thank you! JodyB 14:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Billy Talent Logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)