User talk:Seresin/Archive 23

Well, the material was tagged as unsourced and I removed it. As you are well aware, unsourced material may be removed at any time. I'm not aware of any good sources for the material. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be != must be. This isn't a BLP; there is no pressing need to remove unreferenced material. If you feel that it's terribly important to remove it, you may, and I won't revert. But removing it an hour and a half after an {{unreferenced}} was added doesn't make anything better. ÷seresin 07:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it improves the article to remove unreferenced material? Hmmm...let's pretend you don't live in New Mexico. Would you think differently about this? :) The real reason I removed it is because I've reviewed almost all of the literature about burritos, and unless there is new information out there, I don't think we'll be able to find sources. Hopefully, you will find some. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it only improves an article if the content is wrong. If I didn't live in New Mexico, I wouldn't think differently in general philosophy, but I probably wouldn't have reverted your removal :-) I'm having a bit of a hard time believing that you've reviewed everything ever written about burritos in reliable sources, to be honest. If there's truly no sources out there, it will remain unreferenced some months from now, and we can address it then. ÷seresin 08:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are having a hard time believing me? Do you think burritos are covered by a plethora of reliable sources? Do you think the libraries of the world have stacks upon stacks of books devoted to burritos? I know of approximately one book devoted to burritos (Thomsen, David; Derek Wilson (1998). Burritos!: Hot on the Trail of the Little Burro. Gibbs Smith Publishers. ISBN 0879058358) How many do you know about? I think it is bad form to restore content that does not have any sources and is clearly original research. You know the guidelines and policies better than most, so I'm concerned about your judgment. I will leave the material in the article for one week, after which I will remove it if sources are not provided. Viriditas (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to clean that up. Page move vandalism often gets confusing when it needs reverting. Acalamari 01:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :-) ÷seresin 01:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's been a while. I made some changes on an article you might remember, Biological issues in Jurassic Park, and more importantly the paleologists finally got interested. It's now nigh-unrecognizable.

As such, would you be willing to withdraw your "delete" from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological issues in Jurassic Park, which was temporarily suspended so that the article could be improved? If yes, saying so here should be enough, no reason to prod an AfD this old more than is necessary. If not, then for the sake of all that is good and holy don't jump into another deletion attempt, there's still some things I could do to improve it.

;-) --Kizor 11:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Only on Wikipedia could 'temporary suspension' mean nearly two years. I don't think you need to worry about the relevance of that AfD. I doubt any process would accord its decision or the opinions therein any weight now. ÷seresin 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but neatness is another matter, as is weirdness - though I have to confess that I hadn't thought of that when I asked. Thanks, AfD's closed, the result was "whut?" We should do the beneficially outrageous more often. Happy editing. --Kizor 20:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the Signpost should be ready to go, once TROLL and Features and admins are done. I'll be unavailable until tonight, so if you want to publish, that'd be great. Just saw your message in the newsroom. Taking a few hours is just fine, and if you want publish once you're done, that'd be convenient. The only thing you'll have to do is update Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue; everything else is either done or can wait.--ragesoss (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did everything the guide notes that hadn't already been done. I'm pretty sure I did it all correctly. ÷seresin 00:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your automatically bolding of the entire "result" segment. Some of the text (like the reason and the closing user's signature) are part of that segment, and should not be bold. If we want to make the allow/disallow/etc part automatically bold, we should probably split it from the other stuff, like: {{subst:rfcn top|Disallow|not enough consonants. ~~~~}}. I'm happy with just manually bolding as we've been doing, though. -kotra (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know people used that parameter for anything other than the bolded result; I thought any further comments went outside the template. But no matter; it's nothing worth worrying about. Thanks for the note. ÷seresin 23:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you're interested, I've written some documentation for the template. -kotra (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help undeleting the straw polls article. However, as may not have been immediately obvious, most of the article was transcluded from two other articles deleted at the same time, and so the undeletion will not signficiantly help discussion unless these two are also restored. They are Straw polls for the Democratic Party 2008 presidential nomination and Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination. There were also two maps created for these articles that would be needed, and I believe they were deleted as well, which means their names would need to be pulled from the history of the two restored articles. Since userfication seems appropriate as a bare minimum, I and User:William S. Saturn (their creator) would both like the two maps to be restored permanently, and we can userfy the articles from the restorations ourselves. If you could please have this completed, or comment as to any issues, I would appreciate it very much. JJB 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I don't know if there is a procedure on restoring talk, but obviously the three article talk pages would also need restoration, as they give significant evidence as to confirming or denying the allegations being remade in the current discussion. Thank you! JJB 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the other two pages, as requested. However, I did not restore the talk pages. I do not agree that the old discussions from the talk pages are necessary to evaluate the closure of the AfD. If you are convinced that they are indeed required, feel free to ask another administrator to restore the talk pages. As for the maps, there is a map image on both of the restored pages. If these are not the images in question, feel free to ask another administrator to restore them—here as well I do not agree they are necessary to voice an informed opinion on the DRV. ÷seresin 23:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Although maybe it's what you all intended. ^.^ You never know with our wily ArbCom ;) ÷seresin 00:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sersin. The results of the AfD discussion for SocialSense was redirect and merge. You indicated that "merging may be done by editorial process” I would like to perform the merge, are there special guidelines I need to follow? Can I just move the core components (text and images) to the main article? Also, I just tried going to the original SocialSense article (in order to copy some text from it and discovered that it’s GONE!--PiRSqr (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't guidelines, necessarily. You should only merge relevant and cited content—and I agree with many of the commentators in the discussion that many of the links in the article are entirely irrelevant to discussion of SocialSense. The article is not gone; previous revisions can be accessed by going to the article history. ÷seresin 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my poker hand question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk!--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of TSearch, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://encyclopedia.vbxml.net/TSearch. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know - it looks like you went to close this AfD earlier today, but (assuming you were using a script) something went wrong. You removed the AfD template and added the old AfD template on the talk page, but the AfD itself was not actually closed. I only noticed this after I closed the AfD myself just now, although fortunately it looks like we both came to the same conclusion as to the outcome! Thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 12:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. I was sure I had closed that one. Thanks for catching it. ÷seresin 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I removed the G4 CSD tag you added to Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi. While an article by that name was previously deleted, this is a completely different article (it is sourced for example) and thus not eligible for speedy deletion as recreated material.

You are welcome to send it to AfD if you really want, but the subject does appear to have sufficient RS coverage to warrant inclusion. See GNews --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for getting rid of the Greenfinger content. However, even those initially calling most strongly for a soft redirect noted during the ongoing discussion that the wikipedia search was most likely misspelling green fingers not trying to find Greenfinger. I have now created a soft redirect to wiktionary from green fingers. Could you please change Greenfinger and certainly green finger to protected redirects to green fingers. The wiktionary article Greenfinger is tagged as a protologism, this has not been challenged and I put an request for verification on it 6 days ago so it may not even survive in wiktionary. (First ever use of the Greenfinger was less than a year ago and other uses are media quotes arising from this single story). Polargeo (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, I'm not going to change the target of the soft redirect at Greenfinger. The support in the AfD was for either a redirect to a section in an article here, or that entry at wiktionary. I'm wary of unilaterally overriding that. If you want the target changed, I suggest you initiate a discussion on the talk page of Greenfinger. If consensus there forms for a new target—or if nobody comments—I or another administrator will change the target. ÷seresin 07:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 people asked for soft redirect. Two of them responded to the debate on this.

1. S Marshall's last comment was 'I feel strongly that a misspelling/misinterpretation of "green fingers" is the more likely thrust of a search'
2. Ohm's law's last comment was 'that's a fairly convincing argument right there (for deletion, or at least change to a redirect of some sort). It's structured more around WP:NEOLOGISM'
3. Jules H made the soft redirect comment early in the debate and didn't come back in.

10 people requested delete, many in quite strong well argued terms (11 if you count me)

2 people asked for redirect to section

1. Uncle G said this early in the debate and didn't come back in
2. Guest9999 changed to delete (making it 12 for delete) after realising the argument for a redirect was weak

A soft redirect is going far against consensus and this should have been deleted. Polargeo (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have genuinely mistaken the consensus here. Of those 5 who requested redirects, the 3 who responded to the arguments put forward all changed their positions (even if they didn't cross out their original vote). Certainly there was no consensus for the soft redirect in the end. I understand it was a long and difficult debate to follow. I am considering asking for a deletion review but don't know if I really have the stomach to put other admins through this right now. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting soft redirects like this to wiktionary is standard practice, regardless of an AfD. And in general, AfDs that result in delete do not preclude a redirect. Asking for a deletion review to get a specific part of the decision overturned is a waste of time (especially since the redirect may be considered an editorial decision, and we just bypassed RFPP). If you're really that upset about the redirect, you could just start an RfD. ÷seresin 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I could and I as much as said this in the discussion. Why create a soft redirect that could easily be argued as an RfD? Why inflict an RfD on people? This should have been a bold decision and has ended up with a mess. The first time this came round and was transwikied we ended up with a mess. Sometimes these things should just be killed instead of leaving messes. Now we will either end up with wasting time arguing this to a silly redirect to green fingers (soft wiktionary) or failing this making up a pointless disambiguation page to include Greenfingers (the film) and green fingers and Greenfinger (wiktionary). Then someone might slip in a see also to geoengineering. The Greenfinger article was being used as a propaganda tool (But I was sticking to wikipedia arguments to get rid of it). I thought (and many others) that it was such a clear delete as a newly made up word that it would just go. It is now causing even more of a waste of time. Polargeo (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, I've proposed pretty much putting it as a branch from your user page so that it can be further worked on and polished up. It's typically a good alternative to merely erasing an article outright, especially when there's potential for there to be a viable article.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the page was recently deleted, would it be possible to revive the last revision and userfy (as a branch from my user page) as you proposed?

Mark A. Kukucka, MS, DVM, PhD (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is possible, but you'll have to talk to an admin. I can't immediately remember where to look, but WP:USERFY and deletion review are good starters. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanx Seresin for restoring the page to userfy! Mark A. Kukucka, MS, DVM, PhD (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "The article [iCan Benefit Group] made no claim as to why it is is important. Merely being endorsed by a celebrity is not significant. If you have evidence that third-parties have given significant note to the group, the article could exist."

Would it be helpful to note that there is an ongoing debate over whether or not low-cost health insurance is really worth it? A recent article in Businessweek discusses iCan Benefit objectively, addressing this ongoing debate in the industry. Would linking to this article (or others like it) as a reference establish the necessary notability? Sethdillon (talk)

I'm inclined to say no, since the article uses it as an example. However, it would probably qualify as an assertion of notability, meaning it won't be speedy deleted. As far as this admin is concerned, you may re-create the article using that reference. I doubt it will be speedied, but do be aware it may be sent to AfD and deleted. ÷seresin 20:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Seresin. You have new messages at Mazca's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ mazca ^talk 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image which I uploaded of a French comic book writer who died in 1998 has been nominated since 16th June. The image is from his official website and as proven in the discussion, alternate images are very hard to find and in fact, I couldn't find one after an extensive search. I'd appreciate it if I could have your comment on this matter. Thanks --Roaring Siren (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been active at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names I am asking you this. What about inappropriate usernames that are inappropriate and contributions are only their user page and user talk page creations which were over a year ago? If they are blocked for inappropriate username, their user and talk can be added to CAT:TEMP.--Otterathome (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking if the pages may be added to CAT:TEMP, then it seems so, since the category is for userpages of indefinitely blocked users. ÷seresin 20:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a technicality problem, their user pages can't be deleted because they are not blocked. Well the pages/users I'm talking about are here here.--Otterathome (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't find the usernames to be inappropriate. User:Uncyclopedia Junkie could probably have been blocked for vandalism, but I don't see any reason to block the other one. At this point, neither has edited in several months, so I see no particular reason to do anything about them, since I don't find the names problematic. ÷seresin 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are inappropriate as they contain a website name which in turn promotes the website which is listed on WP:IU.--Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you what I think about them. If you're convinced you're right, you can take it up at the appropriate channels (UAA and RFC/U). ÷seresin 21:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't go there as they haven't recently edited, which is why I've gone to your talk page.--Otterathome (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not going to do anything; you can ask another admin if you want I guess. ÷seresin 22:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what is different between Marcelo Lucero (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#Marcelo_Lucero) and Luis Eduardo Ramirez Zavala that despite their near-identical notability, circumstances, and sourcing available you decided to delete the latter? TAway (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]