User talk:Seraphimblade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23


Please do be nice.

Please read before posting[edit]

  • 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.
  • No lulztxtspk or emojis on my talk page, please. "You" is spelled "you", "though" is spelled "though", "because" is spelled "because", "people" is spelled "people", and so on. There is no character limit on Wikipedia comments, so there is no need whatsoever for ad-hoc abbreviating. If you don't even take yourself seriously, don't expect me to take you seriously either.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Alexfotios (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Djong (ship) on a "History and geography" 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 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel–Hamas war on a "History and geography" 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 08:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aa Bhi Ja O Piya. However, I believe that the WP:ATD of redirection to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December should have been implemented rather than straight deletion. Two of the delete comments mentioned redirection as a reasonable alternative to deletion and the general concern non-notability due to insufficient coverage doesn't necessarily mitigate against redirection or retention of history. Cf. Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Amy Eden for a similar case. Thanks for your consideration. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eluchil404, if you think it ought to redirect somewhere, you can do that. The title is not protected. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article about TDO Book[edit]

I'm a longtime editor in Spanish Wikipedia but this days I created my first article in english edition because I'm enrolled at the #everybookitsreader campaign for writing and enriching article about books (fiction and non-fiction). The article about de book "The discipline of organizing" has been flagged as promotional. But it's not the case, TDO Book is a well-known notable work that deserves a Wikipedia article. It's used for more than ten year in many Information Schools all over the world, and has been published and reissued by MIT Press, Berkeley University, O'Reilly and other recognised publishers. Its author Robert J. Glushko has an stable article in Wikipedia and I was enriching content about its more spread, and also contested, work. The article was newtral and with references to reviews, linking to translations and also its recent innovative version for kids. Let's talk, I'm sure we can improve together Wikipedia. Tsaorin (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsaorin, as you have been involved in writing promotional material, please first clarify if you are being paid or otherwise compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm not a paid editor. I use this textbook every semester and due to the recent release of a very innovative version for kids, I realize that the link to the book in the author's article didn't redirect to an own article. I've to elaborate a non promotional and objetive text, including reviews negative and positive, because other academics have concerns with the main proposal of the books. I'm editor of Wikipedia in spanish for more than ten years, and evangelist of peer collaboration, open content and Wikidata. Tsaorin (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the lead paragraph of the opening text, I see: is a seminal work, serving as a foundational manual, it provides comprehensive guidance, offering invaluable, It is well known, and the rest of the article goes on and on with puffery like that. Leave out the adjectives ("seminal", "foundational", "comprehensive", "invaluable", everything like that). If you think that constitutes "non promotional and objetive [sic] text", I would encourage you to review our policy on writing neutrally. The frequent use of needless puff adjectives is not neutral writing. Stick to facts confirmed by reliable and, importantly, independent sources, and present them in an entirely neutral tone; do not in any way "talk up" the article's subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fact is a "seminal work" in the Information Science field, and also a contended text, because of its proposal of a "organizing discipline" as umbrella for LIS corpus of practice, reserach and knowledge. It's "comprehensive", becasue ir's not an opusculous or a breif reflection. It has more than 600 pages, and detailed references and cross-domain examples. I think you have to applied better the Goof faith collaboration spirit and suggest way of improving adjectives you don't think enoguh neutral, instead of deleting. It's better to foster better article writing than delete withou any conversation. It's more polite, and also better for Wikipedia as a project.
Why don't we try to write an article that fits better with your concerns? It's a notable work that deserve be at Wikipedia. Let's write the right content, not throw out editors. Tsaorin (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that you can write an appropriate article on it, you can certainly give that a go. I might encourage you to use the draft and articles for creation process, rather than trying to get it right in mainspace from the first. You will need to find more reliable and independent reference material for it; the vast majority of what was in what you wrote was "sourced" to the work itself and seemed to be what you think about it, which is original research and is disallowed. The article cannot contain any of your thoughts or observations on the subject. Rather, it should summarize facts verified by reliable, independent sources, and do so in an entirely neutral tone, just stating the facts without any editorializing or "talking up". If there is not a substantial amount of reliable and independent reference material about this subject, it is not notable and so it would not be a suitable subject of an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Opus Literary Alliance page[edit]

Hi, Seraphimblade, I was surprised and kind of shocked to come to Wikipedia and not be able to find Opus Literary Alliance (OLA) listed anywhere when I had just posted it a week or so ago. We received no notice that it would be deleted. You didn't contact me at all, so I didn't get a chance to discuss it with you. It just appears that you took down the page and moved on.

Like the Lambda Literary organization or the Golden Crown Literary Society or the American Library Association's Stonewall lit folks or countless other LGBTQ-related organizations, OLA has been created as a nonprofit to serve the needs of members, in particular, the writers of lesbian works. Everything about it is notable. Everything about it should be welcomed and approved here. A page entry here is appropriate because there aren't very many queer organizations of this scope represented on Wikipedia, and this one already has many members involved who DO have wiki-pages. I just hadn't gotten a chance to update them yet.

It sounds like you deleted it because I updated one of the member-director's pages. I intended to update quite a number of pages and link them to OLA. (Of course my team and I continue to build pages for lesbian writers which we then have to fight about with editors who don't seem to grok why queer organizations matter, are notable, and deserve a place at the wiki table.)

So your decision to delete OLA makes no sense. Could you explain to my team and me why you took down the page? We are all seriously aggrieved, and we are hoping that you will reverse your decision and restore all our hard work.

Thanks for your attention to this matter, DMT Dmthompson (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmthompson, what is "my team"? If you're affiliated with this organization, you will need to make the required paid editing disclosures before we proceed further. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARE[edit]

@Seraphimblade, WP:ARE#Abhishek0831996 seems to be under your consideration as per your statement there. As uninvolved user I tried to analyze content related part and one diff.

Most part of my comment was already collapsed. Idk how, it's bit strange @Haani40 is presuming on your behalf?, that you have not closed the case due to my comments which were mostly already collapsed, any ways I collapsed one more paragraph after their request at my talk page.

Admins use it or ignore it - Uninvolved users provide assessment and different and likely more neutral perspective to save admin time. I hope my effort does not get misconstrued. And look forward to your support. Thanks Bookku (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure everyone is looking at the same thing, I do not discuss open AE requests outside of AE. Please discuss the request on AE, not my talk page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Hyperpure page[edit]

Hi @Seraphimblade, I'm kinda surprised of how the speedy deletion done as of the name suggest. But I really would b grateful to know why it's find promo material. Not sure, I would rewrite the article a again. would be great to know the why? Ajeesh Sudhakar (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeesh Sudhakar, the entire thing was promotional. As some examples (but by no means an exhaustive list): Hyperpure's objective is... This approach aims... ("objectives", "aims", "vision", "mission", etc., are marketese junk. We care what reliable and independent sources confirm that an organization has actually done.), to ensure timely delivery of fresh, high-quality ingredients (brochure fluff), improve operational efficiency for restaurants by reducing reliance on traditional supply chains with their inherent inefficiencies (don't editorialize that alternatives are "inherently inefficient" or that the way this organization does things is better), The company experienced rapid growth (don't editorialize that something was "rapid"; present facts from reliable sources and let the reader draw their own conclusions about them), including fruits, vegetables, dairy, meats, and more ("and more" is marketese junk), This allows restaurants to source a comprehensive range of kitchen staples in one location with the benefit... (more editorializing; don't state that something like that is a "benefit"), and the rest goes on and on like that. I see that you have stated you are not editing for pay on your talk page, but to be quite honest with you, it sure looks like you are, and I'm not sure I believe you. What you wrote there looks exactly like a lot of the paid advertisements I've seen written here. If you're not editing for pay and it doesn't particularly matter what you edit, it is probably better that you move on to some other subject than for-profit companies, as clearly (between that and Draft:Y Mall, which I also took a look at), you are not able to write about them neutrally yet. It is also generally a wise idea for less experienced editors to gain experience editing existing articles before trying to create new ones, so perhaps that would help you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]