User talk:Sean William: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:29, 10 May 2007

PullToOpen - I need to speak with you.

Re your post on Jimbo's talk page - please message me as soon as you get this! We need to stop this little knobbler and quick. I just hope its not the same wally - Christel banned him/her last night. Regards, Thor Malmjursson 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page per request. // PTO 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar, Sean! Appreciate it :) How are your new tools suiting you? – Riana ^ऋ 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've been suiting me very well so far...although I was introduced to image backlogs the other day, which was something I later regretted. :). Cheers, // Sean William (PTO) 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're a pain... but it's kinda fulfilling when you go back to the main page and see one less number on the backlogs :) I think at least 70% of my logs must be deleted images! – Riana ^ऋ 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good

I applaud your linking to said article on Jimbo's talk page, SqueakBox 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As soon as something like that happens, Brandt always advertises his "wise" actions at WR. // Sean William (PTO) 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, SqueakBox is an active participant in the discussion here, on a proposed guideline. I've linked your edit as a reference case for the participants in the discussion - I hope you don't mind, and if you do, I'll remove my comment there. JavaTenor 22:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind at all. Good luck getting the guideline to work. // Sean William (PTO) 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi. ShivaIdol 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hey. Since I seen you wrote on Darkness of Meta's userpage about that dodgy emai. It turns out hundreds of Wiki-users has recieved it, and one of the users has created a userpage section about it, where you can comment, [1]. Plus, this user has became a big, big problem after violating several policies and has been using open proxies to create hundreds and hundreds of sockpuppets. Just to inform you, the debate is here. [2]. Retiono Virginian 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the ANI thread above. Thanks for informing me. // Sean William 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey PTO. I see you've got your name changed :). Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's unfortunate that your RFA failed again. I'll be sure to support you whenever you run again in the future. // Sean William 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Due to some "transclusion confusion" I apparently went and deleted some pages under U1 that User:Andrew Hampe did not want deleted. Sorry about that -- the CSD backlog was large at the moment and the U1's are usually the easiest ones to knock of. Well, I thought so anyway. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Dina 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Andrew Hampe explained his situation to me over IRC. Cheers, // Sean William 22:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

Two people with usernames that start with 'Sean W', both having recently got username-changed to them? A serious coincidence :) Please respond on my talk. —Sean Whitton / 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's talk page per request. // Sean William 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 18:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Dear Sean, thanks so much for the heads up and your thoughtful suggestion. In fact, my friend Tdxiang, who's also a Simple Wiki admin, alerted me about this circumstance a few days ago, so I was aware of this unpleasant impersonation event. However, I'm not sure what to do at this point - should I do something to get that account deleted somehow, or can it be usurped in order to register myself there? I'll follow your advice on this matter. I registered my name on de.wiki, es.wiki and fr. wiki, but I completely missed the Simple English one :( Again, thanks so much for your help, dear Sean! Cheers, Phaedriel - 21:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you!

I'll do just that then :) Thank you, dear Sean, and let me know if you ever need my help over here at en.wiki, k? Hugs! Phaedriel - 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Once again, thanks a lot, dear Sean - I'll wait then ;) Cheers! Phaedriel - 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Why the block of 71.41.210.146?

The explanation given is one word: "Vandalism".

I can state categorically (but subjectively) that no edit from that IP classifies as Wikipedia:Vandalism in that it's not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".

But even falling back to the other two lesser legal standards of "wilful", namely recklessness and negligence, I'm not sure what is objectionable about any past edits. How are they even misguided or unhelpful, much less harmful?

My latest big project has been to add accurate SMILES formulae (preferably the canonical "unique SMILES" form usable for database lookup) to the simple molecules in Category:Biochemistry. It's been a bit of a learning experience, as the chirality annotations are a bit subtle to figure out, but http://cactus.nci.nih.gov/services/translate/ has been very helpful.

It's not like switching IPs or waiting out the block is difficult, but as someone who wishes to contribute positively, the possibility that I'm doing harm without meaning to is alarming. I remember being disagreed with over Endianness, but at least that comment said something about why the reverter disagreed.

The one word "vandalism"—describing an offense for which I know the mens rea is absent—leaves me bewildered. Can someone please explain in considerably more detail?

71.41.210.146 03:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, reviewing your contributions more closely, I've found that the block was in error. Now, the reason why you were blocked in the first place was due to a report on WP:AIV by a bot named "User:MartinBot". This bot works as an anti-vandalism bot, reverting edits that it deems to be "nonsense". Your edits were reverted immediately by this bot, due to the somewhat random nature of the SMILES formulae. MartinBot automatically reports editors who have vandalized more than four times to the bot section of the Administrator Intervention against Vandalism page. Administrators rarely check the contributions of a user when it has been reported by MartinBot because the bot very rarely makes mistakes. I hope you accept my humblest apologies for this block; it was a general misunderstanding between the parties. Cheers, Sean William 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, that makes sense. Yes, I've reverted a moderate amount of "line noise" (although usually I think charitably that someone just leaned on a keyboard and hit "Enter" with the edit page open; I only call it vandalism when there's some obviously hostile text), and the SMILES formulae do resemble that. Um... I'll have to figure out how to get the edits past the bot's un-doing. I wonder why it only started complaining today? Oh! I know! Earlier, I had to add "|- | SMILES = <formula>" to infoboxes. The most recent ones already had (blank) "| SMILES =" entries that I just filled in. Thus, the addition was "purer" line noise.71.41.210.146 03:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to notify the bot's creator about this, in hopes of getting it fixed. Sean William 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it's quite an exceptional case, so maybe it doesn't need a totally transparent solution, but a solution of some sort would be helpful. I could always make some pointless edits, like a large human-readable  and then remove it in a separate edit, if I expect it'll trigger the bot. In case it helps, though, a basic validation of SMILES formulae can be done by checking for properly nested parens, with possibly one innermost level of square brackets. (Oh yes, and my recent edits have included many more chirality @ signs, which might trigger e-mail address detectors.) 71.41.210.146 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, in the meantime, I notice that the block is still active. Is that likely to be fixed, or should I just wait for it to time out? 71.41.210.146 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have lifted the block. Sean William 03:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:o

What are the odds that I should drop by your userpage about 5 minutes after you've ~~blatantly ripped off~~ adapted my old userpage design? :) Spooky! By the way, Springeragh is actually responsible for most of that design - just making sure your credit goes to the right place :) Take care! – Riana _ऋ 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I'm found out! I guess I got tired of the "large user page" thing, so I decided to go with a simple page. I hope you don't mind :). Sean William 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Course not! I got tired of the big flashy thing too, but then got tired of the small simple thing... and now I'm tired of the big flashy thing again. You know, I'm just going to end up redirecting to my talkpage one of these days :) See ya round, – Riana _ऋ 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request

I am Sean_William/PullToOpen on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/sean-william. Thanks. --Sean William 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7th Muslim Brigade

Maybe you don't realise that semi-protection would force the anonymous user to discuss his problems with article (he so far refuses). Or if he decided he has nothing substantial to say, he will go away. I've only been here short time, and I can see than for Wikipedia openess=anarchy (mostly). What is gained by letting one anonymous user rip up the version of an article several users accepted, without discussion or justifying himself even?--Methodius 16:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I didn't semi-protect the article is because it would only block the IPs from editing, and not established users. If pages are protected in a content dispute, the page must be completely protected from editing so that all parties must discuss on the talk page. As I said before, if an edit war erupts, ask for full protection and begin discussion. Of course, it would be much easier to begin discussion now, but as you said, the IP doesn't seem to want to engage in discussion. Sean William 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it would only block the IPs" - it is dispute between one IP and several registered users. All except one IP are wanting to discuss. So only the one IP needs "coercion" to discuss, everyone else is already ready for discussion, so there is no purpose to "coerce" them also. So I do not see point of what you say. All is needed is blocking IPs from editing for week or two. Either he will discuss or he will go away.--Methodius 17:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the protection policy. We don't semi-protect pages for content disputes that have to do with IPs with the intention of locking them out. Sean William 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I hope he decides to discuss then.--Methodius 17:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you please protect page? Same person is now harrasing me, putting sockpuppet template on my page again and again, insinuating Serbian newspapers are not reliable because they are Serbian, and making a mess of articles. You can see contributions.--Methodius 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely protected the page, and semi-protected your user page. Sean William 18:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AndyZ already Desyssoped

Just so you know AndyZ was desysopped over at meta by Drini at 1:37 UTC. That's about 15 minutes ago. --24.44.158.33 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're sorting it out on various IRC channels. Sean William 01:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Certified.Gangsta

Please see this - [3]. The editor did not violate his parole on just one article. He did it on several articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on that thread. Thanks for letting me know. Sean William 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your message concerning Certified.Gangsta

All my edits are motivated by upholding Wikipedia policy and enriching the project. I don't know why on earth you think I am baiting Certified.Gangsta. Baiting requires a degree of intention, which I do not possess at all. Frankly, he does not need any baiting to get himself blocked every second day.

I assure you that baiting Certified.Gangsta was not in my mind and was no part of my intention. If you block me for my good faith edits, believe you me I will appeal it to the highest level to vindicate my good intentions.

I am surprised and shocked by your failure to assume good faith on my part. That has in no small measure influenced my reaction to your message and the tone of this message. If any part of this offends you, I apologise. Nevertheless, I feel I must express my indignation with an appropriate reaction. --Sumple (Talk) 00:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 Please see this - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Certified.Gangsta].  The editor did not violate his parole on just one article.  He did it on several articles.  [[User:HongQiGong|Hong Qi Gong]] <small>([[User talk:HongQiGong|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/HongQiGong|Contribs]])</small> 21:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 :I have commented on that thread. Thanks for letting me know. [[User:Sean William|Sean William]] 21:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
+== Re: Your message concerning Certified.Gangsta ==
+All my edits are motivated by upholding Wikipedia policy and enriching the project. I don't know why on earth you think I am baiting Certified.Gangsta. Baiting requires a degree of intention, which I do not possess at all. Frankly, he does not need any baiting to get himself blocked every second day.
+I assure you that baiting Certified.Gangsta was not in my mind and was no part of my intention. If you block me for my good faith edits, believe you me I will appeal it to the highest level to vindicate my good intentions.
+I am surprised and shocked by your failure to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on my part. That has in no small measure influenced my reaction to your message and the tone of this message. If any part of this offends you, I apologise. Nevertheless, I feel I must express my indignation with an appropriate reaction. --[[User:Sumple|Sumple]] ([[User_Talk:Sumple|Talk]]) 00:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)