This user may have left Wikipedia. Sean William has not edited Wikipedia since November 20, 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
My talk page
If you would like to leave a message, click the "+" button next to the "edit this page" tab. If you have a question regarding a block that I have enacted on your account or IP address, use the {{unblock}} template and an uninvolved administrator will review your request. When writing a message to me, please try to stay civil and don't be a dick. Cyde's essay also applies.
On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.
Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR.
Eliko (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia does not function as a court of law. You don't need me to "cancel" a revert, or even need it formally forgiven. Just ignore it and move on. Sean William@02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your recommendation that I "ignore and move on", however I still think that the fourth revert should be undone. If you don't see the need to undo the fourth revert - it's a legitimate position, and I accept your right to hold that position. Anyway, contrary to what you said, I really "need" you - because the article is protected, and the current protected version is the fourth revert. Hope you understand my point.
While I see where you are coming from, the edit you want undone is still valid, regardless of any potential 3RR violations. When the intervening admin came upon the situation, he was presented with a choice: block, or protect. This particular admin chose to protect the article instead of block the user. Do not make the mistake of thinking that he "got away" with breaking the 3RR; the page protection will force him and others who want to edit the page to discuss proposed changes on the article's talk page.
I am not willing to undo the revert, and will leave the article in its current state. If you have an issue with the current text of the article, then talk with the person who is reverting you either on his user talk page or on the article's talk page. Sean William@23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to keep myself in this category, but it's clearly bothering people, so I subst'ed the userbox and removed the category. Sean William@22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Sean, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂12:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I would like some rationale as to where you arrived at a "consensus" of delete for the Lauren Burk AfD. Your only comment, in closing the debate, was "The result was delete. David Eppstein raises an excellent point." There is no rationale given whatsoever. Nor, is there even a reiteration of -- or link to -- or quote of -- David Eppstein's "excellent point". One would have to scour the entire page to find the posting by David Eppstein buried somewhere in the middle of the debate. And, his post is simply: "Delete per WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes." Fine, we realize that some editors (like David Eppstein) are not convinced of notability ... and that others are. Ya ... and ...? His "excellent point" merely states that he is not convinced of notability. This is the only rationale / explanation you have offered at arriving at a "consensus" of delete. Please advise. Please respond at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC))Reply
I want to say, considering the duplicate votes and SPAs that the consensus was far closer to delete than the Carson afd. Closing it as such is understandable and commend you for boldly doing such considering how heated the argument was. I implore Joseph, Egras, or BB to create an article in a more appropriate context, like "Murder of..." or similar. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! :) Late last year, Norebo was nominated for deletion. After a short discussion, it was ruled that the article should be deleted (4 delete/3 keep). Based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I had suggested a merge and/or redirect of the article to List of Greyhawk deities, hoping to preserve the edit history. After the fact, I decided to create a redirect anyway. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? If you agree, you can obliterate the current edit history, or just add it to the original edit history. Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have restored the history of the original article, and left the redirect in place. For the sake of continuity, I have kept the history after the article was redirected on December 9. Cheers, Sean William@12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I realize you're not happy with the blocks yesterday, but I think your strong language on ANI and MZMcBrides' talk page won't help anything. It might be better just to let the incidents pass without harping either on the blocked admins or the admins who blocked them. For what it's worth, AzaToth appeared to have good spirits about the block, and it was lifted very quickly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
A valid point. However, I'm extremely frustrated that administrators are still not learning their lesson, even after repeating the same mistakes again and again. I'm still interested in MZMcBride's justification. Sean William@13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. AzaToth vandalized two MediaWiki: pages that affected the site interface for all users. While I appreciate humor and having a good time, doing so in the article namespace or the MediaWiki: namespace, is, for the most part, entirely unacceptable. It sets an incredibly bad example for non-admins and other users of the site. Do we really want a precedent that it's okay to vandalize on April 1? In addition, there are entire namespaces in which jokes are both allowed and even encouraged (Wikipedia: and User:).
I fully supported David's blocks yesterday, and even left him a note saying so. What disappointed me more than anything was that two admins thought it prudent to simply wheel war because they didn't agree with David's actions. That's pretty unacceptable. Drini's blocks fall into the same category. As he pointed out yesterday, had people vandalized different parts of the site on December 28 (the Day of the Holy Innocents a.k.a. Fool's Day), they would have unquestionably been blocked and de-sysopped.
What occurred at MediaWiki:Tagline was upsetting and disgraceful. To see admins edit warring over one of the most visible parts of the site (in shows up on almost every page and in printable versions) was, to me, unthinkable. I would fully support some of the admins who edit warred yesterday losing their sysop bits, with prejudice.
As to AzaToth's block, in my mind, it is never necessary to warn admins to not vandalize. I blocked AzaToth to prevent further disruption of the site messages. Admins are users who have been trusted by the community to act responsibly with their extra tools. Intentionally disrupting the site isn't appropriate behavior for an admin. Ever. AzaToth's actions, whatever their intentions, were disruptive and unnecessary. Did the block serve to de-escalate? Perhaps. It certainly stopped AzaToth from disrupting any other site messages. But at the end of the day, blaming anyone other than AzaToth for his "sullied" block log is simply absurd. Actions have consequences; vandalism is not tolerated -- and that goes doubly for admins.
Okay, I suppose we'll just agree to disagree. CBM made a good point in the section above here, so I'm done complaining for now. Thanks for answering. Sean William@21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You may want to revise the entry regarding "The Call". Upon reviewing the replay of the call you can clearly see the ball being tipped at the line by a Miami D-Lineman (#94, William Joseph), thus negating any pass interference that may have been called. Therefore the correct call would be a no-call. Also, if you use Dennis Dodd's column as a reference, you should also use Rick Reilly's "Fiesta Fiasco" as a counter reference. Link provided: http://cgi.cnnsi.com/inside_game/rick_reilly/news/2003/01/10/life_of_reilly/
You can edit the article the same way you edited my talk page here. Just click the "edit this page" tab and make the changes you suggested. Sean William@16:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
What in the world were you doing, then, if not trying to cause trouble? You could have gotten the offending mistake fixed easily by asking nicely on the talk page, which I notice you did after I pointed it out. There isn't any reason at all for anybody to edit the proposed decision of any case; that's what the talk page is for. Sean William@02:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
You really do assume bad faith, don't you. Consider the specific editor when making such statements. Allow me to bring light to you, in the world of what I was doing...
I prefer to fix things myself, I'm like that. It takes me two edits to go to RFPP, then fix the error, than to find someone or talk page it and *hope* someone else gets to it. This way, I at least know it gets done. Not everyone on the wiki is here in an attempt to "stir up trouble". Keep that in mind. Remember who you are working with, and what our goals are. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I can't find a civil way to respond to this. I've sat in front of this screen for about half an hour, and I give up.
Don't bother replying to this, I'm going back to lurking. I'm becoming more and more disgusted with the conduct of many Wikipedians nowadays. Sean William@03:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A New WikiProject has been proposed as a sub-project of Medicine. Your opinion would be appreciated as you are listed as a "intrested User" on the Project page. Please take part in the discussion, located here. Exit2DOS2000•T•C•03:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just reverted this. I see you've blocked the editor for edits to Springsteen within the last fortnight. If you think it's warranted, would you take action again, please. David in DC (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Could you please explain more fully your decision to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd) as delete?
You stated that the closing admin is supposed to take into account a requests from the subjects of articles, who don't want to be covered on the wikipedia.
I am aware of other deletion discussions were similar requests were noted -- and ignored. Surely such requests -- if properly authenticated -- should only be considered, when the case for keeping the article is otherwise marginal? You didn't state that you considered this was a marginal case. Is it really your position that this was a marginal case?
Your closing statement did not point to the place where Mr Finkelstein made this request. I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere in the discussion. So, where is the statement?
Can I ask how you determined that this request -- where ever you found it -- really was from the actual Seth Finkelstein?
I am sorry to inform you -- if you weren't yet aware -- there are vandals who are prepared to subvert the wikipedia's standards. And some of these vandals are perfectly capable of pulling stunts like claiming the real Seth Finkelstein doesn't want to be covered by the wikipedia.
In my opinion, if you were going to base your decision on this claim, you had a responsibility to lay out what steps you undertook to determine that the claim came from the real Seth Finkelstein.
Geo Swan, that ship sailed over a year ago. Have you ever thought of increasing the depth of the encyclopedia, instead of making it wider? We've got enough damn articles anyway.
Mr. Finkelstein, and any other subject of an unwanted article, I hope you'll accept my apology for having to deal with Wikipedians dragging you through the same pointless process every few months. (I just now noticed the deletion review.) I've lost faith in the community of this website, despite the few excellent contributors sitting in high offices. Sean William@21:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Just FYI, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the screenshot at the top of the article. There is already a link to a mirror of goatse.cx in external links, so why force readers to look at that? GSMR (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately? Sean, I understand Goatse is not pleasant to look at, but the statement "nobody's going to budge" is not getting at the point. It is that Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored will not budge. Because the image is being used to portray the subject in question, its usage is appropriate. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sure. If policy wonking is the game you want to play, then perhaps you should read over WP:CENSOR before you quote it. WP:CENSOR was designed to prevent the censoring of content objectionable to groups of people, usually on religious or national grounds. Images of Muhammad were unsuccessfully censored in Wikipedia's past, and rightfully so, since the censoring policy is as clear as day in that scenario. But can you name a person on this earth that doesn't find goatse offensive? Wikipedia's goal is to provide the sum of all human knowledge. Why would a link not meet this goal? Because "humans have to burn calories" to do so, as it was so eloquently put by someone on the talk page? There's a certain level of morality that encyclopedias are expected to adhere to, and the refusal to budge on biographies of living persons, "censorship" of bad images, and many other things are bringing Wikipedia past the brink of moral bankruptcy. Shouldn't a user have a say in the matter of their exposure to goatse, since what has been seen can't be unseen? Sean William@02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
WP:CENSOR says "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content" - Goatse may be objectionable, Sean, but you can't use that as a rationale for removing it. You have to consider whether the inclusion is relevant to the particular article.
The Wikipedia article about a Penis shows images of penises and of erections. The article about missionary position shows drawings of people in bed with each other. Because the article goatse.cx is essentially about hello.jpg, showing an abbreviated image of hello.jpg in the Goatse article ill be of the same use as, say, a series of photos of an erection would be to the article about penises.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
im a recreating my fathers wikipedia page and when i started it said i should talk to you first because it will be similar to the page he had that you deleted.
there were a few things on the page my father was not happy with but i think it is relevant that he has a page.
anika jamieson-cook —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloanika (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Sean. I'm writing an article on the non-encyclopedic uses of Wikipedia, and I stumbled upon the absolutely fascinating talk page for the Atassi family article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atassi), which I noticed you had moderated. I was wondering if you knew anything else about that dispute, or if you know of any similar "extra-encyclopedic" discussions, debates, and so forth on Wikipedia. Hmm, does Wikipedia have a way to message each other? Guess not. Feel free to drop me a line at [email protected] or at my talk page (I don't know what the proper etiquette is about putting up e-mails on users' talk pages, if there is any).
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Daddy's Boy, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A discussion has begun about whether the article House vs. God, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A discussion has begun about whether the article No Reason (House), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanztalk04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
