User talk:Seraphimblade
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade. |
 | Scam warning If you are visiting this page because someone claiming to be me contacted you asking for any payment of any type, it is not me and you are being scammed. If they are threatening to delete or take other adverse action against some article, they can't actually do that and you should not under any circumstances pay them any money or further engage with them. See also this scam warning regarding the Articles for Creation process and editors who edit for pay. |
 | As I frequently work at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I am "aware" of all the various areas covered by discretionary sanctions, and this notice may be considered evidence of awareness if enforcement is requested. It is not necessary to leave me notices advising me of such areas. |
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
 Archives |
|---|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
|
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.
Wikipedia:Standard offer or equivalent?
[edit]Re this editing restriction, I think it's time for me to appeal for a "standard offer" return to normal status. Where would you say is the right place for me to make my case? Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I found WP:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community which says WP:AN is the place. Let me know if you have any advice. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, WP:AN would indeed be the correct place to make your appeal for modification or removal of that restriction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to redirect this to Nessum. Can you release the lock on it? ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Kvng, I removed the protection from it so you can do that. It looks like the spamming was a while back, but if that becomes an issue again, let me know and I can protect the redirect. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
According to the message I received on my first article post, it was deleted by you because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.
Pardon my lack of understanding and knowledge surrounding the wiki world as I am a newbie. I understand your concerns regarding the deletion of my Wikipedia page, and I appreciate your feedback. However, I strongly believe that my page does not solely represent an ambiguous advertisement. The sources I provided demonstrated the notability and relevance of the topic, showcasing multiple perspectives beyond just promotional content.
I acknowledge that based on a previous users feedback, my page may have required revisions to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards. Unfortunately, I found the deletion notice lacking in specific guidance on how to address the issues. I'm eager to improve the page and would greatly appreciate more detailed direction on the necessary changes.
How can I remedy the article? I am looking to do more on other artists and find this extremely frustrating and discouraging. From the looks and sounds of your talk page instructions along with page boasting years of expertise in Wikipedia, your authority level seems to lack a tad of leadership and direction to fellow newcomers. It's a bit unwelcoming. Perhaps you can assist an aspiring wiki contributor on clarifying the specific aspects that need rewriting on an article for a more neutral point of view. Is there a wiki page dedicated in providing examples of acceptable sources that can be added to enhance a page's credibility. The page I created featured a write up from a credible news source / website yet it was not enough.
I'm committed to creating a high-quality Wikipedia page that adheres to the community's guidelines. Please offer more concrete guidance or direction to someone with patience or time to help me achieve this goal. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to revise and resubmit my page.
Thank you for your time and consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderBarrio (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- AlexanderBarrio, I have conversations with people, not chatbots. If you would like to have such a conversation, please leave me a message in your words with no use of bots/LLMs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lol. Complete disregard and arrogance at its best. This is what gatekeeping looks like for content development for Wikipedia. Instead of guidance, direction, we receive these condescending replies. Your page promotes boasting and pride of being a deletionist. You would think that 19 years of being in this community you would be a “solutionist” or leader. I get it. Taking a read on your Deletionist post, you enjoy this type of attention. You likely thrive off of conflict and debates. You’re so authoritative. No chat bots. Just someone speaking to you in terms that you would think someone of your calibre should understand. Thanks for disregarding my post, my attempts to find resolutions, my attempts to learn, my attempt to remedy the article, although I followed the directions given to me and added sources. You’re a wikipedia champ. Your tonality and lack of respect is repulsive. Go on with your day, Inflate your ego and false sense of authority by policing the mean streets of Wikipedia. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not only am I pretty good at spotting chatbots, but I do double check with GPTZero. So, yes, it was chatbot-written, and I'm happy to confidently say that. If you would like people to be willing to help you, I suggest you consider the way you behaved just above, and think about why people might not be too inclined to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- For you to imply for me to "consider how I behave" is telling. At first I was under the impression that you are arrogant and condescending. Now, based on "your tonality" and "choice of words", I can see that you patronize. Perhaps your insecurities and disbelief that someone would actually challenge your actions and call you out on your nonsense & unprofessionalism is worthy of some retaliatory remarks such as the language you chose. lol. "Consider the way you behaved just above" as in I shouldn't behave that way with you? Is this poor behaviour? How has Wikipedia not called you out for the mismanagement of articles, bias opinions and poor representation of what I believed to be a platform for free & credible speech? You are one of the people that we bank on for growth of a platform? You are the judge, jury and executioner. Furthermore you say "think about why people might not be too inclined to do that"; bud, you in no shape, way or form represent or speak for "the people". Step your game up and help serve the community rather than get into these prideful back and forth rebuttals with people seeking support and direction. I wonder if the seniors of this organization approve this type of behaviour from people like you. Hey everyone, watch how you speak or behave around Seraphimblade, he is ultra sensitive person and will use his powers against you lol. He will also resort to making accusations of using chatbots. Here's the kicker. We are living in a world where people with disabilities will use things like chatbots to assist them. Are they not people? That within itself is so prejudice. Believe it or not Mr "I Don't Speak to Bots", some individuals rely on tools to communicate due to disabilities or language barriers. Your comments are offensive, condescending and patronizing. Whats most concerning is that you are roaming these Wikipedia hallways with a chip on your shoulder, and, based on your tonality and choice of words & language, narcissistic characteristics that are mixed with a non inclusive mind state or empathy for others that may need to resort to "chatbots or LLms". Simply Pathetic. Assistive technology is not a BOT, it is a bridge. Let's connect on content, not assumptions. I am also going to do a deep dive and see if there is some sort of policy against the use of "Chatbots" on Wikipedia since the people that remove / delete articles demand to speak to "people", not chatbots. And still, we are here with no support, sense of direction or guidance. If you are the representation of "contributors and volunteers", respectfully speaking, Wikipedia has failed us. Put your ego aside, humble yourself. The way you handled this entire situation is a classic example of superiority complex. Humble yourself and watch how you speak to others. Perhaps help them. God bless you pal. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You shouldn't behave that way with anyone. I'm part of "anyone", so I suppose that means me too. Realistically, you're probably better to do it with me; anything you can call me I've probably been called worse, so I don't much care and am pretty unlikely to ask that you be sanctioned for it. If you behave this way with other editors, they might request that you be blocked, and they may well succeed. And I get challenged all the time; that's par for the course for any editor, but it is expected that even when disagreeing, editors will do so civilly. As to the "assistive technology" bit, that's something like text-to-speech/speech-to-text. In that case, it's facilitating a conversation between people, but it still is between people. If it's going through a bot, I'm no longer talking to the other person at all; I'm talking to the bot. I have no idea if they understood what I said (and I can't see from responses that they probably didn't, allowing me to clarify), and actually I have no idea if they even read what I said, or just fed it to the bot. So, it's just a waste of time, and I'm rather averse to wasting my time. That's why I won't talk to bots. If someone's disabled, and that causes them some difficulty in typing or the like, I'll be every bit patient with that, but I still want to talk to the person. There's no policy per se against using LLMs on talk pages (you definitely should not in article space), but you will find, in practice, that a lot of people feel exactly the way I do about the practice, and will tell you that they are not interested in having a conversation where one side isn't actually participating. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you plan on advising me as to why the page was deleted. I changed the language and added additional notable sources as per the kind direction and suggestion of a fellow user. We have gone back and fourth many times with you consistently disregarding my questions, or requests for direction or guidance. It appears that you would rather be combative and insist on challenging my thoughts and opinions of you. It is very one sided. Clearly I am not a chat bot and whatever program you used is absolutely wrong. Furthermore, you continue to use language that suggests that I would be penalized for raising concerns or speaking out. Sounds extremely non democratic. It can make a user feel as if we have no voice, no room for appeal or honest constructive feedback. We have to tolerate people such as you telling us "I don't much care and am pretty unlikely to ask that you be sanctioned for it". That sounds threatening. Please redirect me to the right personal that can guide me on what my article lacked in and what could have done in such a little timeframe to have appealed it. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- "I don't much care and am pretty unlikely to ask that you be sanctioned for it" - interpretation: "I don't much care and although I have the means to escalate this and have you sanctioned for using free speech, I will allow you to go on."
- I also do not appreciate being told "If you behave this way with other editors, they might request that you be blocked, and they may well succeed". Looks like my donations to this organization might not be as appreciated as I initially thought. This makes great content for a doc. Nonetheless, this experience with you has been eye opening at the very least. Ironincally, this experience makes me ponder how much content and "truth" is being denied from the public by its gatekeeping editors. Surely, you do not represent all of them however your choice of words sounds compelling enough to make me feel like this is a "controlled" platform ran by authoritative, one sided editors who'd rather not support, assist or guide but "waste their time" being combative with aspiring contributors. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am the right person. As to why the article was deleted, it was written in a promotional way, and promotion is not permitted on Wikipedia. As some examples, but by no means an exhaustive list:
His contributions have undeniably helped pave the way
(don't editorialize that something is "undeniable"),That love came in a garage sale treasure box purchased by his father, full of vinyl & cassettes, which is where he first came face to face with
(articles should be written in literal language, not flowery stuff like that, so he first heard their albums after receiving them as gifts; he did not "come face to face" with them),Notable for his influence on
(don't editorialize that it was "notable", and what reliable and independent sources confirm that he was an influence?),has held several key positions in the music industry, each of which contributed to his reputation for creative leadership
(full of puff terms), and it just goes on and on in a "Look how neat he is!" type of tone. Articles must be neutral in both tone and content, and stick to presenting facts verified by reliable and independent sources. Also, while the sources don't matter to a G11 deletion, which sources do you think demonstrate notability? I just had a look, and I don't see any cited in the article which would. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for taking the time and energy to giving me the feedback. That was very informative and thats the type of feedback us new writers could use for improvement. I aspire to raise awareness and information about artists and more so specific niche markets such as latin urban music. I have to admit that while gathering information and researching, I took excerpts from the official biography without properly annotating. As per notable resources, it really depends on what you consider notable. I included a write up from newswire and another from raised by latinos talking about the celebration of hip hop and the commemorative clothing launch paying homage to the pioneers of the music. "tribute to the many Latin artists who helped Hip-Hop’s inception and contributed to its ever-changing evolution." The subject of my article was within the honourable mention of all the artists. Is there a way to keep a draft of the article I wrote or has it been completely deleted from fixing? I would like to take the opportunity to learn and adhere to the writing and editing norms of wiki. I feel like with time, not only can I fix the article, I will also be able to elaborate and contribute more. I noticed that another piece that I added to an existing page dedicated to canadian hip hop was deleted as well. Some of the artists mentioned in that particular article have a wiki page and did not quite understand why it was removed. At first glance, I assumed that it could have been because I named it Canadian Latin Hip Hop however, within the article, there is sub-genres of Punjabi hip hop, indiginous hip hop and french hip hop. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't restore advertisements. I will, if you like, give you the sources that were used in the deleted article. Do note that "Newswire" sources just reprint press releases, and those are neither reliable nor independent; they're written by the subject themself and generally subject to no fact-checking whatsoever. You can find some examples of sources here with how the community has assessed their reliability, with the ones in green considered generally reliable—that is by no means an exhaustive listing of reliable sources, just ones that commonly come up, but it should give you an idea what you'd be looking for when checking whether there are reliable sources about a subject available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would greatly appreciate it that. To be clear, although you reference my article as advertisement, in no means or ways was I trying to project that. I have a list of fundamental artists which I wish to do articles on however, due to the time of inception and its niche market in Canada, it's difficult to pull up old interviews. Most of the articles are either gone or in the online time machine. Is there a way to present notable sources such as old newspaper clippings or youtube videos to confirm or validate as a source? i.e An interview on an American tv show owned by MTV however it is no longer on television or available online. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't restore advertisements. I will, if you like, give you the sources that were used in the deleted article. Do note that "Newswire" sources just reprint press releases, and those are neither reliable nor independent; they're written by the subject themself and generally subject to no fact-checking whatsoever. You can find some examples of sources here with how the community has assessed their reliability, with the ones in green considered generally reliable—that is by no means an exhaustive listing of reliable sources, just ones that commonly come up, but it should give you an idea what you'd be looking for when checking whether there are reliable sources about a subject available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time and energy to giving me the feedback. That was very informative and thats the type of feedback us new writers could use for improvement. I aspire to raise awareness and information about artists and more so specific niche markets such as latin urban music. I have to admit that while gathering information and researching, I took excerpts from the official biography without properly annotating. As per notable resources, it really depends on what you consider notable. I included a write up from newswire and another from raised by latinos talking about the celebration of hip hop and the commemorative clothing launch paying homage to the pioneers of the music. "tribute to the many Latin artists who helped Hip-Hop’s inception and contributed to its ever-changing evolution." The subject of my article was within the honourable mention of all the artists. Is there a way to keep a draft of the article I wrote or has it been completely deleted from fixing? I would like to take the opportunity to learn and adhere to the writing and editing norms of wiki. I feel like with time, not only can I fix the article, I will also be able to elaborate and contribute more. I noticed that another piece that I added to an existing page dedicated to canadian hip hop was deleted as well. Some of the artists mentioned in that particular article have a wiki page and did not quite understand why it was removed. At first glance, I assumed that it could have been because I named it Canadian Latin Hip Hop however, within the article, there is sub-genres of Punjabi hip hop, indiginous hip hop and french hip hop. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you plan on advising me as to why the page was deleted. I changed the language and added additional notable sources as per the kind direction and suggestion of a fellow user. We have gone back and fourth many times with you consistently disregarding my questions, or requests for direction or guidance. It appears that you would rather be combative and insist on challenging my thoughts and opinions of you. It is very one sided. Clearly I am not a chat bot and whatever program you used is absolutely wrong. Furthermore, you continue to use language that suggests that I would be penalized for raising concerns or speaking out. Sounds extremely non democratic. It can make a user feel as if we have no voice, no room for appeal or honest constructive feedback. We have to tolerate people such as you telling us "I don't much care and am pretty unlikely to ask that you be sanctioned for it". That sounds threatening. Please redirect me to the right personal that can guide me on what my article lacked in and what could have done in such a little timeframe to have appealed it. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You shouldn't behave that way with anyone. I'm part of "anyone", so I suppose that means me too. Realistically, you're probably better to do it with me; anything you can call me I've probably been called worse, so I don't much care and am pretty unlikely to ask that you be sanctioned for it. If you behave this way with other editors, they might request that you be blocked, and they may well succeed. And I get challenged all the time; that's par for the course for any editor, but it is expected that even when disagreeing, editors will do so civilly. As to the "assistive technology" bit, that's something like text-to-speech/speech-to-text. In that case, it's facilitating a conversation between people, but it still is between people. If it's going through a bot, I'm no longer talking to the other person at all; I'm talking to the bot. I have no idea if they understood what I said (and I can't see from responses that they probably didn't, allowing me to clarify), and actually I have no idea if they even read what I said, or just fed it to the bot. So, it's just a waste of time, and I'm rather averse to wasting my time. That's why I won't talk to bots. If someone's disabled, and that causes them some difficulty in typing or the like, I'll be every bit patient with that, but I still want to talk to the person. There's no policy per se against using LLMs on talk pages (you definitely should not in article space), but you will find, in practice, that a lot of people feel exactly the way I do about the practice, and will tell you that they are not interested in having a conversation where one side isn't actually participating. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- For you to imply for me to "consider how I behave" is telling. At first I was under the impression that you are arrogant and condescending. Now, based on "your tonality" and "choice of words", I can see that you patronize. Perhaps your insecurities and disbelief that someone would actually challenge your actions and call you out on your nonsense & unprofessionalism is worthy of some retaliatory remarks such as the language you chose. lol. "Consider the way you behaved just above" as in I shouldn't behave that way with you? Is this poor behaviour? How has Wikipedia not called you out for the mismanagement of articles, bias opinions and poor representation of what I believed to be a platform for free & credible speech? You are one of the people that we bank on for growth of a platform? You are the judge, jury and executioner. Furthermore you say "think about why people might not be too inclined to do that"; bud, you in no shape, way or form represent or speak for "the people". Step your game up and help serve the community rather than get into these prideful back and forth rebuttals with people seeking support and direction. I wonder if the seniors of this organization approve this type of behaviour from people like you. Hey everyone, watch how you speak or behave around Seraphimblade, he is ultra sensitive person and will use his powers against you lol. He will also resort to making accusations of using chatbots. Here's the kicker. We are living in a world where people with disabilities will use things like chatbots to assist them. Are they not people? That within itself is so prejudice. Believe it or not Mr "I Don't Speak to Bots", some individuals rely on tools to communicate due to disabilities or language barriers. Your comments are offensive, condescending and patronizing. Whats most concerning is that you are roaming these Wikipedia hallways with a chip on your shoulder, and, based on your tonality and choice of words & language, narcissistic characteristics that are mixed with a non inclusive mind state or empathy for others that may need to resort to "chatbots or LLms". Simply Pathetic. Assistive technology is not a BOT, it is a bridge. Let's connect on content, not assumptions. I am also going to do a deep dive and see if there is some sort of policy against the use of "Chatbots" on Wikipedia since the people that remove / delete articles demand to speak to "people", not chatbots. And still, we are here with no support, sense of direction or guidance. If you are the representation of "contributors and volunteers", respectfully speaking, Wikipedia has failed us. Put your ego aside, humble yourself. The way you handled this entire situation is a classic example of superiority complex. Humble yourself and watch how you speak to others. Perhaps help them. God bless you pal. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not only am I pretty good at spotting chatbots, but I do double check with GPTZero. So, yes, it was chatbot-written, and I'm happy to confidently say that. If you would like people to be willing to help you, I suggest you consider the way you behaved just above, and think about why people might not be too inclined to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lol. Complete disregard and arrogance at its best. This is what gatekeeping looks like for content development for Wikipedia. Instead of guidance, direction, we receive these condescending replies. Your page promotes boasting and pride of being a deletionist. You would think that 19 years of being in this community you would be a “solutionist” or leader. I get it. Taking a read on your Deletionist post, you enjoy this type of attention. You likely thrive off of conflict and debates. You’re so authoritative. No chat bots. Just someone speaking to you in terms that you would think someone of your calibre should understand. Thanks for disregarding my post, my attempts to find resolutions, my attempts to learn, my attempt to remedy the article, although I followed the directions given to me and added sources. You’re a wikipedia champ. Your tonality and lack of respect is repulsive. Go on with your day, Inflate your ego and false sense of authority by policing the mean streets of Wikipedia. AlexanderBarrio (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Once you become eligible for it, you can check out The Wikipedia Library; they include a lot of resources, including an archive newspaper service with archives of some papers dating back as far as the 19th century. You could also try asking a librarian at your local public library; they quite often are helpful in tracking down and getting hold of material like that or figuring out where it can be done. That said, though, interviews are not normally independent sources if they're just the subject of the article talking about themself. Some interviews do also contain some biographical material and the like, so those portions normally would be considered independent material. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies on a "All RFCs" request for comment, and at Talk:Mughal dynasty on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Talk:Twisters (film) on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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 12:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)