User talk:Seitz

Welcome!

Hello, Seitz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 16:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page on US Dollar article

Dear Seitz:

Your input is requested in connection with the discussion I'm having with editor "Xode" on the talk page for the US dollar article.

Thanks, Famspear 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Seitz:

Thanks for the input! Yours, Famspear 17:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number One

You wrote:

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed analysis. I can agree that

the only time a Village official mentions Number 1 is in response to queries from Number 6
no Village official actually confirms the existence of Number 1

However, the statement in the article goes beyond that: "...but at no time does Number 2 or his/her subordonates ever mention such a person by that title...". That seems like an overstatement. It seems more accutate to say "...ever confirm the existance of such a person..." or "...ever mention such a person, except in response to Number 6's questions...". -- Seitz 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My wording is the problem here as opposed to what is being said. Would you please do me the favor of rewording the entry to more in line with what you are viting? It would be appreciated. A lot of my enties today alone seem to have gotten under a lot of people's skin. I do not like doing that. Thank you. -- Jason Palpatine 07:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, maybe, I wsn't clear enough. Edits made by me elsewhere have come under attack by a select group of admins. An article I created last month was deleted a couple of days ago after AfD discussion ended with a majority of people voting to retain it. Afterwards, edits made by me have been unlaterally reverted. I belive I am close now to being banned. i am asking you to please edit the entry so that it is more acceptable. An edit by me runs the risk of it being reverted immediatly. Jason Palpatine 20:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy lately. I'll see what I can do. -- Seitz 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tivoization

I've been hearing about Tivoization for a while now, but this article finally made it clear to me. I looked up the edit history, and it looks like you made the changes that made it clear. So thank you. -- Steven Fisher 23:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tivoization

I'm not sure adding "...is a term that describes..." adds anything. Every entry could be described as "...a term that describes...". Aside from a technical distinction along the lines of The Treachery Of Images, it seems to say the same thing. -- Seitz 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, there's a user that has been removing information about tivoisation from the Linux article claiming the name is a neologism and hence shouldn't be mentioned. It does seem to be a neologism, but that doesn't make the subject it describes any less valid. So my reasoning was that if anything needs changing it's either the title of the article or the definition that should make it clear that this article isn't about a neologism but the subject commonly referred to as this neologism.

But looking back at it, I'm not even sure why it bothers me. It's a valid name for a valid subject and in fact tivoisation is a notable neologism, so perhaps I should just ignore the user. I'll revert the change. 80.233.255.7 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. Now that I think about it, the article is both about the origin of the term and and what the term describes. But I imagine there are other articles where both the origin of the English term, as well as what the term describes. -- Seitz 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime South Deletion Review

I would appreciate any comments you may have on the Anime South Deletion review page. -Animesouth 20:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way to view the deleted article. Without seeing the article, I don't see how I can comment on whether the deletion was appropriate. Seitz 18:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anime America

The article Anime America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage by reliable and independent sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esw01407 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Seitz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Codeville

The article Codeville has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has been unnotable since 2011.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]