User talk:DrSeehas

Hi DrSeehas! I see that you have recently created an article for the Playlist: The Very Best of The Byrds compilation album. Unfortunately, there are fairly strict criteria for album articles on Wikipedia and I don't believe that this one meets the notability guidelines laid out at WP:NMG and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. There are lots of Byrds compilation albums and Wikipedia doesn't need an article on them all -- just the ones that are of special significance and have received widespread coverage in third-party publications. The Playlist album has nothing that distinguishes it in terms of notability from lots of other Byrds' compilations issued by Columbia Records over the years. As a result of this, I have nominated the article for deletion (although it will be up to an administrator to judge whether the article should be deleted and they may decide that I’m wrong).

If the article is deleted, I hope you won't be discouraged by this because your contributions to Wikipedia are most welcome. However, it might be worth familiarising yourself with Wikipedia's music-related guidelines, such as WP:MOSMUSIC, WP:MUSTARD and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body. I'm a fairly experienced editor of music-related articles and if I can be of any help or offer advice, please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kohoutek1138! Thank you for your explanation. I disagree that this compilation album is not of special significance, because it is one of two compilation albums (the other one is the 1st one: Gratest Hits) still in print. There is still another 2CD set and a 4CD/1DVD box set left. It would be nice, if you improve this article and remove the proposed deletion.
The reason why I seldom write on wikipedia is: I am no nativ english speaker (german) and I feel unsafe in english language. --DrSeehas (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Unfortunately, whether or not a compilation is still in print is not one of the factors that are used on Wikipedia to establish notability for albums. An album is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the artist or publisher of the album. The original Byrds' Greatest Hits album is notable because there is plenty written about it and because it is significant within The Byrds' discography for being the band's first compilation album and the biggest selling album in their entire discography. There is no comparable significance to the Playlist album. I hope this clarifies things. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If a compilation is still in print or is out of print is not one of the factors that are used on Wikipedia to establish notability for albums, the guidelines should be changed! Wikipedia is for users and not only for editors. And an user wants information about albums he/she can buy today. Of the approx. 40 compilations listed in the Byrds discography nearly half of them have an article in wikipedia. Why not one of the few still in print?
Do I have to document my protest against the deletion elsewhere or is this page sufficient enough? --DrSeehas (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an album catalogue or a discography -- it is an encyclopedia. Not every album should have an article, as I've explained above. The guidelines regarding notability reflect the consensus of the editors using Wikipedia (editors and users are the same thing, since anyone can edit Wikipedia). However, just because anyone can edit Wikipedia, that doesn't mean "anything goes", there are clear rules and guidelines about what is and what isn't suitable for Wikipedia and I don't believe that the Playlist album meets notability requirements and therefore should be deleted. It will be up to an administrator to decide whether I'm right or not. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Why shouldn't have every album an article? Nobody will be hurt or injured. Nobody asked me, a user and little editor, when the rules and guidelines were made. There is no consensus here. I also think, users and editors are different people, especially when editors try to delete articles... You wrote above "Unfortunately". So let us change or erase the rules and guidelines. I think, with all the time you spent convincing me to accept the deletion of this article, you would better spent your time improving this article. --DrSeehas (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your recent changes to the "length" field in the infoboxes of the Byrds' first 3 albums. Consensus among editors working on music related articles is that only the total running time of the original album should be listed, as explained at Template:Infobox album. Your aditions to Wikipedia's music articles are most welcome but please take the time to read the guidelines at WP:MOSMUSIC, WP:MUSTARD, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body and any other relevant template guidelines, so that you can better edit in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrSeehas,

I hope you don't think I was being awkward or rude but I reversed your Steinway edit under Earl Hines. Of course you are right in that the Company is called Steinway & Sons but surely not, in every day parlance, the pianos? "Lang Lang is playing a Steinway & Sons in Los Angeles Philharmonic on May 2 & 3 2013" [which he is!] - surely not. Even Steinway [& Sons] call their own recent CD re-issues, "Steinway Legends".

All wishes. 86.133.250.123 (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are satisfied with the current solution?
All wishes. --DrSeehas (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh & Cadillacs are made by General Motors! So, "Rubenstein and Earl Hines often drove a General Motors"?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.250.123 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

??? I didn't change any Cadillacs. --DrSeehas (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable source that Survivor was available on Super Audio CD. If there isn't a reliable source for that unusual format, we can't have it per WP:Verifiability.--Harout72 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "a reliable source"? http://sa-cd.net/showtitle/591 https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00005EBIJ https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0000631DQ http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005EBIJ https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0000631DQ https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B00005EBIJ https://www.amazon.it/dp/B0000631DQ Please STOP THE EDIT WAR! --DrSeehas (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please become familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Sources are very important for unusual entries like Super Audio CD. I re-added your entry using one of the sources you provided on your talk-page. You could have provided it on the article's page and prevented reverts.--Harout72 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of AMD chipsets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OPN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor-Overlord100 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not your subordinate. --DrSeehas (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for those edits. Please feel free to revert them back! That was not my goal. I was just filling citations. The tool must have put them. It went unnoticed. Compfreak7 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal and no reason to revert. I was just curious. --DrSeehas (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  17:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  18:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrSeehas, I just noticed that in this edit of mine I not only reverted the spam but also your edit! I'm really sorry about that; I'll restore your edit. Best. Acalamari 15:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. I had not yet noticed it. --DrSeehas (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

Just noticed you've replaced "—" escape sequences with the equivalent extended characters, in Steamroller (microarchitecture) article... It's not a bad thing as such, :) just wondering if that's something considered to be a good practice? Usually it's about recommending usage of the escape sequences for non-standard characters.

Please advise. Thank you. -- Dsimic (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back!
Honestly, I don't know. I think, it is better readable, but if you prefer the "—" escape sequence, feel free to change it back. --DrSeehas (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally right about the readability. On the other side, it's the old school which states that extended characters should be written as escape sequences — but then again, it's the 21st century, with UTF-8 and such modern things. :)

There's no need for modifying the article further in that respect, it's just fine. -- Dsimic (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A different thing is the " " escape sequence: You can't see the equivalent extended characters, so I prefer the old school in this case. --DrSeehas (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Another thing with using extended characters is an always present slight possibility for some browsers to misinterpret them, depending on their configured encodings and such. Sure thing, nowadays it's much less of a possibility, but it's still there at least in theory. With escape sequences there's no such risk. -- Dsimic (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment has been filed concerning the conduct of Oranjelo100 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Oranjelo100. -- Dsimic (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Just as a heads-up regarding the latest reverts on the Intel MPX article: I additionally tried contacting DmitryKo to see what's going on, but received no feedback; my question was actually deleted twice. I don't understand what's going on? — Dsimic (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello back! I left DmitryKo a warning on the talk page and readded the deleted parts in the article. --DrSeehas (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DrSeehas,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of AMD microprocessor codenames for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the syntax of template is broken. Your article duplicates existing article, List of AMD microprocessors. There are no need to have two separate article with the list of AMD processors. You can expand original article, not create new article. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a list of AMD processors. It will be a (hopefully complete) list of AMD codenames. I could not find such a list in the internet. If you know one and send me the link, I would be very thankfull. --DrSeehas (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no point to start article if you don't have a wp:source. Every article must have at least one reliable source (see: WP:42). Vanjagenije (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree this is NOT a duplicate of an existing Wikipedia article? --DrSeehas (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. And, there is not point for you to argue with me here. I can't delete the article, I just proposed it for deletion. If you think the article should not be deleted, you should contest the speedy deletion by clicking the button "Contest this speedy deletion" on the article itself. That is the only way to save the article from speedy deletion. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrSeehas. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrSeehas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DrSeehas. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]