User talk:City of Silver/Archive 4

Taiwan island group - What would you do

if there are 88000 results in Google and someone comes around and says "Google it turns up nothing?" This so called Dr. already redirected Taiwan island group to Taiwan [1], but the latter is about ONE island as the intro prominently explains. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As in any situation where I believe people have made mistakes, I would state my concerns without asking if they have "problems with basic maths." CityOfSilver 17:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwanese archipelago

Please reconsider your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taiwan island group. The article has been expanded with numerous sources. A move request is also on the way at Talk:Taiwan island group. Thanks. 203.145.92.173 (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a guideline that specifically recommends against what you're doing right now. I personally did not need you to comment here since I've been watching the debate even after I voted. I can assure you that this is true of several other users you've messaged, too.

I'm not going to change my vote per the sources you've added. I could definitely be wrong, but it looks like you just Googled "Taiwan island group" and similar phrases and went with what you found, despite the fact that the sources in question don't appear to give those exact islands that title. As far as I can tell, there is no specific group of islands commonly called the "Taiwan island group" or the "Taiwan Archipelago." CityOfSilver 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I consider it an obligation to keep editors like you informed. I am not soliciting for votes, and I did not ask you to vote along my position. If you are already following what's going on, then that's fine. And for your information I have never googled for "Taiwan island group" or "Taiwan archipelago". 203.145.92.173 (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload

In response to your message on my talk page regarding WP:SYNTH, actually that edit doesn't have anything to do with WP:SYNTH as WP:SYNTH deals primarily with content, not the reliability of the source; a more relevant policy you could've cited could've been WP:SOURCES or WP:NOTRELIABLE. But even if you could establish RT's reliability, the state-run tag would still stand given that channel's lack of neutrality of its reportage due to its state-funded character...Festermunk (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

SYNTH says "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." A is RT's report on the fallout of the Anonymous attacks, B is the fact that RT is not biased, and C, which isn't allowed, is that RT's reporting on Anonymous must be weaker than it would be were RT unbiased. CityOfSilver 15:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I know what WP:SYNTH says thanks, but again it wouldn't apply to my edit because it had nothing to do with content, but rather the reliability of the source. Also, I never made the conclusion (nor even implied anything of that sort) that "RT's reporting on Anonymous must be weaker than it would be were RT unbiased" so, pardon me French, but that is shit you making up on the spot. Festermunk (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's come to you concluding, without asking me, that my claim "is shit you making up on the spot". That is not true. There is no apparent reason to include "state-run" unless it's to try to denigrate RT's reliability. I suppose I could be wrong, but I can't find where you explained such an odd edit. Are you going to add "state-owned" to everything sourced to al Jazeera and "independently-run" to everything sourced to the New York Times?

Fortunately, this problem is now moot as an IP user removed the entire paragraph, saying basically that the claim's original source is Anonymous itself, which is by its nature unreliable. I can't really argue with that. It's gone as of this minute. RT's function was practically issuing a press release for Anon, or at least someone claiming to speak for Anon. Maybe someone ought to have a look at anything like this that is sourced to RT because your implication, which I admit might have been unintentional, was right: It is a bad source. CityOfSilver 22:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

The revisions made to the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster wikipedia page were done to oppose religious persecution and to allow equal religious opportunity and freedom while using wikipedia. With the addition of myth at the end of "pastafarian Creationism" leads to the question as to why the wikipedia pages of other religious deities involving creationism and intelligent design: like that of buddhism, christianity, islam. are not considered myths as well. The edit I performed "Creation of Pastafarianism" fits within the context of the wikipedia page.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.25.220 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not for the first time, I'd like you to read Christian mythology. Also Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology, Buddhist mythology, etc. You don't even have to read them; just look at the titles. The word "myth" is not an attack or derogatory claim. "Pastafarian" reads like ad copy. And if you're going to make erroneous claims about religious persecution again, please let me know in advance so I can delete on sight. CityOfSilver 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For cleaning my user talk page! Happy clicking. Ramen! Jim1138 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

yw CityOfSilver 01:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Love your signature!

I love your signature by the way with all the awsome colors we have a lot in common LOL because most of them are my favorite and I love your font too! may I ask a quesition may you please tell me why my editing got deleted off of the Jayne Mansfield article and also from one of the sections in the article (I think Mid 1950's or maybe Late 1950's either one)? oh and I finally found out how to sign my signatur correctly :) the reason why I am asking you this on your "Talk Page" is because one of the administrators or user I should say idk either one told me to go to one of the "Talk Pages" of one the users I just got done previously talking with I am sorry if I am in your or any other user's way and may you please or someone tell me if I am doing anything wrong and I will be willing out of my own time like I am not supposed to be talking on yall's talk pages or if I am being rude in anyway. May you please tell me why that happend and thank you for your kindness and supporting help! Ilovechoclate (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my signature; I'm not joking when I say it took hours to make it work. If it ever got deleted somehow, I would just keep the regular signature rather than try to make this one again.

As for your addition, it was undone by User:Fat&Happy, whose edit summary says "[reverted] overlink & unnecessary detail in lead; unsourced addition; ungrammatical rewrite changing meaning of sentence without explanation." (You can see people's edit summaries by clicking the "View History" button, right next to the "Edit" button, and, when editing, you can leave your own edit summaries in the thin text box right underneath the big text box.) I, personally, don't like stuff getting removed because it's not grammatically correct, but unsourced is a problem, and your claim about Mansfield divorcing and signing a contract on the same day is not sourced. I think I found a reliable source so I'll try to re-add it, but don't be surprised if it gets removed again. It's interesting trivia but it might be too much new information on an already oversized article. CityOfSilver 22:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Transdev in York

Hi, just FYI I've WP:AIV'd this account, the IP and the original account...QU ^TalkQu 22:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And I am in the process of WP:RFPPing the article, since the person just created another COI-violating account to continue edit-warring. CityOfSilver 22:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi from Durruti36

I assume that you are familiar with wikipedia policies concerning BLP violations. If that is the case then you know that removal of material that violates BLP policies does not constitute edit warring. In fact, wikipedia policy requires that such material be removed immediately no matter how many times it is re-inserted in an article. I have explained the reasons for my edits in some detail on the talk page, and I have already made attempts to contact Admins, posted queries to the BLP noticeboard, and requested page protection, with essentially no response. I will continue to remove material from the page in question if that material violates BLP policies as well as wikipedia core principles, as any wikipedia editor should. --Durruti36 (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you are closely associated with Dae Gak, perhaps enough so that your editing constitutes a conflict of interest. I feel that your edits violate WP:PROMO and I undid your work accordingly.

As for the BLP concern, you seem to be talking about the information you restored here. I honestly cannot find where, in the old edit, BLP was violated. CityOfSilver 22:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you prepared to back up your accusation that my edits violate wikipedia policies? Could you please point me to a single edit I have made that in any way substantiates your accusation? It says here on your user page that you assume good faith. That is a very important wikipedia principle and I would encourage you to take it to heart. --Durruti36 (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have provided you plenty of examples, and you've not even acknowledged them. You have a transparent agenda, and no ability to work with other editors on this particular page - it apparently is too close to home for you. You are simply reinforcing City's points with your comments here, points with which I heartily concur.Tao2911 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no accusation. I said "seems" and "perhaps" because I have no way of knowing if you have a conflict. The truth is, your edits, talk page comments, and edit summaries make little sense unless you have an agenda. So it seems like you do. I don't know for certain, though, and have not said otherwise.

As for good faith, I'm not sure what you mean. Editing in good faith means you are editing with good intentions and I believe you are. I certainly never accused you of intentionally doing harm. I don't believe you've come to do damage to the encyclopedia. My issue is not with good faith questions, though; it's with editing properly, which is quite different from editing in good faith. It is possible to edit with good intentions but not edit correctly, and yes, I am accusing you of editing incorrectly. Agenda or not, I'm seeing WP:PROMO violations and I'm reacting accordingly.

And to reiterate, I cannot find the BLP problems in that edit I linked to in my first reply here. I do see that you were told in the comment to which you replied here that if others disagree that they are BLP violations then it's probably not "obvious." If you keep inserting what I believe are edits which run afoul of WP:PROMO, I'm going to keep removing them because I feel the problems are not "obvious" at all. I'm just going on what I see and don't see, though, and if there are BLP issues I'm missing, I need you to shed some light on them. CityOfSilver 01:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

City, all of the edits that you are referring to have been done on the basis of serious BLP issues, which your friend Tao2911 has frequently acknowledged in the past. I would request that you either seriously study all of the facts and claims that are involved (and the history of who has actually said what), or you simply refrain from weighing in. If you do choose to continue to participate I would also request that you be a little more clear about what you are saying and, in particular, either make a straightforward accusation, or refrain from making vague insinuations that you later back off from when challenged. --Durruti36 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness of this reply. I have not been online in awhile.

Here is the edit you're referring to regarding my "friend Tao2911." It's odd to refer to this edit because reading the comment above that edit, I see that Tao specifically, word-for-word derides your claims of BLP violations. I would ask you to show me where Tao2911 has made such acknowledgements, but you never seem to link to anything supporting your claims and I doubt you'll start now.

"be a little more clear about what you are saying" Show me what BLP violations are in Dae Gak's article. Copy/paste a section of text from it and copy/paste the pertinent BLP rule that the text violates. I literally cannot be more clear.

"refrain from making vague insinuations that you later back off from when challenged" In my first reply to you, I said, "It seems that you are closely associated with Dae Gak" which I still believe and "I feel that your edits violate WP:PROMO" which I still believe. What did I back down from? (On that note, I noticed your use of the word "insinuations" rather than "accusations" and I honestly appreciate it. I think "insinuations" is a totally fair term regarding the things I've said in the past.)

I will tell you that I believe your claim that you are Curt Steinmetz, a (possibly former) student of Dae Gak's. Thus, you have a conflict of interest and an obvious agenda. I will revert any edits that even slightly appear promotional you add to that page because you are doing it to promote someone who is close to you. Go to an admin if you feel such behavior would not be appropriate, but I feel confident that any admin will settle any disagreements over such behavior in a way that supports what I've been saying and doing. CityOfSilver 16:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Steven W. Thomas

Hi City of Silver,

There is an American Lawyer (largest circulating attorney magazine) article reference to Carl Junction, noting it as the hometown of Mr. Thomas. That should be newsworthy, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafattorneys (talk • contribs)

Your thoughts?

I disagree. Mr. Thomas does not appear to be notable, and non-notable people shouldn't get mentioned. CityOfSilver 17:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi City of Silver,

Re: the Carl Junction entry, appreciate your responsiveness and aggressive editing. Two follow ups: 1, is notableness relative to the subject matter? For example, might something be more notable to the "Carl Junction" entry even if it did not merit mention in the "Apple" entry; 2, would attachment of the article help? I genuinely believe that this might be the only national media mention of an individual from Carl Junction that exists.

Thanks for the thoughtfulness of your responses. I have read others and they are amusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafattorneys (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

1. It reads like the mention of Thomas is promotional. Your username also indicates this. If increased visibility is the reason for including Thomas, it's a non-starter. 2. It's a pretty small place; if no notable people are from there, that would be something Carl Junction has in common with a lot of places. I believe you that he was mentioned in the magazine so no need to take any effort like that; it's just that unless he's got a non-trivial mention, and the magazine says why he's notable (involvement with a famous case is probably what makes most lawyers on here notable), the magazine doesn't confer notability. CityOfSilver 18:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. If it makes a difference, the article is a cover article on the magazine, does not merely mention Mr. Thomas, but is an article about him and, in addition, the largest jury verdict ever obtained in the United States in the area of accounting malpractice, and is merely representative of other articles (Wall St. Journal, Financial Times, Miami Herald) which, while not uniformly mentioning Carl Junction, do concern and are about Mr. Thomas. I do work with him so if that is a per se violation of editorial policy, I understand even if I believe I am being objective in the relative newsworthiness to the Carl Junction entry. Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafattorneys (talk • contribs) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

AGK

I can't help. I'm not an admin.

User:AGK is doing mass edits without bot clearance. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Leave concerns like that at his talk page, not his user page. Wiping a pretty big user page to leave a sharp comment could easily be construed as vandalism. CityOfSilver 20:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Bot behaviour without kill-button. -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Are you saying that leaving concerns like that at his talk page isn't enough? CityOfSilver 21:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC) I said: Bot behaviour without kill-button. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Make sure you leave your concerns at talk pages, since blanking talk pages to leave comments like that is bound to get you blocked for vandalism. CityOfSilver 21:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC) It was the nearest BOT-blocking button available. The editor you are protecting actually was disrupting WP. Are you an admin, protecting a fellow admin? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Number one, deliberately blanking a user page to leave a blaring comment is not a bot-blocking button. It's vandalism. Don't do it any more. Number two, AGK has agreed to stop, albeit temporarily. Feel free to contribute to that conversation; you've been mentioned there and your input would be welcomed. I can't figure out how further participation from me will help anything so I'm going to stop. CityOfSilver 21:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Sure we stop. #1: which other button there was? #2 How would I know, noone told/linked me (strange not)? #3 future: whatever. Just resolve this, today, would do. AGK was wrong. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC),

Baruch

I did a revert a while ago and suggested that we move this to the talk page. Anon IP address keeps on reverting this. I am trying to avoid academic boosterism [2] and providing balance. If you look at the compared version [3], in the first paragraph, there is a comparison between that of Baruch and other CUNY's. I believe that it is better to compare Baruch to other schools in Manhattan, especially with the claim that " Baruch is the third ranked CUNY diverse and was ranked most selective college in its region." This is clearly academic boosterism and a counter point is necessary. Which is what I reverted this to. I have also in the past suggested that it should be moved to the talk page, but the IP clearly refuses. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The comparison amongst the other CUNYs is made in the source; this is allowed. Comparisons made in the article that are not made in the source are problematic. Per WP:SYNTH, your comparisons are not allowed because you're combining sources to make a point those sources don't specifically state. Unless there's a reliable source comparing Baruch to the other Manhattan universities, it's SYNTH and can't stay. Your "boosterism" problem appears to be with this text: "Baruch is the third ranked CUNY diverse and was ranked most selective college in its region". I agree that this is promotional and adds little to the reader's understanding of the school. It similarly ought to be removed from the article. CityOfSilver 20:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition. Gestures like this are always appreciated. CityOfSilver 21:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. CityOfSilver 16:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism in the article titled Namaste

Please go see the first line of the lede of the article, Namaste, and remedy it or report it as you see fit. It looks to me like vandalism intended to give the impression of humour, though there seems to be an underlying feel of insidiousness to it that makes me feel uncomfortable. I haven't checked the remainder of the article as I was so incensed with whoever inserted the offending words in that first line, because I use the term 'namaste' every day in my morning meditational session, to salute and hence acknowledge and greet every morsel of the godstuff filling eternity and infinity. The word has a holy connotation for me. Unfortunately the culprit has managed to prove to me that I am still a long way from the purity of mind and spirit I aspire to, as he or she evoked such anger in me that I wanted to go kick but. So, I climbed down out from my angry tree, and decided I should inform one of my senior guides and mentors who would react to the vandalism in a more profession and polite manner than I was at that time capable of. DadrianT,EsqMCIHT (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooooops - just checked the article again and the first line has been corrected already - thanks if it was you - and thanks if it wasnt, simply for being there as my guide and mentorDadrianT,EsqMCIHT (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In the future, you should feel free to change your standard for reverting and/or removing vandalism: the more offended you are, the faster you should get rid of it.

Here is a recent removal of vandalism I did. This was probably just a few kids trying to get their names onto an article for a song they liked. But if that vandalism, instead of a few names, was "Soulja Boy sucks LOL," I'm going to be a lot more offended because the person who did it was obviously trying to wreck the article. In the Namaste article, the word "Egyptian" comes off to me as racist against both Egyptians and Indians. (I'm not sure, but I think that you had the same reaction to that word.) That it came on an article about an important, respectful greeting, instead of an article about a rap song, is even worse. The person who did that hadn't been warned; I have now warned them that the next bit of trash they insert will likely result in a block. That's a first-and-only warning, and I only give those out to blatant vandals.

Next time, don't wait. Get rid of it right away. If your removal turns out to be bad, someone will probably be along to fix it. And if you come across garbage that offends you as much as this, you're almost guaranteed to be in the right when you remove it and take further actions against the vandal. CityOfSilver 14:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - and NamasteDadrianT,EsqMCIHT (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)