User talk:Silver seren/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taral Wayne

I appreciate your comments, but Taral Wayne is a legitimate fan artist, in a community where "sci fi" is generally considered a pejorative. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

? I don't understand your comment. Why are you bringing something up from four months ago? Silverseren^C 20:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gottlob Espenlaub

Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I took the impressive inventor to the Portal:Germany! In case you write more on German topics, feel free to move a DYK fact there yourself and also archive the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of William Caskey Swaim

Hello! Your submission of William Caskey Swaim at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Canada Hky (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Murder of Carlos Castro

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Murder of Carlos Castro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Cind.amuse 23:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Article about Bioenergy company might be deleted soon

Silver_seren! I created my first article, about one Bioenergy company, but it is facing a strong criticism from one respected user. I am new to wikipedia, and not certain if I am doing things right, but I think that the article I have created should be kept in the wikipedia, in order to allow it to develop. Need help/advice/opinion! Rpisarenko (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Greeley Park

I'd like to talk to folks who edited the Greeley Park article that I created, as part of my newspaper article. Care to give me a call or email in the next day or two? 603-594-5831, dbrooks@nashuatelegraph.com - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Nadine Coyle WP

I thought it best to close that discussion because I know (second hand) how angry these discussions can get. Even the statement "Northern Ireland is still a part of Ireland." would get you kicked out of some bars in my home town, not to mention some bars in Belfast! Content issues aside, no hard feelings were meant by me closing it off, I'm just anxious to avoid ANI being turned into another drama-fest tonight :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I remember the huge debate over on the Giant's Causeway talk page over whether Northern Ireland should be listed as a country or not. I, personally, don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend that the United Kingdom is a conglomeration of different countries, just like the EU, but this is apparently not how a lot of people see it. Silverseren^C 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article rescue 2011-01-13

• Marlton Circle (AfD discussion)
  • Genovese, Peter (1996). Jersey diners. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813523507. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)
  • Genovese, Peter (2003). New Jersey Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff. Globe Pequot Press. ISBN 9780762725274. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |isbn10= ignored (help)

I have some other things to do. Have you any interest in adding things that we don't yet even mention about this subject, such as "the queen of South Jersey diners" (Genovese 2003, pp. 179) that was located there from 1960 onwards (Genovese 1996, p. 173)? Or the background to this that can be found in newspaper coverage stretching across the past decade? Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William Caskey Swaim

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a thank you for pointing out the bizarre twist of logic on the ARS talk page. I am avoiding engaging it directly, as I fear for my ability to remain civil. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it's probably better not to respond to him. Silverseren^C 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bernard's wolf

Hey! :) apologies for the delay- I think the reference I used was cited along with the edit TeyenW (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Belated barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		You did a great job about a year ago, helping to promote quality and neutrality in the encyclopedia. I meant to give you the barnstar back then, but I got too busy and forgot. Better late than never :-) Noleander (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors

I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be fun, but I don't think I would have the time to fulfill the duties it would require. I'm pretty bogged down with college right now, as evidenced by my lessened participation on Wikipedia in the past few weeks. Silverseren^C 06:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBCOM about recent AN/I

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 10:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Egypt protest intro

Hey, will you check this if you get a minute? Our lead is pretty thin right now and I took a first shot at it. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Tourism in Åland DYK nom

Hello, I have responded to your concerns for this nomination on the DYK page. Arctic Night 02:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I do not agree with blocking a DYK nomination on the basis that only government-published sources were provided, but I have gone ahead and added some secondary sources. Are you able to take a second look (well, it's probably your third by now ;) ) at all? Thanks, Arctic Night 18:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Egypt edits

I made some additions to the lead. It'd be great to have another set of eyes check the writing, just for phrasing, brevity, organization. If you get a chance, thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Question: would it be unprecedented up speed up talk page archiving to 1day old posts (currently it's set for 2 days)? I still feel like with 60 threads many people are just ignoring the page. What do you think? Ocaasi (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a really good idea. And it wouldn't be unprecedented. Jimbo's user talk page has always been set to one day archiving because of the high inflow of traffic on there. I think it would be a good idea to switch it to one day archiving and we can always set it back up higher after everything calms down. Silverseren^C 17:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comic relief

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110131/ts_yblog_thecutline/chinese-air-force-drill-looks-awfully-similar-to-top-gun Ocaasi (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Spark?

Hi! I was just wondering if you still had an interest in an RfC in regards to the discussion here. Thanks for your time!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

94.246.150.68

He has been rude to you, myself, Wipsenade, Knowledgekid87, Lihaas, and others since he decided to edit the 2011 Egyptian protests. I have talked to the other users and waiting for them to respond. This has to be addressed in the next 24hrs. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wolfenstein 1D

Hello! Your submission of Wolfenstein 1D at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! jnestorius^(talk) 20:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Constellation Family

Thank you for your input in helping save the article. The article was kept. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This includes the astrology cite. I was somewhat amused. There is an astronomy club I am aware of that was saved at least two decades ago by an astrologer. The then club leader was going to quit as the club had insufficient members. Miraculously the minimum number the leader had in mind occurred at the next meeting in which an astrologer showed up and patiently waited through the entire astronomical meeting. At the end the astrologer was somewhat bothered and after questioning had innocently thought they were attending an astrology meeting. The person never showed again (wrong group) but it was sufficient to save the astronomy club! You might say a somewhat similar situation occurred in this case. Respectfully and astronomically yours! Thor Dockweiler (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Saw this and thought of you

So there I am, innocently looking for more content on a new article I just finished writing, and this pops up. Not related by any chance? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pfft, no, but that's pretty cool. That's the first time i've seen Seren used outside of D&D. Silverseren^C 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

also? Ocaasi (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, my Seren name is a combination of that god and the D&D god of the same name. Silverseren^C 03:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC

There is a request for outside comment at Talk:Spark_(fire) which I felt you should be alerted of. Thanks so much!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

About Egyptian protests

The offices of Al Jazeera and the Muslim Brotherhood were stormed and burned on February 4th, right? B-Machine (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the sources, it happened on Friday, which is today, the 4th, so yes. Silverseren^C 23:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So why is it not in the 2011 Egyptian protests article? B-Machine (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Because no one has added it yet? Silverseren^C 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wolfenstein 1D

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dmol (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

National Analysts

Good afternoon, Silver Siren! You must be local and work in the marketing research area, as I saw your comments to the head of mywikibiz, in West Chester, PA. Thanks for your help in getting our page up in December/January. I wish to clarify slightly your entry and provide sources below. Thanks!

I am employed by National Analysts Worldwide and have done primary and secondary research into the origins of our firm. I want to tell you that I had provided last week a replacement/edit to the initial page. My edits were not accepted. I note, this original page with its errors was only created last month, January 2011.

I do wish to point out that there are a couple of falsehoods/errors in this page. Allow me to clarify for you:

1. National Analysts Worldwide was previously known as National Analysts. 2. National Analysts was founded by Charles Coolidge Parlin. 3. Donald M. Hobart succeeded him as head of the department upon Parlin's retirement. 4. The origins of the "first commercial research unit" was formed in 1911 when Charles Coolidge Parlin was hired by Curtis Publishing Company to run that unit. The name of that unit was "Division of Commercial Research." 5. This date is significant to the industry and our company heritage, as it is the origin of market research as a discipline as well as the origin of the business unit. 6. National Analysts did become an independent organization in 1943 in order to provide research services to industry and government.

Please consider my comments above and correct these errors.

For your reference, some of my sources: Original corporate records, some held at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. History of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing, page 5. (Wherein Hobart himself explains it was Parlin) A New Brand of Business by Douglas B. Ward (the entire book) The History of Marketing Thought Robert Bartels, page 124 -125. Marketing Research Text and Cases, Harper W. Boyd, Jr. and Ralph Westfall, page 15. Market Research and Modeling: Progress and Prospects, Yoram Wind, Paul E. Green, page 246 Marketing /Research People: Their Behind-the-Scenes Stories, Jack J. Honomichl, page 100. American Advertising Foundation site: http://www.advertisinghalloffame.org/members/member_bio.php?memid=748 American Marketing Association site: http://www.marketingpower.com/Calendar/Pages/CharlesCoolidgeParlinAward.aspx

National Analysts Worldwide 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciagreen (talk • contribs)

EL at Egypt protests

If you get a chance (and it's still an issue), would you chime in here (and maybe here). Ocaasi (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No prob, though I disagree and think we should/I may add it back. And have you seen the template? Template:2011 Egyptian protests? Ocaasi (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Egypt

Your DRV consensus is a joke, I did read all comments and counted the pro, neutral, and anti. DRV consensus is mainly on file conservation according to law compatibility. It's my right to make 3R a on a page, but I also expect from the otherside to don't biases statements : enlarge the consensus on file keeping to file display ; and fair counting : counting both sides, like I did, and no just the side you agree with. Cheer, Yug (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Iran, Saeed.

So, what's up on the Iran page? Seems in pretty good shape. Refs formatted. Nice sections. Quiet talk page. Where's the chaos? Or rather, what should I do?

Also, do you think we should have a separate article for We are all Khaled Said. Right now it just links to the #Death/Aftermath section of the article on his death. I think the page went beyond that in scope, especially since it's still going, but maybe there's not quite enough separate info. Ocaasi (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I need help with keeping up with the info on sourcing for Iran. There are a bunch of sources out there that I haven't gotten to. It's quieted down a bit, but it's likely to get more hectic tomorrow as more media outlets catch on to it.

And, we should only have a separate article if there are enough sources that discuss it in detail, just like what is necessary for any other article. Is there much detail to be had on it? Silverseren^C 23:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I did some ref cleanup and a bunch of copy-editing. If you want to just go nuts and add bare content, I don't mind doing refs, organization, and copy-edits. I'll be better like that at first since I'm less familiar with these events.

There was a ton of info on the website, extensive profiles of its role and Wael Ghonim's role. The content is decently covered at various articles (2011 Egyptian Revolution, Death of Khaled Saeed, Wael Ghonim) but I think if there was a central article it might flesh out even more. I also don't have a problem with it just being part of either of the latter two as the main coverage.

I need an admin to move the Egypt protest page, and I'm hoping it can be done 'uncontroversially'. I think while we move it, we should de-capitalize Revolution. Also, if you had to choose between protests/uprising for the first half, and then revolution for the second half, which one would you pick, and does that set-up work? And do you know of a friendly admin? Ocaasi (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Or if we were to keep the current article's title the same (but with a date/caps switch), would you use:

2011 Egyptian revolution

2011 Egyptian revolution (post-Mubarak)?

I see these might need to go through the talk page. I'm just trying to gather clear options. Ocaasi (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I would go more for uprising and revolution, myself. But I can also understand the arguments for protests and revolution.

I could ask Jclemens. He's an admin (and Arbcom). Though I think you're going to want to get talk page consensus before trying any of that. Silverseren^C 00:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Ambassador Thanks

Thanks for helping with the formatting for one of my students, I really appreciate it! I think that's a great example of the collaborative community of Wikipedia. Dylanstaley (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do what I can. :3 Silverseren^C 17:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arab World Protests

• My mistake. I am having some serious lag on my connection, so my revert was incorrect. It showed the old map on my screen. The new map is very nice. The Scythian 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Never mind. It seems I gave you credit for something you didn't actually do. You did the exact opposite, in fact. The Scythian 21:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks i will chkout the request move page for the title edit to Middle east and north africa

One of the best

	Valued Contributor Award
	You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. (more details)

I just wanted to say thank you for everything you do for the project. I've learned a lot from watching your work and feel you're one of the most valuable assets Wikipedia has. While I'm here, have you thought about applying for Autopatrolled rights? You certainly qualify.

Thanks, Hydroxonium. And i'll look into that. I thought I was already auto-patrolled, actually. I guess I never did ask for that permission though. Silverseren^C 08:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 10:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Iranian Protests

• Okay, I made the reference addition, per your request on the articles talk page. I tried to make it as "fair" as possible. The Scythian 04:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bacon Challenge 2011 coming to a close

Dear ever-so-valiant Bacon Challenge 2011 participant:

Almost a year ago, the Bacon Challenge 2011 kicked off for the third year in a row with the annual mission of expanding and bettering Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. We are almost at the end of this year's Bacon Challenge, which ends on March 1st. I am pleased to say that, during this time period, Bacon Challenge participants have done a great job. Ten new pages have been created. Two articles have been granted the status of being good articles. Over one hundred reliable sources have been placed into articles, and over 7,500 words have been added. Six articles have been featured on Wikipedia's main page under the "Did you know..." section. These are all excellent results.

The Bacon WikiCup has also been exciting to watch. Contributors have been racking up more and more points as the deadline approaches. As I post this message, Worm That Turned is in the lead, with Cirt in second, and Acather96 in third. Cirt currently has created the most new pages, while Worm That Turned has done the most work in expanding articles and achieving DYKs. Acather96 has done the most work with image uploads. Remember, while the Bacon Challenge is ending in just a few days, it's not too late to make any last-minute contributions to get a few more Bacon WikiCup points. Everyone who contributes at least something will earn a virtual commemorative medal, so if you haven't contributed anything bacon-related to Wikipedia, now's your chance. Contributions can be submitted up until the end of March 7th, but only for contributions that were done before the beginning of March. The extra week is provided for participants to report any last-minute contributions, and to allow for any contributions that require a timely process (such as a good article or DYK nomination) to go through. At the end of the event, scores for the Bacon WikiCup will be completed and re-checked, and prizes will be distributed. Thanks and good luck! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User name conflict

Hi, thanks for the tip. When I looked at the page on usurping an existing name, the tool said someone on the Italian Wikipedia registered under the name without making any edits. I should be fine to take it over, though I think I'll wait and see how I feel. Thanks again. Gonfalone (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Per your suggestion I waited for a few days and then did an edit protect, the admin who looked in agreed there was a consensus for the inclusion of the content and added it. However The Four Deuces has now begun an RFC [1] so now a further 30 days shall be wasted arguing over the same points. How is one to get any work done on this article? Is there not a rule against this kind of behavior? I was under the impression once a consensus was achieved the edit could stand? What does one do in this situation? Tentontunic (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For right now, they have technically not done anything disruptive, since TFD is trying to gauge further "consensus" on the issue, since consensus can always change. Your best bet would be to inform the relevant wikiprojects in a neutral manner and then place a comment in the RfC that is as explanatory and convincing as you can make. Silverseren^C 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

New categories

There is nothing wrong with adding a category to an article and then creating it. In fact, for me, it is the easiest way to create a new category because then after adding it to the article, all I have to do is click on the red link to create it. I can't do that if, the minute I add it someone removes it. If an editor adds a category and it's still red after an hour or more, then go ahead and remove it, but there's no need to while I'm in the very process of creating it. If you do not like red-linked categories, you can find a bunch at Special:Wantedcategories. A lot of editors do seem to create categories and, unlike me, forget about them. I'm sure your help will be greatly appreciated. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I iz returnin'

Been away for about 10 days w/o the internet. Am back now, may be a few days before I have time to catch up though! Though I know the first article i'm gonna check on ....--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Old Man Murray

Oops--thanks. That's what you get for editing too many articles on similar topics with kids running around. Time for coffee. BTW, I'm not convinced of the source itself (a collection of blurbs...), but that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a collection of blurbs purposefully obtained from the top people in the video game industry, having been asked specifically what they think about Old Man Murray. I think that that is literally the best source you will ever get in terms of critical reception for a gaming topic. Silverseren^C 02:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm...

I'm on the Arbitration Committee actually. Shell ^babelfish 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i've fixed it. I was going off of the information on your userpage. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Silverseren^C 21:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Doh! I can't believe I haven't noticed that in more than a year. Facepalm Shell ^babelfish 21:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You see where my confusion came from. :P Why don't you have something on your userpage stating you're a part of Arbcom? Silverseren^C 21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixing that as we speak :) Shell ^babelfish 22:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Much better. :) Silverseren^C 22:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara

I removed Western Sahara per discussion under the heading "Consensus needed on which borderline countries are included in this article" for the same reason that Somalia was removed. Even though protests have happened in both countries, no mainstream source that I've seen yet includes either country on the list of countries involved in Tunisia-inspired unrest, which is basically what I understand the article to be about. But don't take my word for it, anyone can download a freeware SVG editor and change the map! Personally I think some kind of moderation or protection is needed on this subject before it turns into an edit war. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I'd say that qualifies. If that link was posted on the talk page, I missed it in the mess of emotional arguments. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

A very manly man, just like you!

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Keep up the great work!

A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What have you done? A look at your contributions shows the long and dedicated effort you've made to this encyclopedia. A very excellent effort indeed! A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: ?

Certainly. Following WP:NAMB, Wikipedia guidelines on use of hatnotes, Friday (Rebecca Black song) is not an ambiguous article title. Nobody is going to come to Friday (Rebecca Black song) looking for a song by another artist, or another use of the word "Friday". Yves (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Hi! I'm the one who proposed deleting the Glee 'Born this Way' article. You said it's been discussed a lot and there are sources etc. I agree with you, but Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine(even if it is reliable gossip). I think you should let the episode before it air once(which is still 3 weeks later) or at least draw a little nearer before creating this article. It's airing date is not even known yet. I'm sure some Wikipedia policy will complement my theory. If I have your consent, I'll put the delete thingy back up. However, if you still happen to disagree, I'll leave it. Think about it! --Kanavb (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Did as you said. Opened it at the articles for deleteion, as you have already seen.Kanavb (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Kanavb's talk page, I have speedily closed the AfD discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

- I guess you were right! Btw, thanks to editors like you I'm really learning how to edit Wikipedia! Sorry for any inconveniance! Kanavb (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Editor review

Hiya Silver seren, I saw your request for editor review on your user page and was thinking of reviewing you, then realised the request is a whole year old. Are you still looking for a review?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a perpetually open review. I didn't feel like making one every six months, so I just have that one so people can review me whenever they want. However, I should probably update the info I present in it, since it's a little out of date. If I updated it now, I would make sure to mention how I got Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass to GA class and also the work i've been doing on 2011 Iranian protests. But, sure, feel free to review me, I encourage it. :3 Silverseren^C 23:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay, that makes sense. I'll review you in the next few days then if I have time. I'll try to give some thoughtful and helpful comments. I should warn you that I've only been here for a few months myself and this would be my first editor review - feel free to decline if that bothers you. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't decline anyone from reviewing me. :) Silverseren^C 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The upbeat vandal

Although I agree that such persistence shouldn't be needed, I appreciate that you persisted regardless. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In Case You're Interested

I found a reference to Sidatio on your user page. Per the user contributions, one or both of them are back very occasionally. Just thought you'd like to know. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if having last edited in December counts as back, but thanks for letting me know. Silverseren^C 00:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

request for response to my challenge on the Fads and fallacies talk-page

I took offense to your post here. Please respond. Hpvpp (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oy, are you listening? Hpvpp (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I already responded here and you have yet to respond to me, so...i'm not sure what you're getting at. Silverseren^C 08:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Saeed

Holy crap, I need a break. Want to take over? ;p I don't think I've ever had this long of a discussion about anything, even at Chiropractic... Ocaasi (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I got this. Those sources you found were perfect. Silverseren^C 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Moral Issues: Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable: Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject; Those that are unfairly obtained; Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life. These are categories which are matters of common decency rather than law. They find a reflection in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. The extent to which a particular photograph is "unfair" or "intrusive" will depend on the nature of the shot, whether it was taken in a public or private place, the title/description, and on the type of subject (e.g., a celebrity, a non-famous person, etc). This is all a matter of degree. A snatched shot of a celebrity caught in an embarrassing position in a public place may well be acceptable to the community; a similar shot of an anonymous member of the public may or may not be acceptable, depending on what is shown and how it is presented. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#moral issues

Yes, the argument is that it was immoral to steal from the dictatorial regime of Mubarak to expose a human rights violation. Good dissection of why it doesn't make sense [2]. (Yes, it was IFD'd again!) Ocaasi (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

hellllllllllllllllppppppppppppppppppp. I really don't think my answers matter. It's like a wall on top of a toaster masquerading as fishsticks. Whatever you say, it's not going to be light and flaky. I'll let others have at it. Ocaasi (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no need to contort yourself. Every possible objection has been raised, even the ones with obviously no basis in policy, and even seemingly some alternatives as if it wouldn't be nixed on other grounds. The worst case scenario is to try and go through Wael to get to the family, which may or may not be so easy, and really seems unnecessary given the circumstances. I hate to say it, but sometimes I am really tempted to just seek the common sense of Jimbo. There's no way he would take the NFCC claims here seriously, although he might reserve judgment or even hedge on the offensiveness issue. Anyway, this can only go on... Request for Copyright Permissions, RfCs... it could be months.

Meanwhile, the list of sources I yoinked together Talk:Death of Khaled Saeed/Sources is a bit awesome, and we should use it to expand the article. Also, I think we can move it now to -> Khaled Saeed, now that he's basically the face, martyr, and cause of the revolution. BLP1E is really not an issue any more, now that Mubarak is out. Ocaasi (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to put my chain back on if it looks out of order. I can't quite fathom that we are taking the illegality seriously. I'm pretty sure, if we can clear the other issues, that an RfC on this point would result in a Keep. But what's going to actually happen here? We'll be left with split (no) consensus on whether it's needlessly shocking and whether it's necessary, a lingering claim that we should get the image from the family directly to avoid whatever other issues are floating around, and the immoral/illegal issue. Do we then have an RfC on all of the this? Even if we can get from Wael to Saeed's family, there will still be Image Use policy issues, offensive material issues, and the illegality that has been alleged wouldn't matter if the family uploaded the image themselves. And yet, this image belongs here, per the RS and common sense. Ocaasi (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• So, looks like good news. For future reference, literally, if the discussion comes up again, I compiled a massive resource: User_talk:Ocaasi/Saeed. I'm looking to work on the article, but just if it gets brought back to NFCR... USchick and Soundvisions are still not pleased with the result, and are both for different reasons and on different points continuing to object. Nice getting this wrapped up. Ocaasi ^c 14:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What if the nominator explicitly recommends Delete

You wrote: "The nominator shouldn't vote delete in the discussion itself". Is that a rule in some guideline? All I can find is the statement in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion that "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise." This is not normative but informative; moreover, that paragraph is concluded with: "However, some nominators explicitly indicate their recommendation."  --Lambiam 00:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if its written policy anywhere, but I know that it's how things are done. The explicit statement is normally done in the nomination text as it is. The reason for this is that the nominator voting in the discussion section itself has the possibility of confusing the closing admin, making him and others think that there is an extra person voting when there isn't. As much as we like to say that AfD isn't a vote, when it comes down to established users arguing with each other and both having good arguments, it does pretty much become a vote. That's why the nominator also voting in the discussion section can be seen as a method of there pretending to be more delete votes than there are, which would fall under gaming the system. But, like I said, it's not expressly stated in policy anywhere, it's just expected of nominators not to do that. It's also a common courtesy sort of thing. Silverseren^C 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

CYOA Incident

Silver, would you be interested in help document whats going on CYOA as a wiki-incident article? Phearson (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean an ANI report? Um, sure, though i'd want to make sure that I have backing if I do. I don't want to get lambasted over there. Silverseren^C 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not what I meant. I cannot find the example ATM, but there was an incident between a person and Wikipedia when someone discovered libel about him, and Jimbo banned the offending individual. There was an article about it somewhere... Phearson (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you'll need to be a bit more explanatory then or find that example, because I still have no idea what you mean by "wiki-incident article". ._. Silverseren^C 00:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me find it, but here is a potential news source that could be used in a future incident article involving Wikipedia: [3]

Using YouTube to update view counts

Hi! There's a discussion about using YouTube as a primary source for view counts on Talk:Friday_(Rebecca_Black_song)#View_Count_Updates. I started the discussion after you reverted one of my edits. I actually agree with your position but I wanted to seek community input since I was curious what the general consensus was on this matter. I figured you might want to know in case you have an opinion you want to share. Thanks! DubiousIrony ^yell 05:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA

I have file da Wikiquette Alert about an issue in which you have been involved.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how people can use the word anti-semitic with no issues, but I can't call someone Jewish when it is stated on their userpage. Silverseren^C 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You're connotating them in a negative way, specifically for POV-pushing. You connotate users with it.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is in response to WP:WQA where you are involved. I think you need to not try to disparage others' credibility just for being jewish or things like that. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren: large amounts of evidence have been presented that suggest an anti-semitic editing pattern from Noleander. You are accusing your opponents of being motivated by being Jewish based only on the fact that they think antisemitism is bad and that some of them are identify as being Jewish. You are in essence behaving like a racist by suggesting that people of certain ethnicities act in a certain negative way. This is not ok. And for the record I am not Jewish and I also do not tolerate racism against any other group.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you should have a chance to explain at WQA; that warning may not have been appropriate. Swarm ^X 04:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if WQA has a response section. The rules don't seem to be very well defined. Especially considering I was warned one minutes after the request was filed. I would certainly like to have a chance to explain myself, but it seems too late for that. Silverseren^C 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you should cool down before giving a response at this time. Just my opinion. Phearson (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you also. This whole thing just pisses me off, since it's more evidence of the breakdown of Wikipedia. I can only hope Noleander doesn't leave or we'll have yet another in a long string of established users who have left the project in the past few months. Silverseren^C 04:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard that we have lost lots of admins in the prior years... Phearson (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not just admins, but yes, a lot of users. Combine that with our decreasing retention of new users and you run into a problem. Silverseren^C 05:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA is primarily for discussion. It's not "report users who need warnings" and the vast majority of the time discussion is the way to resolve problems. So, take some time to cool down (if you want) and then respond a subsection isn't even necessary. It's much easier for uninvolved parties to comment when we have both sides of the story. Regards, Swarm ^X 06:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing a diff, this warning is uncalled for. One could reasonably argue that Silver seren was being politically incorrect, but I didn't see anything that was a personal attack. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• No wiki-love between us, obviously, but this template and the WQA are bogus, IMO. The I-P topic area is rife with factionalism and herd mentality bloc-voting. I have to say it will be interesting to see this AfD winds up in the end, inclusionism vs. defenders-of-all-things-Israel is the proverbial unstoppable force vs. the immovable object. Perhaps if you, RAN, Warden, and crew aren't too busy saving the latest youtube poptart from article extinction, go to work on this article and see if it is salvageable. :) Tarc (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• The AfD itself is a lost cause right now anyway, but i'm planning on just rewriting the article from scratch as it is. Silverseren^C 18:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Rude

I just wanted to stop by here and apologize for being rude. I can't imagine you and I will ever see eye-to-eye on the topic at hand, but if my frustration translated into disrespect or rudeness towards you, then I sincerely apologize. I've found that you can always find common ground with someone if you look for it, so I will leave you with the observation that your tesseract is quite mesmerizing, and I wish that more people shared an appreciation for four-dimensional objects. 28bytes (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander

You have been added as a party to the Noleander Arbitration case located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Trust

Regarding this, I think it is actually a mix of what you said and what I said, because various editors come to various RFAs with various motives.

Regarding this, I take some exception to your "division of opinion" theory, for reasons that should be obvious. The remainder of your comment, however, was spot on. --RL0919 (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Elektrik Shoos's talk page.
Message added 15:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Railpower RP14BD

Hi Silver seren, I have been following you from afar for a while (recent incident with the big controversial ANI and Pardis technology park) and just noticed you made an edit to Railpower RP14BD, as I have nominated this page for AFD and I am a relatively new editor, and considering your editing history, I would love to hear your input on this. am I making a mistake in interpreting Wikipedia guidelines as far as verifiability with this article? The existence of the locomotive is verifiable but the short article regarding it is not, and there is no other content.  Rmzadeh  ►  23:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia jews throw their toys out of the pram (again).

Again Arbcom fails to conduct an independent analysis. How simple would it have been to take a random sample of Noelander's edits to check for misrepresentation, and display that process? How can looking at a few cherry picked diffs from the opposition possibly be reliable evidence for an overall pattern of editing?[4] It can't. The findings are fraudulent. Since when did Arbcom have the power to ban for undiscussed content issues anyway? But this isn't about fairness, transparency and the proper use of power. Arbcom is not an investigative body. Arbcom is bedtime with no supper for those those who provoke coordinated histrionic irrational tantrums among the wikipedia jews. It's merely a thouroughly corrupt and subserviant formality to give the impression of justice. The result was already decided the moment the jews started wailing. Anything for a quiet life. This is like having a case of "negative coverage" of creationism shouted into resolution by a gang of creationists (who happen to be related). But we couldn't hold the jews to the same standard. After all, that would be "anti-semitism". These people need to be voted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob19842 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I know you? If not, I don't think this is really a subject that I would like to discuss right now. Silverseren^C 18:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Note:The user (Bob19842) has been blocked indefinitely.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Nevermind then. I wonder who he was. Silverseren^C 18:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

He has always insisted he was not antisemitic; I think this post puts the lie to that claim! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so. Silverseren^C 19:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander closed

An arbitration case regarding Noleander (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Noleander (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.

   Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. Unnecessary "wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions.

   This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Noleander has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group would weigh against lifting of the topic-ban and could also result in further sanctions.

2. The attention of editors and administrators is drawn to the "Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)" clause of Race and intelligence that was recently adopted, as its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case. For ease of reference, the amended remedy states:

   Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this