User talk:Silver seren/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Review request: PEGCC

I'm happy to report the Scully process went smoothly; I have another client project that I've been holding onto a few weeks, and I suppose now is as good a time as any to bring it up. The topic is the Private Equity Growth Capital Council, a trade association / lobby group, and I've posted a detailed explanation of my proposed rewrite on the Paid Editor Help page. As before, I welcome all constructive feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Kamal Abbas (Cropped)

I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This one is nominated on wiki english. :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel update

Hiyo, Silver. As of just now, I've finished adding Nexis permalinks to all the remaining un-linked citation templates. Previously, I made three updates to the article based on responses from Mark at Peer review. That includes removing the DeLay material; because it has been a matter of discussion in the past, I suggested perhaps including a FAQ on the Talk page later, addressing some of these issues. Note: I've seen these FAQs but have not been involved with the kind of controversial articles that sometimes include them, so perhaps I'm unaware of protocol regarding them. Anyway, I think that just might be everything for the Cracker Barrel draft. If so, curious what you recommend for next steps. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the next step would be to contact some other people to see if they have anything else to add in regards to the draft. If no one else has anything to add after that, we might want to ask Qwyrxian to do another neutrality check, as he did for those two other drafts, just as a formality. Then we'll have to have him do a histmerge with the draft into the main Cracker Barrel article to say attribution.

Then, it's GA time. :3

Oh, and I apologize, yet again, for not being around much or involved much in the draft lately. I've had a lot of school work and job work and everything to do, not to mention that elsewhere on Wikipedia i'm currently involved in two AfDs and in creating an RfC on the Arbitration Committee (that'll be fun), so...sorta busy. But I should be able to do some more reference formatting in the draft this weekend. Hopefully finish it all up. Silverseren^C 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem re: Cracker Barrel. Agreed we're definitely almost there. Meanwhile, I was wondering if you'd given any thought to my proposed PEGCC draft above. Believe me, I know you're busy, and it's always my goal to be respectful of others' schedules. In any case, for WP:CO-OP to really work as intended, it's going to require more eyes than just you and Qwryxian. I wonder if you think it would be a good idea to post a request at WP:COI/N? Another possibility: WikiProject Private Equity doesn't seem to be terribly active, but some of the editors involved there certainly are, and perhaps could weigh in with industry-specific knowledge. Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Asking the Private Equity guys directly on their talk pages would work, yeah. As for the involvement of the other members of WP:CO-OP, I might have to go and give all of them a poke on their talk pages. :/ And I would like to avoid COI/N as much as we can. They're not the most positive people there. Silverseren^C 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair point about COI/N. I've occasionally received help there—not everyone is hostile—but I do know what you mean. I'll actually be traveling most of today, starting in just a few minutes, but I'll aim to pick it up again tomorrow. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And I've now left similar notes asking for help with two editors active on finance and private equity topics, Urbanrenewal and Lamro. Here's hoping we can get some topical feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Another question here: I received some good feedback from Urbanrenewal, which I added to the draft article. Since then, there hasn't been any activity on the draft or discussion, and I'm not sure what to do next. What do you think? WWB Too (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Since Urbanrenewal was fine with the draft version and I think it looks good too, go ahead and ask Qwyrxian. I think a histmerge will work with this one. Silverseren^C 01:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll do that now. WWB Too (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Thanks for the barnstar and for all of your help on the Jocelyn Wildenstein AfD. It was much appreciated! --Stvfetterly (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Matt Dillahunty

Hey, did I just accidentally mess up your ref? I removed some more from the page and now your "gospel" ref is broken, but I'm not seeing what I might have done. N^oformation ^Talk 23:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to remove this from the article because if I'm remembering correctly, the examiner is far from an RS, and it appears that this was just user voting for a single blog on the site. Doesn't really seem like a notable award. If you disagree start a discussion on talk and I'll join you there. Thanks! N^oformation ^Talk 23:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ScottyBerg

Silver seren...the only way ScottyBerg is going to be unblocked is if he demonstrates some way to prove he isn't Mantanmoreland, such as using Skype or similar with Jimbo Wales. I got along well with Mantanmoreland and we exchanged emails long ago...ScottyBerg and I know of each other only due to his contributions to some 9/11 related pages...but I was surprised to see all this come about, either because I wasn't looking or because I didn't care. Though never a fan of any ban evasion, I have been around long enough to know that most banned editors return in one capacity or another...and have accepted this as part of the game. My sentiments are akin to yours on this matter, but I also recognize that arbcom and checkusers can't always tell us all we want to know about their actions, and there are reasons behind this. I can't see that ScottyBerg was doing any real harm when a cursory random glance at some of the articles on this website show obvious copyvio issues, lack of references or simply have crummy prose...plus so many editors are hell bent calling each other names or insulting each other at every turn...in other words, though I reiterate that I don't like ban evasion, ScottyBerg seemed to be a unique example of one that might have best ignored...or at most topic banned. Anyway, I think you did the right thing opening the Rfc on the committee as there has been a place to vent and get some feedback even though the end result is the same. Best wishes.--MONGO 01:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue is that if he doesn't want to come back, then there's no reason for him to give any personal information that would identify him. Of course, considering how active he is on his talk page, I think he would actually like to come back, but is too stubborn to admit that at this point since he's said too many times he doesn't want to. Silverseren^C 01:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice work on expanding Cracker Barrel Old Country Store! The article looks great. Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 00:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Have sent him a barnstar :) Ruby 2010/2013 00:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good job sticking with that, I'm impressed. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Cooperation barnstar?

I can think of a few editors who are deserving, including most recently: Mark Arsten and Urbanrenewal. Although perhaps just the Original Barnstar would do, it might be a nice thing to do, and a small boost for WP:CO-OP. Any ideas, if we were to pursue one? WWB Too (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this?

		The Cooperation Barnstar
		For users outside the project who have worked with and helped paid editors and other members of the Wikiproject.

Good? Silverseren^C 18:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful! Did that already exist and I'd just missed it? Either way, I'll make good use of it. WWB Too (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I just made it. :P Silverseren^C 19:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

9INETEEN8IGHTYIT(S) 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Process idea for WP:CO-OP

I know we would both like to see greater participation at WP:CO-OP, although to this point it has been fairly limited—not to mention I'm the only COI editor to bring specific requests to Paid Editor Help. So I've been thinking about how to get others involved, reduce the burden on current participants, expedite requests, and make use of existing infrastructure. I'm thinking the standard request process should look something like this:

1. Place the draft in userspace
2. Post an explanatory statement at Paid Editor Help
3. Include a {{Request edit}} template
4. Post an invitaition to Paid Editor Help on the relevant Talk page (or most relevant WikiProject, if no article exists)
5. Await feedback, respond to questions and make necessary changes to obtain consensus

I happen to have a few other projects that have been waiting in the wings and, if you agreed, we could give this a try. Let me know what you think. WWB Too (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like it would work fine. We need to get more people involved from CREWE and I also need to find a way to inform more Wikipedians about the Wikiproject. Because the problem on the Wikipedia side at the moment isn't so much a lack of desire to join as it is people not knowing we exist. Silverseren^C 20:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree completely. Have you thought about reaching out to the Signpost for coverage as well? WWB Too (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted us to get some articles to show first though, but I guess we have that now. Though we wouldn't be on there until February at the earliest, they've already got other Wikiprojects lined up. Would give us time to work on other articles though, I guess. And get Cracker Barrel to FA. Silverseren^C 20:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, getting Cracker Barrel to FA would be a great example. Meantime, I'll post up one of my proposed articles and give this expanded outreach process a shot. It's about a communications firm based in Washington, The Glover Park Group. It doesn't have an article now (though WP:CORP is not in question) so I think I'll take the secondary request to WikiProject Companies, unless you have a better idea. WWB Too (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'll go see right now about getting us set up for the Signpost. Silverseren^C 22:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. In further news, I saw the comments from you and Ebikeguy on Jimbo's page, and added a comment. Then I saw the back-and-forth on the "racial discrimination" section of the Cracker Barrel article. Disheartening, to be sure, but of course I'll steer clear of it. I thought your compromise was fine, although I thought the version that passed GA was best. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like things have calmed down a bit, which I'm happy to see. I also see that GAR is reluctant to consider it; I'd be open to an RfC as well, but I defer to your judgment.

Meanwhile, I hesitate to bring this up, but I think the argument had less to do with Gandydancer's views on Cracker Barrel and more to do with making a stand against COI editors, per this discussion with Ebikeguy. You may remember Ebikeguy for posting the e-mail address of one of my clients on Jimbo's Talk page, although I had not once directly edited that client's page. I never want this to be about me, but I realize it comes with the territory. Anyway, glad it has quieted down, and perhaps GAR won't be necessary after all. Let me know what you think.

Oh, and I've posted up the latest request on Paid Editor Help with a related note at WikiProject Companies. No reply yet, but I hope it attracts some interest. And if you have any feedback on either the article or the request for review process, I'm all ears. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Ebikeguy is here because of Herostratus' group, which no matter what they say, it's pretty clear they're just trying to oppose all editing from paid editors whatsoever. Gandydancer seems to be a bit of that as well, but more to do with some sort of race-related opinion that s/he has in terms of racial discrimination. And Dr. K is around likely because s/he dislikes me personally, since i've been opposing them over on the Elvis Presley article. S/he only showed up on the Cracker Barrel page after I started commenting over there. Silverseren^C 21:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct Silver; although I would not like to see COI editors allowed on Wikipedia, I was not attempting to fight City Hall when I offered my suggestion for what I believed to be a more unbiased report of the racial discrimination charge at the CB article. While you seem to brush it off as "some sort of race-related opinion that s/he has in terms of racial discrimination", I consider it a blatant and egregious violation of human rights, and especially so since it is so recent - within only the last few years. But differing points of view are not only the norm here on Wikipedia, they are what keeps our articles current and non-biased, as I'm sure you would agree. Gandydancer (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. The point, however, is that any more info in the main Cracker Barrel article would be undue weight for that section. And, since it does appear that there's a significant amount of expansion and elaboration that can be done on Cracker Barrel's past discrimination against customers and employees, the best option would be to split off a Criticism page that would deal with this info, with a main article link in the Cracker Barrel article. That's how it has always been done. Silverseren^C 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to me that that a sentence or two (57 words by your count) more did not add undue weight, especially considering that many people would consider it pretty weighty information! As to splitting it off, I've seen an editor go from first arguing that information was not important enough to be included in an article going to arguing that it was so important that it deserved its own article - I rather suspect that he just wanted it out of the main article...though I certainly am not suggesting that this is your intent.

I am not really an experienced editor when it comes to Wikipedia policies, but when disagreements arise I strongly support looking to policy for assistance. That said, it does seem odd to me that you have only found the human rights issues to be so significant that they should have their own article after it seems that these issues seem to be holding up a GA review of this article which, as far as I can tell, is hoped to stand as the Poster Child of how well COI editors can make this a better encyclopedia. Gandydancer (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that those 57 words were all a quote. And that it seemed unnecessary to include a list of all the specific violations they had. A shorter summary of the violations might be okay, especialy if they are paraphrased and not a quote. An alternate proposal, with the proposed changes attached, on the talk page might achieve this.

I think the resistance from a lot of editors might be because we've all had to deal with articles that other editors (usually new ones or IP addresses) had made essentially coatracks of negative information about the subject. If you look at what the article was like way back before WWB was ever involved in improving it, you can see the issue. It's because of that state that a lot of people are resistant to any extensive increase in negative information, because the article was already being used as a "human rights" coatrack against Cracker Barrel. Silverseren^C 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly understand the difficulties re coat rack issues and I do agree that it can be a problem on Wikipedia. On the other hand, that is not something that I would use to consider what a rewrite should include. Perhaps they see it as a reason to be "resistant to any extensive increase in negative information", but it has nothing to do with my opinion. My reason for wanting to include the human rights issues in this article is that I believe that they were so extremely serious in nature, in fact so beyond anything I would have guessed had I not read the reference, that they need to be included. Since you express concerns re quoting the info and using the same source as the "remedy" information, I can easily paraphrase and add the USA TODAY site as a source. Thanks for your willingness to work with me on these issues! I have a 50 word suggestion that I will post on the talk page as soon as I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Silver seren for helping to promote Cracker Barrel Old Country Store to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Cooperation

Just wanted to thank and congratulate you for starting this wikiproject. It's been something that's been on my todo list for months but you beat me to it. I have a lot of thoughts about the subject, especially after spending several hundred? hours in the wikipedia-en-help irc chat channel, where we mainly get COI editors working on articles through AfC. If you're ever on irc, it'd be great to chat. Let me know what kinds of projects you have in mind for the wikiproject. You also might find this page interesting, it's a draft I wrote up as a model explanation of why COI editing fits within our current framework: User:OcaasiCOI. Cheers!!

Also of note, I noticed Ocaasi has some ideas about mentorship in general that may help support the Wikiproject's mentorship program. King4057 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hi Silver. Are you going to Wikimania? I nominated a session by RKLawton's suggestion and shared it on both Wikiprojects. It has a couple signatures already, and it's pretty obvious the founder of Wikiproject Cooperation would make an appropriate panelist. BTW, I also shared the Wikiproject on the Wikiproject for Companies and with a couple editors I saw involved in COI issues. King4057 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering that Washington D.C. is about half the country away from me, I will probably not be attending, i'm sad to say. Silverseren^C 15:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, one note on DYK

If it's going to run, I'll bet they'd probably prefer it run as The Glover Park Group per the article's title rather than Glover Park Group, as it's currently written there. Can you update it, or should I? WWB Too (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"never make that argument again"

Never issue orders to me again. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Glover Park Group

The DYK project (nominate) 16:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	We had a disagreement. We were talking past each other. You took the time to understand in the end what I was saying and we reached a good resolution. I appreciate it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I have run into you at least three times - you helped me on articles related to acts of terrorism in India, you know HIV research, and you are doing WikiProject Cooperation. You and I have a lot in common. Are you going to be at Wikimania in DC this July? If so, I would like to meet you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DC is quite a ways away from me and i'm going to be rather busy this summer, so I won't be able to attend. Sorry. :( Silverseren^C 04:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks so much for the offer of mentoring - I appreciate it. I'm definitely trying to ensure that I follow all of Wikipedia's policies and edit articles ethically. Any and all input is definitely welcome, as I'd like to hone my editing skills. I'm also trying to be as transparent as possible, which is why I'm always slapping my COIs on anything I touch. I really appreciate the effort behind Wikiproject Cooperation. I think it's going to be a terrific resource for those of us working under COI's. Thanks much for letting me be a part of it.

Cheers,

Mdrozdowski (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

CREWE Membership

Hi Silver,

It appears that, despite the group's statement that they are looking for people with a variety of different backgrounds, my request to join has been rejected on Facebook. This despite the fact that I am a journalist who could contribute to and benefit from the group. Have you any thoughts as to why my request to join the group was not accepted and/or things I could do to better my chances of being accepted into the group? Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually have no idea at all. You should go ask User:Philgomes what happened. Silverseren^C 17:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom RfC

Trying to get some path set here for how to proceed on the ArbCom RfC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I looked at all the Barnstars and none seemed just right, so I chose this kitten to express my appreciation for your willingness to listen to my concerns at the Cracker Box article and come up with a purr-fect compromise. I've enjoyed my years of editing here but have become somewhat "disgruntled" in the last few months and have thought of quitting. Your willingness to listen and compromise has gone a long way in helping me to continue to hope that Wikipedia will remain the people's encyclopedia.

Gandydancer (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignore Meta

What do you think about this revision? I made a bold edit but it got reverted by someone who hasn't even signed the pledge.--v/r - TP 02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree with it, because the point we're trying to make is that Meta has no power over English Wikipedia. Your revision makes it seem like, if they invited everyone else to be involved in something on Meta, then they would be able to have power over English Wikipedia, merely because they invited us. However, that's not true. Each language Wikipedia is separate. The only group that has control over all of them is the Wikimedia Foundation. No decision made by even a conglomeration of all other language Wikipedias would be allowed to have an effect on English Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 02:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The point was to say "What makes you think you're our boss, we don't even get a say over there" in a better way than what seems like an attack on them; but that's fine.--v/r - TP 03:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Occupy Texas State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to UT and San Marcos

Occupy Ashland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Medford

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep at it

	The thinking man's barnstar
	For using your head to get stuff done around here, staying involved, spearheading WikiProject Cooperation, staffing the paid editor help desk, and generally keeping your head above the muck. Ocaasi t | c 12:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

^_^ Silverseren^C 15:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review &c.

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 19:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ILGLaw

Hi, you voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Intersex Law Association. We looked for sources and I posted a review of each of the sources which were found. The sources do not seem to be enough to pass GNG. Would you care to comment or to change your vote? Dingo1729 (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Society Barnstar
		Thanks for your contributions to Occupy Salem and Occupy Ashland to help improve these articles for Wikipedia's readers. Your efforts are appreciated! Northamerica1000(talk) 06:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :3 Silverseren^C 07:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Brian Lamb

Strange response from Hobbes... I'm having a difficult time interpreting his comments as "help", and a more difficult time formulating a response. Interestingly, I encountered a similar issue when I was working on the C-SPAN article about a year ago; we got very far along and then one editor expressed vague dissatisfaction with a narrow aspect of the article, and though I tried to seek a compromise, it took much longer than expected. But in this case, I understand Hobbes' perspective even less. Perhaps now is the time to seek additional input? I'll probably do that tomorrow, unless you do so first. As always, I appreciate your help. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think more outside input is needed, yes. Silverseren^C 20:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comment on my Talk page and the continued discussion this morning, and I've added a brief comment following on Hobbes. I don't understand his narrow focus on two properly-cited awards, nor his disinclination to consider my draft, but I've now posted a couple of requests for review from elsewhere: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject District of Columbia, one with Nobody Ent and one with an editor named KConWiki who works on C-SPAN articles. They're all balanced requests asking for input rather than agreement, and I believe appropriately limited: the two WikiProjects are relevant (although I might have gone with Journalism over DC if I'd checked the existing Talk page beforehand) Nobody was previously involved, and I'd first mentioned the Lamb project to KConWiki several weeks ago. Anyhow, I hope we can get a more constructive discussion going soon. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC on COI

Did you happen to see this RfC, of some relevance to WP:CO-OP? I haven't read too closely, though there are some familiar names in the mix. Short version: an editor proposes to eliminate WP:COI and the COI/N for what sound like well-intentioned reasons, but I don't think actually make sense. That surely won't happen, but there are a number of interesting perspectives to be found there, and maybe a few potential WP:CO-OP participants. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i've been keeping an eye on it. Just remember, we all agreed not to get involved in trying to change policy. Asking people if they want to join the Wikiproject, fine, but we shouldn't be posting in the RfC or anything like that. It's best for the community to hash it out. Silverseren^C 18:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about that, although I never try to influence policy, as a matter of, er, policy. That said, there are some CO-OP members weighing in, I presume representing only themselves. Also, you should check out the flow chart Phil Gomes has posted to the CREWE Facebook page; some good thinking and good discussion around that, too. WWB Too (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The people that have posted so far weren't in the Wikiproject when we made the agreement, so they're fine. I know i'm going to stay out of it. At least it seems that the majority thus far are focusing on the idea that it's how a person edits and not why that should be the focus.

And I like the decision tree. Silverseren^C 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cash mob

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2012 Stratfor email leak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to F16

Cash mob (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blogger

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally created article

I finally had some free time, so our long planned 2011 Khuzestan protests is finally created. Your contributions highly appreciated.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject?

Sure, I'm in; I've added my name on the WikiProject page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Brian Lamb + Cracker Barrel redux

Hi there, Silver. Funny thing, seemed like we were on the cusp of consensus for the Brian Lamb article, and then there hasn't been a reply since I updated the draft earlier in the week. Anyhow, I've just pinged Jasper and Qwyrxian to see what they think now. By the way, one week later I notice there still hasn't been any pickup on the Cracker Barrel peer re-review. Is it common for it to take so long? Seemed like it happened much faster before. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It does generally take this long. We got lucky before when someone replied right away. We might want to notify some other Wikiprojects and things like that. Silverseren^C 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for following up with Qwyrxian; I just noticed he made the changes this morning. But I've also just realized that I introduced a couple of late errors by snipping some full citations out of the Personal life section although they're needed elsewhere. I've explained in full (with markup to replace) back at Paid Editor Help; let me know if you can fix. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CO-OP

Hi there, Silver. I'm curious for your latest thinking on WikiProject Cooperation and how it's working so far. Better than expected? Less than? I do have some thoughts of my own, including a few ideas about how to possibly adjust its mission, but even in matters of non-policy that seem vaguely policy-like, my instinct is to be deferential. Consider me curious to know what you think about it (and perhaps its relationship to CREWE) a couple of months in. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely better than expected, since I wasn't sure if it would take off at all. I do wish project members would be more involved in the discussions we have though. There's only about five people that post with any regularity. As for CREWE, I wish more of them would become involved with the Wikiproject as well. Or at least use the help page. You're the only one that's really used it for anything at this point. What were your thoughts? Silverseren^C 05:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good point: it wasn't guaranteed to have any traction at all, but it certainly has. Although you point to the issue I had in mind: namely, the fact that only I've really made use of the Help page, and the limited participation otherwise. (Relatedly, I saw your CREWE note only after posting here last night.) As I mentioned on Qwyrxian's page yesterday, it's not necessarily fair to him or (perhaps) me that he's the only admin at the moment, and becomes the de facto gatekeeper anytime histmerge comes up.

Meanwhile, there has been an uptick in {{Request edit}} usage recently, but not necessarily a corresponding increase in responses. Unsurprising: it's a mere category page, which doesn't lend itself to discussion, although some have tried. Absent an organized study, it's impossible to tell whether the template and category are working or not.

Somehow there must be a way for WP:CO-OP and Category:Requested edits to work in, well, cooperation together, rather than separately in parallel. Perhaps the template could mention WP:CO-OP. Perhaps WP:CO-OP could find a way to import these templates. Maybe both, maybe something else. I suggest this in part because someone actually mentioned the category on the Help talk page in late January, but I only just noticed this week. There's gotta be a way to bring the two together. What do you think? WWB Too (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Fallout: Nuka Break (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to CGI and The Escapist

2011 Khuzestan protests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kalashnikov

Occupy Ashland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tea Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for a featured article

Hi! I just stumbled upon this gem: Nineteen Eighty-Four and I really don't know who or where to turn to to suggest an article as front page material. (I found you because you reverted me on something, anyway. Hum-hum) The people who read it seem to think highly of it too, since all the grades are either 4,2 or 4,3 and there's a lot of chaps who voted. It's really the most interesting and most complete article I read, personally. Could you direct me to the place I'd need to submit it? Certainly, that's the way to do things, some sort of voting system in order to determine what goes on the front page? Or maybe it's better if you nominate it (if you like it and have some time to read!) since you certainly weigh a lot more than me here. Anyway, I'm watching your page like Big Brother for a follow-up! Cheers. Mattaidepikiw (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks pretty good, but there's still a lot of parts that are unreferenced, so those would need to be fixed before it would even have a chance at being promoted to Featured Article status. But, once you've done that, you can submit it for review and promotion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates by following the nomination procedure section. Do note that Featured Article candidacies take quite a while to complete, usually around a month, and the reviewers there will come up with improvements that they expect you (or someone in general) to make to the article before they'll approve it. The Featured Article system has often been called one of the most grueling things to work through on Wikipedia, so make sure you're up to it and knowledgeable about the subject you're promoting.

I've unfortunately got my hands full with a different article i'm working on promoting to Featured Article status. If you require any assistance with the article, i'd suggest you ask one of the peer review volunteers, because they're experienced at improving articles. Good luck with the article. Silverseren^C 08:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, it seems to be a lot more work than I thought. Thank you for the pointers though, I'll save the links on my glorious user page in case I one day have the time and will to try to get it shining on the front page. BTW, they ask for references for the songs inspired by this book (there are like 30 songs) I guess a youtube reference is out of the question? Mattaidepikiw (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:YOUTUBE, it depends. In this sort of situation, yeah, you likely won't be allowed to use Youtube. The only time Youtube videos can really be used is if the video is a news broadcast hosted on the official Youtube channel of the news station. Other than that, generally not.

For the songs (and all the rest in that section), all you'd really need is a news article, published book, or scholarly academic paper that mentions the song and connects it to 1984. For those, you've got Google News (don't forget to hit archives on the left hand side after you search), Google Books, and Google Scholar. For the most part, you should be able to find what you need from one of those three places, only going to a generalized Google web search if those three fail to bring up anything useful. For example, for the first film adaptation in the section, I ran this Google Books search and came across this article ("Sensitivity to Criticism More Acute in TV", Page 14), which, in the fourth paragraph, states the info we need to use it as a reference.

So, it's not that difficult, just time consuming, as most editing on Wikipedia is if you want to actually do a good job at it. But I hope that helps. Silverseren^C 08:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It sure is helpful, thanks! Mattaidepikiw (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Some days ago, in order to support your opinion, I have added some additional sources to the Elvis talk page. See Talk:Elvis Presley. However, you should be aware of the fact that there is a certain gang that polices the Elvis article. These guys frequently remove contributions they do not like, even if they are well sourced. See also these personal attacks by DocKino from 2010: [1]. Onefortyone (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now cited some further sources. See Talk:Elvis Presley. But DocKino is still suppressing all sources that prove him wrong. Onefortyone (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino has written on the Elvis talk page: "If you wish to make a new proposal about a sentence you'd like to add addressing 'the issues that came up with Priscilla's age', please do so in a new thread." Indeed, we should make a new proposal. For that purpose, I have cited some additional sources that contradict Guralnick's claim. By the way, concerning the questionable behavior of DocKino, you should also consult the following page: Requests_for_comment/DocKino. Onefortyone (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino now goes so far as to remove critical comments by other users from the Elvis talk page. See [2]. Onefortyone (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For a new proposal concerning young Priscilla Presley at Graceland, may I ask you to have a further look at Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if DocKino has still some serious ownership issues concerning the Elvis article. He calls the recent proposal "terrible", "ill-considered", "potentially libelous", "clearly biased", and "poorly sourced" and threatens to revert any attempt to bring it into the article claiming that such reversions are not subject to the 3RR. See these comments: [3] and [4]. In my opinion, his behavior is not acceptable. What do you think? Onefortyone (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Colonel Parker and Priscilla Presley there are some new proposals on Talk:Elvis Presley. Perhaps with one of these we can move forward. What is your opinion? Onefortyone (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor review?

Are you still interested in editor review comments? (That is, is this still active? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's essentially perpetually open, so feel free. Though the info in there about what i've done is rather severely out of date. Silverseren^C 02:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. It would be helpful to me if you'd indicate one or more specific areas (and/or edits) where you'd like some feedback. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've posted some questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can respond to your answer to Q1 within a week or so. I've posted a suggestion regarding your answer to Q2. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of François Asselineau for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François Asselineau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Lawren00 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2012 Stratfor email leak

Hello! Your submission of 2012 Stratfor email leak 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! Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on Jimbo's talk page

Sorry, I don't think I had any choice but to remove your comment, per WP:CHILDPROTECT. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Abandoned Drafts

Category:Abandoned Drafts, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 2012 Stratfor email leak

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing on Wikipedia draft

Hi Silver seren, I finally finished massive draft on our own very topical subject of paid editing on Wikipedia. I would love your careful assessment in checking it for neutrality, formatting, organization, reference detail, etc. I hope you can take a quick look. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy movement merge request (included inside this bribe)

Five awesome, freshly-baked brownies for you! Can you recommend two cities which you feel are safe, unobjectionable "easy merge" because my judgment is off. Of the 5 I posited, two of them failed. It's a lot of work, but if you tell me two cities, then there's a good chance that if it's good enough for you, it will be good enough for everybody else. My dilemma of having to "choose blind" is that I'm absolutely unsure what others will think--but you are a "swing vote" and I can strategically assume you'll vote "merge" on your own suggestion, thus giving a nearly guaranteed pair of results. So, if you're not too busy, could you spend 5 minutes looking over the list of suggestions? Just reply here with the two city names, and I'll go over there and propose it. Thanks! 완젬스 (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Occupy Syracuse was already redirected, though it looks like the content was deleted and then redirected and the info isn't on the Occupy Movements in the US page, so you might want to ask about getting whatever that info was.

Occupy Rochester NY should be okay to merge. There are some really recent sources that seem to indicate something is going on with them, but nothing particularly noteworthy has occurred yet. Until that does happen, it should stay merged.

Occupy Providence should also be okay to merge. There's probably something that can be expanded in relation to their work with the homeless, but that should probably wait to see how much info can actually be gleaned from that in the future. Silverseren^C 15:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away for a few days. I hope you'll share the same sentiment here at the relevant talk page. Thanks for your two suggestions--it really helps me rest assured that my hair will not be pulled out. My initiative was solely a proper correction to Viriditas's misguided exuberance! ;-) If we can come away with a small, yet significant (7 out of 49) removal of the totemic over-expansion of the defining protest movement of our lifetime, then I will continue having a full head of hair. (nothing has ever been more frustrating & unproductive than jumping into unfamiliar territories of Wikipedia brazenly trumpeting the mass removal of self-ascribed "insignificant" articles which people have poured their blood, sweat, tears, and ego into!) 완젬스 (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

French Wikipedia?

I noticed your edit, you might bring some interesting feedback in Talk:French Wikipedia#Title. Asavaa (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about Global Automakers

Hi there, Silver. Thanks for replying to Andrew (User:Hamilton83) on his Strayer request. And I saw your pings of other non-COI project participants yesterday: very cool. Meanwhile, I'd like your advice on something. At the start of the year, you were generous enough to help work out disagreements regarding the Cracker Barrel article; however, it wasn't my only project to go awry at the time. Now I'd like to return to the other project I was working on then, and see how it can be fixed.

In December, I prepared a draft for a new article about an organization called the Association of Global Automakers. At the outset, I wrote a draft very much like the ones I usually do, and sought to work through WikiProject Automobiles. Only once I received basic support for its creation did I catch the attention of some antagonistic editors, who declared it a "puff piece", apparently for lacking a criticism section. That there really isn't any organized criticism of the group in reliable sources (or any sources) did not satisfy them. One editor in particular began stretching facts and writing POV-ish summaries of benign details. If you skim the Talk page, you can see how hard I got trolled; a couple of other editors came to my defense, although this only made the antagonists dig in. Then, as soon as we dropped it, the antagonists walked away, leaving the article a complete mess.

I decided to leave it alone for awhile, but now I would like to begin the process of finding consensus for an appropriately weighted draft. In particular, I've been thinking about doing this through peer review. So what do you think: should I propose it there, with a similar explanation? Or would there be a better forum to begin seeking new opinions about the issues raised? Your insight would be very appreciated. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would say is that those two sections in your "draft" should probably just be one section under the title History, perhaps with sub sections. That would be the best way to do it. And then to expand on the other stuff that's in the article now.

I think peer review would be fine, but it's going to take a while going through that process. If you're fine with that, then I would say go for it. And keep me posted. :3 Silverseren^C 23:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The "draft" I linked is the last version of the article prior to the trouble. I'm certainly open to a different draft than what I had in the first place, and I can certainly see why History would be a more appropriate heading than Challenging trade restrictions. So I'll work on a new alternative. The problem with the other stuff in the article now is that it much of it is off-topic, more about the car industry than about the association itself; some of the articles linked don't mention Global Automakers at all, and some mention it differently than is described in the article. With that in mind, any other thoughts? Because there is so much to explain, I'm wondering if maybe WP:CO-OP is still the right place. Let me know what you think. WWB Too (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not much else. I do think peer review would be a good route to take, so long as you aren't in any sort of rush. Silverseren^C 04:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)