User talk:Silver seren/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

responded to you on my talk page

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Dream Focus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comment

What do you define as 'unconstructive' and why was that post 'vandalism'?


I am trying to up date the things Richard has done..not promotion filled.. but actual projects he has been involved in and you keep deleting them.

Additional comments needed

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.
Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.
Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --

Talkback

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brilliant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01829/middleeast_map21_1829864a.jpg

Talkback

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Flinders Petrie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Toshio Yamaguchi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback regarding ED

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at ShawnIsHere's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Drive

I am currently planning a new WikiProject Abandoned Drafts drive for all of winter. Project members may join right now. If you would want to participate, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Drives/Planning/Winter Special. The drive will start in 12 years ago.
~~~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 16:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Two talk pages for Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts?

The "Discussion" tab for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts is a different page from the talk page mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. Can you please fix this? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Offense

I'm very sorry that you took offense from my posting.[1] I thought the project was relevant so I mentioned it. It was not intended to attack anyone and I hadn't imagined that the comment could be viewed as an insult. Personally, I don't think anyone owns sandboxes, any more than they own user pages or projects. But I'll modify my remark to make it less offensive.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When posting a link to the Wikiproject after someone asks what kind of people steals sandbox drafts, it's kind of hard not to take offense at that. But, thank you. I'll go strike my comment. SilverserenC 07:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I actually think the project is a good idea.   Will Beback  talk  08:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

RS

I was told by a wikipedian that these following three sources are unreliable [2]. Is that true? Pass a Method talk 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources seem potentially reliable, but the way that the added sentences were worded was not neutral in the slightest. Furthermore, you should be opening a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in order to discuss the reliability of those sources and not just contacting me. It can be seen as canvassing otherwise. SilverserenC 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI. I did also mention on the user's talk page re: canvassing, which I think has been accepted. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel I should remind you of this...

Upon Googling my name, I saw the discussion where you accused me of being a meatpuppet of H64. I don't care what kind of personal vendetta you have with him, you do not need to be accusing me of such things. I've not spoken to H64, and in fact didn't know he was on Wikipedia. I can understand your bias against the site, but dragging my name through the mud simply because I disagree with you just shows your abilities as an admin. Please do not make such statements again without at least informing me of the conversation so I can defend myself against such slander. Thank you. Equivamp(talk) 09:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me a diff to where I said this? I don't remember calling you a meatpuppet, unless you are considering my general statement that all ED.ch users arriving at that poll were likely canvassed and, thus, would be considered meatpuppets. If that's what you're referring to, then I stand by that statement, especially after your specific comment about myself and Conti on ED.ch. Furthermore, didn't I say that one or two months ago? Are you bringing this up now just because of the Google search? It's kind of a bit after the fact and i'm fairly certain you saw me say it in the first place anyways, since you were responding in the same section. SilverserenC 09:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica. It was on something else, Wikipedia:Administrator Incidents or something similar, I don't remember exactly, where you were discussing H64 creating an article ED.ch. You can play the oblivious card all you wish, but I'm not falling for it. Equivamp(talk) 10:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I went and found it. You are referring to this discussion, yes? And specifically, you are referring to where I said "Note: Hmm? I know this discussion isn't about the ED article talk page, but still, meatpuppetry. At least User:Equivamp can be added to the list."
I'm afraid to say that I stand by what I said there. It's too bad that ED.ch is currently down (and that it's on the spam blacklist), because then you could access that link, which is where you made a personal attack against me. But, either way, I do believe that actions by ED.ch users on the Encyclopedia Dramatica talk page constitutes meatpuppetry and saying so is not a personal attack. And I didn't say that you were a meatpuppet of H64, I think you're confusing meatpuppet and sockpuppet. Meatpuppetry means you were canvassed from off-Wiki to push the same agenda as another user. Based on the comment you made on ED.ch, I completely believe that. I do apologize, however, if i've offended you with the term, but the meaning behind it applies. SilverserenC 11:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(I know the difference between a meatpuppet and a sockpuppet, thanks. I assumed you meant H64 had sent me to back up his claims.)

I know what edit you are refering to. That was not an attack against you. If anything it could be viewed as an attack against the the collective "everybody else" I'd been refering to, but that's not the case, either. It was merely an observation I made of the situation using crude language to emphasise my frustration about the situation at the time. I apologize if I offended your sensibilities, but I wasn't insulting you. (Though the fact that you're apparently watching the page shows more than amptly your bias against the site. Equivamp(talk) 13:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just like you were searching your own username, I was searching my username on the site to see what else H64 has uploaded and/or said about me. That's how I ran across your comment in the first place way back when. And, as I remember, there were specific words that you called myself and Conti that would definitely fall under a personal attack and wasn't just at "everybody else". SilverserenC 01:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Pages moved from MfD

Hi. I have closed as delete two MfDs where what I deleted was actually redirects to two pages you had moved into your user space: User:Silver seren/Alexandre Vinokourov and User:Silver seren/Bert Oosterbosch. I gathered from the discussions that you no longer require these, but I leave you to tag them {{db-u1}} if that's so. Although a histmerge was requested for Bert Oosterbosch, I decided that was unnecessary because the edits before the original draft was cut and pasted to an article were all by the same editor, so attribution is OK. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Tagged and bagged. Thanks for reminding me. SilverserenC 10:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Template:Off-topic

Hi, at the article Jewish religious terrorism you removed a template without discussing it at the relevant section on the Discussion page. To repeat here what the problem is, Burgess doesn't posit a link between the first-century Zealots and the modern-day Jewish religious terrorists; rather, he argues that first-century Zealotry was precursor of subsequent generations of terrorists. It's ok to say that Zealotry was the precursor of terrorism later in history at the article on Zealotry. It's not ok to say that Jewish religious terrorism developed out of Zealotry at Jewish religious terrorism. Do you follow what I'm saying?—Biosketch (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Lewis article

I've added an image to the article which I was able to get the license changed on Flickr to something that's Wiki-friendly - a very nice image IMO. I saw your comment on the WBEZ page for the discussion and thought I'd give you a heads up on that. If you do get a response from Matthew (or his manager/agent/assistant/etc.) give me a heads up so I swap the image out. Tabercil (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do. SilverserenC 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fontanellar gun

Hi Silver, I reviewed your nomination and have a small quibble before I approve it. Could you please stop by T:TDYK and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Because pulling wheelies is for motorcross, and we are here to edit an encyclopedia, not for moot court. Cerejota (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. :3 SilverserenC 23:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
The Resilient Barnstar for you because of your mighty resilience. Why the Resilient Barnstar? Because of your mighty resilience. Shirt58 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Bachmann

Unless you disagree with my assessment,[3] can you please remove this source from the list? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. SilverserenC 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DRV

"S Marshall, you have already voted Keep Deleted up above, which you bolded. Please either remove the bold or either comment, so it doesn't seem like you're trying to vote twice" - It's a different user, they just seem to have copied the signature of the user whose vote they were seconding. Their own signature follows. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

...*blinks* You're...not allowed to do that. That's semi-impersonation, even with your own signature following it. SilverserenC 05:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I figured it was a n00b mistake and that perhaps the user had just copied to avoid misspelling, but now that I look, the user's been around nearly as long as I have and should probably have known better. Anyway, this was basically to say it wasn't S Marshall voting twice. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain what the link you put on my talk page is about?

I have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at with it and I scrolled up and down that page and didnt see anything that I cared about or that was exactly what I wrote at AN/I. I'm really confused what you were trying to say.Camelbinky (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You say that "I'm going to be watching the article and the talk page after this to make sure that this isn't an attempt to make the article entirely negative POV-wise." I completely support that action, and I'll happily intervene if I feel it gets too anti-GNAA or unencyclopedic. You can hold me to that. In addition, I will step in to stop anti-GNAA editors from editing the article. As it stands, I have no intention of allowing the article to degenerate into an anti-GNAA mess, and I do not agree with the viewpoints espoused by anti-GNAA editors. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fontanellar gun

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 03:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 18:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's Argument etc.

Hello, I've created the article Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper). I believe we are justified in this because A. The result of AfD was keep, and B. No one has opposed it after 24 hours. --³SlowhandBlues¯ 03:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For remembering

Permanent link to removal of original section and labeling as "trolling nonsense". Permanent link to addition of my comment on subject.

SilverserenC 10:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Silver seren. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

causa sui (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OhInternetLogo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OhInternetLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Article for Deletion Anomalies

Hello, Silver, and goodmorning. A recent AfD May have been the subject of sockpuppetry, involving a user named Math-Sci? and another named AndeeTheGrummp, there is currentlee a Checkuser out that need s endorsement by a named user. theyve got 5000+ combined edits so it's pretty solid. Dave Battencheo (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Another Magnonimous sock (blocked already) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

sp accounts

Please keep out of other users issues - if users dispute their status they can do it they don't need you sticking your nose in. That user is clearly fitting in the group, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

Hi, I'm new here so I'm not sure what the protocol is but User:Off2riorob has made 3 reverts to the Luke Evans page within 24 hours. AlbionBT (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are allowed to make 3 reverts within 24 hours, but if you make more than that, aka 4 reverts, then you violate the rule and it should be reported at WP:AN3. SilverserenC 21:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, this is a bit embarassing! AlbionBT (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bradshaw

William Bradshaw - last edit - . Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I'm glad that there's actually a record this time and an explanation as well. Maybe this whole transparency thing will actually end up working after all. SilverserenC 22:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries, it is good to assume good faith but there are limits. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
In general, it's a good reason to assume good faith until you have reason to believe otherwise. I had no real reason to believe he was a sock. He was somewhat knowledgeable about policy, but not super-knowledgeable. SilverserenC 23:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, its a bit upsetting that you repeatedly defended a disrupting and attacking account against me, anyway at least I exposed the violator. Off2riorob (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

3rr

Just so you know, I reverted 3 times. WP:3RR says "more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period is edit warring (emphasis added).

I reverted twice on Neo-Victorian on Aug 10. I reverted three times on Aug 13. I did not break 3RR at any point. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

11th, actually. I thought it said 12th. You are correct. SilverserenC 01:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Diffs

Sorry to bug you but since you helped me with the 3RR stuff above, I was wondering if I could ask you a question. I've noticed people talking about posting diffs, am I right in thinking that they're the same as links to the 'prev' bits from the Revision History? So you'd just copy the address and post it as a hyperlink like this, for example? - AlbionBT (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what a diff is. SilverserenC 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. AlbionBT (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Voted

Or, in the words of Newgrounds, I blammed it. SilverserenC 21:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

SPID: 6041

BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----

Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

hQIMA+DblIy497DOAQ/9GHDeIv3wPEW8V0xToXdknYDPblm6+KMnylmuZLVTUBTg BQBf1jDM8o8YGe9OZ038Xp5uYo75E6MuuewN8Hor5d3NFlLw83DRoaBZ4hzQQVaF BDGLpIjJdIQE3XpzmfVRPymee8wxdZKW4NaovEAUYTT5NSUdbaWBPu+Fcc3tBXCy RvvRuLN6Q06BQ/ZUYYJ5Bjqqdio+C7NBVmEd1gHDCE6snIBkHp9d4cTIdtYzmT5z a8Xi/BYHUllyDjk1fqGxjFA0Fl+TWkRTR+Xq7rEcyg4WBX/FQAgAYqWE6Iy2DkOp 13YwFhwvS7FqDV57oSCKgbxM0P+wyLjCM2m1Ci1OHWfL2HvOudRzKmiYaiBmSLAW 7ERLIGSNz9vkMF9LMwIzBZMlFac7SPq0pE2i/CgouMvk8rgh5R3XNkFw1Dz/7dKb APoSEy7EfnUL1Ix0PQoPKe3ij0TLWkl51zynhguijFnJAkiwX6pc9kWAZYCcCjIR bMrN0dMsu+Nq06TWy9rYMriT+XuTFrY/Mc6dJXKzaDEveiWkzWUFQda3Fky1E6+y GfvlYRwo9A10uKKKcXrEA1I4yk7mUccvYTCwl6t5RlYLF0ruwCYl7QzMVi5Mhiki reUCdtxftip/tGOwGUMYUsuBIhYXidJKuVwTLKdwW719fBALfz4YVO81rLddD9nS 6gH6kGWINMKYB6LIm7i5sl6J8aMCQ81M/FDbPC12gcIb74MvV+2SA/D1pKkfC8+K 4TnNL+phzvGRZOtx5sS8XqtbUmVmCK2Vmupn8IUehnScCVQEkCO2vBZQ7ZEfniyx kOAaZBruennTKa180TLAeXNwkvnH46LFtYMPCmNL6qDXmaJYrkGXWKOLcwgVOuf7 PXC0zrRXSGjt1NrZuunR3meLAKDdJeYWKuQE9cZ3lWIjm0lIxSEowow7rqEoUAZH aafaYxjSHXMKEqiGqQlM75kGTg5Piz974oN0K9FEAERQpeOXCZ56s31xwJZr8bO/ N8wkBR/rSnPHwetec9Rz8Ywt6LdX2yOZX2x/UnMIbuww2LRj26qZgDao4+viv4hC tAxaSKmmgOG9PO+D9vBe5gltJzz+l51DzAvQNB9BRVQrJ8XKXgulfgkFBvJd0dZ7 JEW9kQVdcDQHhrgNtVqqb4nj4UAFB6WaBh7E57yT5n1P5enSjRJpM2/7bleGmilA aPlqh3aiHcBwC4AWcnECWx3UrpwT4gdyX+24EmpwV+g4MDbN2LcuWepwEMKjRHSa 6n7cUqpGj6WVesJb3yzNb1o5MbMflnKAhfxZnekmOJiyZ5fKIVJUmceF7gC0AnhF Cs4zaWh6E/sY4tR+AYlMuVb8/UtutgrYl12O6/jzDYjl2ubAb49GQU1E1DsBDdfU g7uPnluDoQnLDtdt/PGCAaYE2xxnEDAAFKzk97IoK9xlbmUPpbrhRcLbVynDcgLq 53eKtXh/Y1C13hjTJRiryGp/gWQzWIj6TKwpT257PoatLxgd2kSvOM/9VooV9UE6 cDbIx3iz2iDmlOSXFLth2P6erXvQ/enXW4GSTYlfeVLELxRLuI7eDWGuY10KIUKb P4+6NDhrmIL9bswMv4Yu2X30rw65DYilkO1xBhpa9z6QpjdrzbDXeVbZbZwfobYm fu3gx9WI1KxPeDOFdC7WhV9ffKwSMj0USDxNS79lFoxRMg7c7p9h4atd/e1J+Web kojpRhgYAYkucZDQNwXaldO55rt1gJfNuhiH9pyBvvQ0PRiCqgGyoKo6Yl41lj6f qgaC1fVb+sTl0axjDVMhItTdzEjjOn7ZN1AO2brYTtAkGxKpPj2OggljuX6G8LO8 p1B9JlbYpwbepKrKcE5Ll4cQeZOhYtfg5z6x+vhjjwcWyS1LyVSdOP2Q60yjXI2I o+QePk1DgDhwHiCZIBARNWDo6G+kUkI/SNepluTJIu4jlzGYRN6tpqDGturt/tAj QK7aeQgWigO5dZWFdszurawrqXJl00GNpuGQ34sJ4PVs9tDBrwpkaD0HwvyUA9fr 4FBVdUbborPJ05luI+Waa4TpZPCf69NYORuYve/MrP7q6t+7Eyte72sBvkM8MJmy xHgrc0TwqHXzQNboluSIZ/jibPTayeJEFKY78fl5SDLBi7+14hvIvILDW3XsMd56 TdSBQr7UvaJhQh6ZhLZkyMebeMYUKnTMRC1j4T2gEN9DkJclyjpxDkYqloZPU2ih Y86KP/ZPj5xJx4090z+YduZ8bNt3h7ZJ+IEzw7qxlqxk780X6szVEiaUyhTPDOx1 TtyylLq6tvh5AZyXP1yVJXQ2kCtzqzxhsQKzsGRmvFMU6gtWU7xLEtmeapFPqroX QhYTOtNA+IBhbM5Vg0EZVYJ9+OM/KSv4/6ULHsKHfcvb47EMQcY61iWituc36e3U KeNow6NVDaMYEUKrUBTHJWMhavBIIPIY2WJvLPBF9eryjFfBDo/FebP9CVeESWdG +z/7hBba1n2/M0BoNr1WU+/VA347TVBEe7if5Wp6FhXltq8RWEpDfDl1c25t09I5 TFi5JmGAH7cCj1kMLpP3bnhwj9TouBMg4QWEhmHFoRW0nGK+zdQK2uryzoEmbqYg kZ7qI3WdElCD6CE1pytV+7nIaIT+uH6njKyEwKA6y7Qt9j3UObypnoB8yoCCcZkB WmMK9Fyby0z/94S5rMkU0n6cqo1Zl7A0xf6BzzEAYXmpnia0z9oFTETNvVSCcjql smKNNZ1oBH/ZUHiYiG56DRxKbSCiEuj4/R0N0s7hxq02fRC0HPZ+0bGj1ugAz3Xx u1Hu2ox/ceewa/ua0CnDl+e9sJ2F67kX4vkeA5PG6Y9/kbDSwXHURZjVXCQUVOp2 TQSE/nMnelX7XXK8vn/4jqHFT4nZ+ld9QTsp51VYHKZz0+GukRdi+6gGD53zE4EC =H1pg

END PGP MESSAGE-----

DYK for Cell bank

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Silver seren. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added Austex • Talk 15:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding (2nd nomination)

Silver-seren, what is the proper procedure for you or me to solicit other open-minded editors to look at this AfD LOCATED HERE and give their opinion? Non-biased, independent editors. It stands at 1:1 (plus me makes 2) right now but clearly needs more editors to give their opinions, one way or the other. How do we accomplish that? I'm sure there is a way to invite others to join in, I just don't know what it is. Austex • Talk 15:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, per Notifying interested people, I would say that you should notify Wikiproject Law and WikiProject Texas. You should say something on their talk pages like "There is currently an open AfD discussion for the article Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding that is lacking in user activity. Can some interested editors please go and weigh in at the AfD?" That sound okay to you? SilverserenC 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, looks like Wavelength has already notified Wikiproject Law. Just do Texas then, I guess. SilverserenC 00:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, sounds fair and reasonable. I've received several suggestions, including the {unresolved} template which I have used as well. Notifying Wikiproject Law seems like a very good idea. I just want to get it resolved one way or the other. Do you still think this article merits inclusions based on reading GregJackP's comments re no legal precedent onthe Afd page? Austex • Talk 01:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a difference between legal precedent and legal importance (though the former automatically does include the latter). I feel that the case is of legal importance and will be (and has been) cited as an example of how defamation applies in a context of a "memo" released by one company against another. Thus, it has legal importance and notability. The sources hold up this interpretation. SilverserenC 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Every case has one method or another of defamation and this one is just one of many such forms (letter, email, article, blog, memo, personal notes, publications...). The case, however, did not ever focus at all on the issue re the memo being used (it's just another written form of defamation), and neither was it an issue at trial (beleive me, I was there...twice!). Instead the case singularly and exclusively hinged on the single issue of how one defines a landfill "liner" (regardless of how it was transmitted). The "memo" aspect was superfluous. I am concerned that you are really caught up in this article despite it setting no legal precendent and having no real overall importance (in my opinion) except to the two parties alone.. Please try to see it also from a common sense (not just legal) perspective. Would this article ever get written again today if it had not been a spin-off of the original BLP? Austex • Talk 01:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI I added it to the Texas Law project using your exact language. Thanks for the suggestionand wording. I appreciate it. Austex • Talk 01:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Op-Ed

Thanks for you talkbak; DGG and I were already in email contact. Fingers corssed we can get something out. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 09:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

If you want to see something really funny, check this out. http://adamsvpoling.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=20 Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#User_space_article_drafts_from_inactive_users.   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I really did need to know about such a discussion. SilverserenC 02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of N. Razafindramiandra

The article N. Razafindramiandra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence that it meets the notability criteria for biographies

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Togakure-ryū

Hello! I have returned the notability tag to the article. An AFD does not establish notability: the AFD consensus is that notability CAN be established (by adding reliable third-party references). The tag indicates that these references are still needed. jmcw (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

GA

I think this article has the potential of being good article on wikipedia and even perhaps featured one. There are few tweaks that needs to taken care of. I fixed most of them (The Lead, 13 dead links, The American/British issue, images and some of Chipmunkdavis comments). So I was wondering if you are interested in getting it up to standards. I think you can do it. Let me know if you need help with anything. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked for a copy-editor yet? SilverserenC 15:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yup, twice and this fixed many issues that the article had. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Death of Ali Jawad al-Sheikh

Hello! Your submission of Death of Ali Jawad al-Sheikh 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) 23:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Silver seren. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also sent a reply. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ali Jawad al-Sheikh

Hey dude, How are you? Hope all is well with you. I was wondering you would be interested in writing about this article? He is a 14 year old boy that died last night during the Bahrain protests. Here is a picture of his corpse. Thought you would be interested seeing how you have been covering the Arab Spring for a while now. I think Bahrain just had their Khaled Said moment. Hope he didnt die in vain. Here are some sources about the story CNN, The New York Times, AFP and AlJazeera -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If it hasn't already been made by then, i'll create it this Saturday. Thanks for letting me know. College really sucks, by the way. SilverserenC 07:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
College always sucks til you start working but you will miss your college days. I dont think anyone is gonna write it. I would write about it myself but I dont I can do it with a NPOV. Im too angry to do it so Im asking you to because I trust you and think you will be able to keep a NPOV on the topic. I'll let you know if I find more info about him. Thanks for your help and support. Here's a before picture of him [4] -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What's the copyright of these two pictures? I don't want to have to deal with another Saeed image issue, so it's best if we hammer out the status of those two images now. SilverserenC 18:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I can get a permission to use them from the family themselves if we need to. I know a person that knows the family personally so it wont be an issue at all. So you can write the article while I try to get the permission to use the pictures. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay. It's always best to get proper permission for this kind of thing. SilverserenC 19:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunly it's the photographer or the photographers employer that "owns" the picture rights. And then it's the issue of proving ownership. What's the "Saeed image issue" ? Electron9 (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I got a hold of a family member and talking to her right now as we speak. :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Awesome, great job. I think it should be on DYK so more people could/would know the story. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for creating this article. I'm interested in creating and editing articles about Bahrain; it would be very helpful to stay in touch with both of you. By the way, I still have 1 month before college starts :P Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Stefano Pelinga

I think between the two of us (and mostly your work; I think half my time was spent trying to resolve edit conflicts!), we've definitely saved that article. Good work! Especially on the non-English sources; I wasn't even going to bother with them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Running Man Barnstar
For almost single-handedly turning the article Stefano Pelinga from lead into gold. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :3 I do my best to make sure that we don't lose any notable article subjects. SilverserenC 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Death of Ali Jawad al-Sheikh

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

STEFANO PELINGA ARTICLE

Silver seren, I feel like honestly thanking you for the great work and for saving the wiki article dedicated to me! Keep up the good work and thanks for being such an impartial, fair and objective editor! Best regards! Stefano Pelinga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefpool (talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) (Hope you don't mind, but now that I know you have this account, it has to be noted on the talk page of your article. Just a formality so we make sure neutral editing is occurring.)

2011 American listeriosis outbreak

I have nominated your article for In The News here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MVA-B

Thanks for creating such an interesting article as the one about MVA-B vaccine against HIV and doing it so fast. Electron9 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :3 SilverserenC 14:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
You are a superstar. Let's work on something together sometime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure. :) SilverserenC 17:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you very much for your help on the CotD-article. Without you, it migh have ended up getting deleted. Same with the Triangle Studios page. Great work! :P Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
It might not be saved just yet, mind you, but thanks anyways. SilverserenC 16:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Let us stay positive. Your help alone is very much appreciated. Otherwise it would just be me defending the article. The fact the the guy who originally tagged it for speedy (Fifth Horseman) changed his mind and voted keep is also a great assurance. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Foodborne illness

Death of Ahmed Jaber al-Qattan article

Dear Silver seren,

Currently I'm working on this article, if you have more edits, can you please keep them until tomorrow? thanks. Bahraini Activist (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, can you help me with the other guy who wanted to delete the article? Bahraini Activist (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to make those two minor changes, I won't mess with it anymore. As for the other guy, I think you can leave it alone for now. If he tried to do anything else, let me know. Your comment on the talk page was perfectly explanatory. SilverserenC 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, your help is very appreciated :) Bahraini Activist (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned about the involvement of users William and Headbomb...

Please see User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do. SilverserenC 19:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Note that 174 is a malicious sock [5]. I'm a little disturbed that you're happily treating his frivolous complaints seriously; I certainly won't be conversing with him William M. Connolley (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that IP, whoever he is, has definitely been an irritation, hasn't he? It's harder to visibly studiously ignore someone over the Internet, isn't it? To make sure people know that that's what we're doing, I guess we have to tell them, "Hey, IP! I'm studiously ignoring you!" Cla68 (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I've really not been involving him all that much. Any comments I make in regards to him, like the CC link, was just because he was right about that, they do cover CC in their one volume, that doesn't mean that I agree with his frivolous vendetta. SilverserenC 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems that WMC (yes, I have read and implicitley pledged allegience to his naming of cats page, if not only just to keep things moving), is particularly keen that other editors don't give any credibility to the IPs's edits. Of course, if he was studiously igoring the IP's edits and had good reason to do so, then he obviously wouldn't have cause to make sure that other editors were doing the same? Cla68 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious, Cla68; how did you find this discussion? NW (Talk) 16:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably has your talk page (or mine) watched, just like I do. SilverserenC 16:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Me and SilverSeren have been involved in other previous discussions, so her/his talk page has been on my watchlist for some time along with the other hundred or so editors' pages on my watchlist. Why do you ask? How about you concentrate on ending some of the POV pushing going on in Wikipedia? Do you need some advice on where to start your search? Cla68 (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought you were pretending to be civil, Cla? NW, get a clue sometime this century please rather drops the mask,no? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
WMC, are you still pretending the IP's comments didn't matter to you? Cla68 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

SS: I'm afraid you'll have to do a little better. I'm not joining you in a conversation with a malicious sock William M. Connolley (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It has more to do with Headbomb anyways. He's the one that's made all the statements I listed. SilverserenC 16:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Caiyad Phahad

PLEASE SAVE THIS PAGE FOR ME http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiyad_Phahad I HAVE WRITTEN IT FOR CAIYAD PHAHAD WHOSE A KNOWN CELEBRITY AND I USED TO WORK FOR HIM, I TRIED 2 and Half Years, Please can you, You have saved so many pages and someone reffered me to you, sorry please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Assyrian International News Agency

This is Peter BetBasoo, the cofounder and director of AINA. I edited the wikipedia page on AINA and removed the critical reception section. I did this because it is not valid. The criticism is not about what AINA does (report news), but what AINA allegedly represents.

Adam Becker's criticism is not valid to begin with. Who has the right to tell a group of people how to identify themselves and what their history is?

But that is beside the point, because whatever the merits of Becker's criticisms are, they do not address AINA as a news agency. Becker's criticisms are not of AINA's work, they are criticisms of what he thinks AINA's motives are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepa (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And his opinion is still encyclopedic. That is why Adam's name is used in the sentence to show that it is his opinion about AINA that is being expressed. But his opinion of AINA, as expressed in his book, is one of the sorts of criticism that one would be looking for. Also, I would ask that you read our Conflict of Interest policy. Being a co-founder, you should only sparingly be editing the article about your organization, as third parties not affiliated with your organization and thus neutral in their editing should be the ones to work on the page. SilverserenC 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Becker's criticism makes the article non-neutral. The other side is not presented. If you want to include his reference, you must add a sentence about how most scholars dismiss his argument. Actually this is already done, but the reader must click on the link to find out, and there is no indication given that Becker's view is widely rejected. But I say again, this is not the place to discuss the continuity issue, this page is about the news agency, not the Assyrian people. This reference does not belong here. Keepa (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand your comment. Becker is specifically using AINA as an example in his book, he is specifically discussing the agency. As for making it neutral, i'd be glad to add in opposing opinions, can you give me links to those so I can do so? SilverserenC 03:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument is made here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrianism). You can read it and add a sentence or two. I would also remove the word "controversial" from the page on AINA, because it is not controversial at allKeepa (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for MVA-B

Orlady (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 United States listeriosis outbreak from cantaloupes

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Man With A Mission

Orlady (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

NewsLibrary

That was quick work on a new article on NewsLibrary, and a very polished result. Thank you.

Perhaps you are a user of NewsLibrary. Can articles found be archived and then used in citations, and therefore accessed by any Wikipedia? I use WebCite for archiving.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not a user of NewsLibrary, actually, so I have no idea. Your best bet though would be to look up articles on NewsLibrary, but then go to the respective newspaper website that the article was from and search for it there. Now, in terms of archiving stuff from NewsLibrary itself, I assume the only potential issue would be copyright related. In that regard, you might want to ask Moonriddengirl. SilverserenC 20:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your revert

Would you mind explaining this? I doubt you could have "forgot" that the article had been tagged as an unnotable hoax for more than a year, as you have just restored the tags in question.

So, if you want to propose there is anything notable on the page, kindly present some evidence to the effect.

I have actually gone out of my way to violate project policy and retain this dubious content, I have simply merged it into the (unreferenced, tagged for cleanup) article on the organisation that makes these claims. If you have any interest in presenting some sort of references on all of this, you are very welcome to do so. --dab (𒁳) 18:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you not know about the recent Afd that ended in Keep for the article? SilverserenC 18:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
um, nobody cleaned it up? It is still broken? Afds do not excuse you from following project policy. Two people expressed the opinion that there may possibly be a reasonable article under this title, provided somebody writes it, that's all. You are welcome to write this article, of course. So far, I see nothing but a possible hoax based on nothing but primary sources. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Uh, it's quite clearly not a hoax, the AfD proved that. Just look here. It's quite clear that it exists. SilverserenC 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you even ever heard about WP:NOTE and WP:DUE? Edit summaries like this one suggest you haven't. I suggest you put your money where your revert-trigger is, meaning, why don't you sit down and actually write an article about "Shinobi-iri". I am looking forward to being shown whatever it is you think passes as a referenced encyclopedia article about a notable topic.

If you think that "I can prove the term exists" is sufficient for creating a standalone page, you are contributing to the wrong project. You may want to have a look at Wiktionary instead. --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Canis lupus dingo + Canis lupus familiaris = Domestic Dog

Look here | http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=14000751 192.235.30.128 (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I see a page that says,
"Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e14' [Microsoft][ODBC Microsoft Access Driver] Invalid use of vertical bars in query expression '(ID=14000751|)'. /msw3/browse.asp, line 49"
What am I supposed to get from this? SilverserenC 22:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I think I fixed it. And also sorry that I forgot to sign in before. It's MSW3's "Canis lupus dingo" page" Note in the comments where it says "domestic dog" in brackets. Look at the "C.l.familiaris" page, too, and you'll see the same thing. If you read the "comments" on their "Canis lupus" page, you'll see the comments there say that C.lupus "includes the domestic dog as a subspecies" with C.l.dingo "provisionally" separate. It also says that some experts, Laurie Corbet and others, have argued convincingly that the domestic dog in southeast Asian an Austral-asia should have a separate taxon. What happened was this, some ancient Asian seafarers brought their dogs with them wherever they went or traded, and they brought them to Australia, where they might have been trading or shipwrecked or some such. This, by the way, is from Corbet's book, "The Dingo in Australia and in Asia". These dogs in Australia went feral and stayed that way for so long that some became truely wild. So they are still taxonomically "domestic dogs", even though they aren't really "domesticated" any more. Anyway, the article "subspecies of Canis lupus" is based on MSW3, so that's why we have followed their convention of adding the words "domestic dog" in brackets to both "familiaris" and "dingo" to indicate that sort of "inter-taxonomic" clade between the two which could be called "domestic dog". That's why we do the article that way, but there might be a better way to make what MSW3 was trying to do there clearer to our readers. Chrisrus (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense. Feel free to change it back. SilverserenC 02:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Silver_seren/Archive_8&oldid=1138972956"