![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi. I was interested to read your opinion here [1]. This led me to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Political culture, however it's actually inactive — with a merge proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. I've commented on this here. Perhaps you would also like to comment? Restructuring the politics project might offer a way out of the Conservatism quagmire. -- Klein zach 06:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to fix these messes that Noxiousnews has created. I cannot deal with this sort of individual much longer.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 10:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to help sort out Bhangra related articles. As you can tell I eat sleep drink Bhangra, primarily cuz I think its a misunderstood genre that carries huge potential for the future of music in general and could one day, carry out its stated mission of blurring out the lines between Eastern music traditions and Western music traditions. Noxiousnews ( talk) 07:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Silver seren, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. (Note: This invitation is open to any interested Wikipedian — If you're reading this, and would like to be interviewed as well, please contact me.) Thanks! Aaron (WMF) ( talk) 19:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal | |
Well you have created much more than 25. I can see you are well on your way to 50. I see your DYK's and note that they are as eye catching as a hypercube. Keep up the good work. Thanks from me and the wiki. Victuallers ( talk) 20:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC) |
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Silver seren! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Recovery | |
For your significant improvements to the Tom Segalstad article while it's still in AfD. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
Hey there brother, congratulations. Libya is now free from Gaddafi. Glad to see also Tunisia just had its first free election. Listen, Alaa is facing a military trial and I think it will be ITN worthy so I was hoping you can help expand the page about him and get it up to standards. I personally know alaa so I have a problem writing about him cuz it will be POV so Im looking for someone else I trust to do it and I thought of you. Let me know if you need any info and if you can do it. If you expand it 5x it will be also in the DYK section. Thanks in advance :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 12:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This was incivil, and should not be repeated. Hipocrite ( talk) 11:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If you're looking to create articles on topics we're missing, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Stanford Archive answers, Wikipedia:ACF Regionals answers, and the various related projects. Raul654 ( talk) 20:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 10 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Togakure-ryū, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that training in Togakure-ryū, an original style of Ninjutsu, is similar to that for judo and aikido? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Togakure-ryū.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 12:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Silver seren for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Alexandria (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't do things like this. It is very obviously POV-pushing, since none of the other items on the list have anything next to them. I am removing it, please don't do it again. Silver seren C 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel directly quoting the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten on the page devoted to the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten is highly inappropriate and POV-pushing. I did it because of the number of ninja related articles that use reference to the Bugei document of Togakure-ryu as some kind of 'proof' that there's a historical lineage to modern ninjutsu. Including it among the 'Listed Ryuha' section of that article without giving the context to indicate that it was 'listed' as untrustworthy implies that there is historical legitimacy to Togakure-ryu and is very POV. I'll assume that your POV changes to the article were done in good faith and will revert them. Please don't do it again. If you can find quotations regarding the legitimacy (or lack thereof) for other arts listed in the article I would encourage you to do so. Regards, -- Stvfetterly ( talk) 12:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I am pretty new on Wikipedia stuff. Do you have any guideline on how can I fix/improve references problem? I don't fully understand what I did wrong.
( Cadvga ( talk) 10:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC))
Dear Silver seren,
Can I have your opinion regarding this topic? thanks. Bahraini Activist ( talk) 08:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 29 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Belgian Landrace, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Belgian Landrace, a breed of domestic pig, is known for its musculature and high quality of pork? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Belgian Landrace.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 08:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey! It's been a good few months since the Bacon Challenge 2012 kicked off in June, and I'm pleased to say that decent progress has been made. While we were a bit slow to start, bacon-related contributions have been picking up again, and scores have been rising in the Bacon WikiCup. Here's a quick rundown of the overall positions as they stand:
Currently, only a handful of participants have reported contributions: to those who haven't, remember, there is still plenty of time left to contribute and rise up in through the positions, as the Challenge and WikiCup run up until March. Just like last year, all participants will receive a shiny medal which they can place on their userpages, or use as a self-esteem booster if need be (just joking...sort of). If you need ideas for what to work on, a list is available here.
One last thing! Per request, we are bringing back territory representation into the WikiCup! Editors can now represent nations, states, or provinces, just to add a bit of fun and Olympic-flair to the event. Simply reply to this message with the territory you wish to represent, if you choose to do so.
Thanks for reading! Good luck! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I have provided you with the original draft (with it's history) in your userspace, at User:Silver seren/Circball, and removed the DRV. I'd appreciate the article either being worked on or deleted, I can't see a reason to have it floating around. So if you do not work on improving it, please tag it for deletion. I'll check up on it in a few weeks, and if no progress has been made we will have to reevaluate it's existence. If you have any questions please let me know. Prodego talk 03:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Circball, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Circball and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Circball during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 08:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Houston tunnel system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross Sterling ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
If that counted as an "independent interest", then the policy would have no meaning at all. Proxying for banned editors is one of the most disruptive activities an editor can perform. The only way to get rid of them is to ensure that they have no hope whatsoever of influencing Wikipedia. The value of using a banned editor's article as the foundation for an article on an obscure sport is trivial, and, should the topic be notable, there would be nothing that prevented you from writing such an article from scratch: something you would gladly do if you were genuinely interested in the topic.
If you feel that I have been threatening, here it is in non-threatening language: you have committed a profound error of judgment that must never be repeated. Please do not do so again.— Kww( talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Circball. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Relist 108.23.117.2 ( talk) 20:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Minicraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2-D ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Semi protection wouldn't be a bad idea. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 1 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Minicraft, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Minecraft creator Markus "Notch" Persson made the video game Minicraft in under 48 hours for the Ludum Dare competition? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Minicraft.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your help in reorganizing the Occupy Windsor page. Stvfetterly ( talk) 21:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hey, I protected the article for 2 weeks. If you could drop the new editors involved talk page messages directly explaining why you reverted them etc, that would be awesome. That way maybe we can avoid more protection in the near future. :) Happy New Year, Steven Walling • talk 00:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You'll need to explain, with reliable sources, why Ashida Kim aka Chris Hunter aka Radford Davis is unreliable. I know where Ashida Kim links to, but I also know the whole first two sentences are original research, as the sources are not secondary (and the court case says nothing about ninjutsu). So, please explain with sources how he is unreliable.
And you were right about Iaijutsu, I read the book wrong. It was supposed to say close combat and fast drawing (Iaijutsu) techniques. That would be better. Silver seren C 20:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Ninpo and Ninjutsu their has been an overzealousness towards deleting or painting in a shady light most proponents of these arts, including the deletion of Genbukan and Shoto Tanemura related articles, such as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genbukan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sh%C5%8Dt%C5%8D_Tanemura Where either deletion is speedy or sources are first asked for and then questioned: articles from Black Belt Magazine are specifically asked for, provided, then questioned, secondary sources such as "Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation" which has an impresive list of colaborators and a whole description on Ninpo/Ninjutsu past and present is ignored. It is true that some claims of ancient conections _is_ questioned and _is_ probably legendary, word of mouth from master to student, but things should balance out on the Wiki, not this edit war where who is stronger on the Martial Project wins: that should not be the spirit of this all.
http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=P-Nv_LUi6KgC&pg=PA171&dq=tanemura+martial+arts&hl=es&sa=X&ei=uggET6bTBYSCtgeN2tGfDw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=tanemura%20martial%20arts&f=false
And I do not believe that claiming that every body that has had anything to do with Genbukan or Bujinkan is a "non verifiable primary source" is not correct: Where do most information about Judo, Aikido or, lets say, Modern String Theory comes from? There is also what seems to be a purpose of confusing the Ninja of the Hollywood movies with what Bujinkan or Genbukan or these japanese schools have developped: That is as far fetched as thinking that Aikido is a Steven Seagal martial arts movie. It is my feeling some people are trashing other people's work because they prefer other martial arts. Cheers! -- Crio de la Paz ( talk) 08:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
for the moral support. I found the suggestion that I'd violated policy a bit strange (and, to be honest, a bit unsettling when he repeated it). A gentle word and a simple link to the wording he'd added to the guideline probably would have sufficed to persuade me to withdraw the tags. Anyway, he can have the last word; I probably shouldn't have replied again, and I'm going to disengage now. I appreciate your speaking up. Rivertorch ( talk) aka The Disparager 11:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You addition lasted four minutes. I was going to remove it for exactly the same reason. Youreallycan ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Who knows what will come of this, but I saw your invite and it looks like something I'd like to be involved in. I don't know if you consider it a competing project to WP:PAIDEDITS but I certainly prefer this approach. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be more interested in what you have to say about [ it, since after all it was addressed to you, and this really seems to be a "let's-you-and-him-fight" ploy as they would say in Transactional Analysis, which I don't see how that is helpful. Do you not have opinions of your own? Herostratus ( talk) 06:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Even though we do not occupy the exact same point on the A B continuum, to use my option terms, I bet we are on the same page regarding the following:
It would be disastrous if an editors signed up for the projects assuming the plan was to implement Option A when they would only support Option B or vice-versa.
I also hope you note that my use of the phrase " A B continuum " is an acceptance that the choice isn't binary, and it may be that the community can support an approach that is somewhere between the two extremes.
I'm not signing up at the moment, because I am over-committed, but I'll try to stay abreast of what's happening. It would be a shame if we could not figure how how to tap into a large group of people who can write, and want to write. We just have to ensure that we don't compromise any principles.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Silver, I left some comments at the peer review for Cracker Barrel, hope that they are helpful. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or clarification requests. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Since you participated in the BLP thread, the DRV discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Qian_Zhijun_and_Little_Fatty WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey there Silver, I've had a chance to look through Mark Arsten's peer review notes today and they look pretty good, so I've stared making some of his suggested changes (though I erred at first, and made one change to the direct article; I quickly reverted). I'm about to start again, but there's plenty to look at there, so I probably won't finish until tomorrow at least. Meanwhile, I've also done a peer review on Bernard Lee, and I hope making direct changes to the article was OK. Again, my reference is GA review, where that's cool, but I don't want to step on any toes.
I mentioned yesterday that I'd been spending some time looking at recent changes to the article; I've got my thoughts together now on that and have some questions and suggestions—recent changes from the live version that I think have introduced new problems, including factual inaccuracies. Since I don't want to hijack the peer review process, where do you think would be best to raise these? Some of my thoughts do relate to Mark's notes, so I'm wondering if you think it would be appropriate to post them in the peer review and ask for his / anyone else's input. Let me know what you think. And w/r/t to your question about the dead link, that's on my list, too. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 03:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I realize we're still in the middle of Cracker Barrel cleanup, but I have another client project nearly ready to share, perhaps by early next week. It's also an expansion of an existing article, but considerably shorter than than Cracker Barrel, so that's a plus. As always, I would like to have other eyes on it, to make sure that it's neutral and guideline-appropriate before it's approved for the mainspace. I guess this gets to the next question of how WP:CO-OP will work: what's the process? Will this happen in-house at WP:CO-OP? Do we use the resources of WP:PR? (Boy, isn't that an ironic shortcut?) I realize you'll be offline this weekend, and I'm in no particular rush, but it's something to figure out soon. Welcome to your thoughts here, or perhaps we could take this discussion back to the CO-OP Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 04:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
GLAM. -- LauraHale ( talk) 11:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Silver seren,
Thank you very much for your help with editing the article on Stefano Pelinga, and saving it from deletion. We appreciate your honesty and accuracy. Keep up the good work and best wishes to you in 2012!
Distefwiki ( talk) 03:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited NameBase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Silver. As I've just posted on Mark Arsten's Talk page, I didn't return to the peer review until today, but I believe I've now addressed all his key points. In some cases, I've posted replies and, as I suggested to you recently, in some cases take issue with the recent changes of other editors. I think it would be a good idea to bring those editors back to the table, considering we are after stability for the article. I'm certainly willing to reach out to them myself, unless you think it would be counterproductive at this time; I'd like to think it would be productive for me to do so, but I'll take your advice on the matter. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 21:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as "normal heterosexual values", so I find that statement beyond belief. Do you know if there is a list of companies who have discriminated in the past or who still have these policies? I think it would make for a fascinating article. Viriditas ( talk) 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Silver. Hope you had a good blackout day. As mentioned last week, I have some client-related projects in the pipeline, and I've just posted one in my userspace: User:WWB Too/Steve Scully, about a producer and on-air host for C-SPAN. The current article, as you might expect, is Steve Scully. Unlike Cracker Barrel, there should be fewer issues of either puffiness or controversy to deal with, and my draft is also much shorter than the current one, which contains much unencyclopedic or irrelevant material. And all sources, save for a couple of Roll Call stories, are available online.
In the past, my M.O. would be to first post a link to the draft and explanation on the article's Talk page, perhaps with a {{request edit}} template and, if no response was forthcoming, seek input at relevant WikiProjects (in Scully's case, there are quite a few: I'd probably go to Journalism and Television first. Those still seem to me like reasonable steps, however we'd discussed the prospect of bringing this first to WikiProject Cooperation and perhaps to Peer review as well. What do you think is the best course of action? Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I meant that I asked Wikipedian with checkuser privileges to check that Rabbit run account, as that's account looks like an obvious sock. It's allowed per WP:CHECKUSER that a checkuser request don't have to be public and on Wiki. And again the checkusers need to follow the guidelines in checkuser. And honestly I asked for the checkuser in the SPI IRC channel, which is a public IRC channel, not private. It's extremely hard to make these types of checkusers disallowed as sometimes the checkuser information needs to be private, for very private matters in which personal information might be involved. So I recommend for it to be, unless there's clear abuse of the checkuser tool by multiple checkusers, which I'm not seeing, and that's why we have the Audit Subcommittee to handle these matters. Secret account 22:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a checkuser was/is being performed to certain users, but clearly not all, like a obvious GWARP sock, or other editors that are clearly sockpuppets of banned users though behavior evidence (such as nominating Wikipedia Review for deletion on the person third edit). I kinda know (though behavior evidence) who the sock who nominated the Wikipedia Review article for AFD is, that's why I asked for a checkuser to just confirm it. But not all users need to find out about a checkuser, as it would make the banned users change their editing which will make them even more difficult to track them. Not to mention the private/personal information concerns. Again not a good idea. I only agree for editors who been long-standing in the community, that a checkuser should be notified. Thanks Secret account 00:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please tell User:Edison on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tarc_reported_by_User:WR_Reader_.28Result:_.29 that http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/ is the Wikipedia Review, not a successor or a replacement. The domain name (wikipediareview.com) is the only thing that expired. The forum, its threads, and the accounts are still there. Tell him that you can still log in to your account. See http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36278 for some background. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 14:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer to join the new Wikiproject, to which I have now replied. Somehow I didn't notice your message until today. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited British Edda, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sumeria and Trojans ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Silver. Saw you'd continued adding accessdates to the CB draft yesterday, which, very cool. Meanwhile, Nomo's challenge to my Nexis sources over the weekend, which I know you've seen, has led me to figure out that indeed Lexis-Nexis offers permalinks for articles, although of course they are available only to subscribers. Perhaps these could be added to existing citations where a normal web link is unavailable? It would take a little while for me to set aside the time, but I could line them all up in the next week or so.
Second, Mark Arsten hasn't been back to our Peer review for a few days, and there has been no further discussion around the remaining issues I've raised, particularly the DeLay section. What would be your suggestion for seeking additional input? This again is where I'd considered reaching out to previously involved editors from both sides of the matter, but as yet I haven't done so. Thoughts? WWB Too ( talk) 15:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)