User talk:Silikonz/Archive 2

success and warning classes
One or more or your scripts uses the  or   classes. Be aware that the styling for these classes may be removed in the near future. See WP:VPT for a list of scripts. Izno (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Opera GX screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading File:Opera GX screenshot.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. I uploaded the image before Opera GX was merged into Opera; it was used there. Since Opera GX is a significant section in the merged page, I'll change the image info and re-add next to the section. Thanks. :) Silikonz (alternate account)  ( 💬 │ 🖋 ) 10:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:lede
Ledes necessarily "state twice" the most important matters in the text below them. That is their purpose and nature. 2603:7000:2143:8500:58DD:4A36:625:7DD1 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for your message. I did not see that as the most important aspect of the article - you do realise, you are stating death in the very beginning of the article. In addition, it is a word-for-word carbon copy of the exact sentence that appears later.  Silikonz  ( 💬 &#124;  🖋 ) 00:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did -- just look at the pageviews of the article in its entire life. Furthermore, yes - it is fine for it to be a carbon copy; there is no copyvio issue internally in the article with that being the case, and I do not see it as requiring paring down. 2603:7000:2143:8500:58DD:4A36:625:7DD1 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(EC .. revising what was above, which was replied to below) .. I did -- just look at the pageviews of the article in its entire life. Both RS coverage and reader focus have been by far greatest at two moments -- when she leveled her accusations (now, that has been hidden below where I believe it should be, as reflected in my edit), and at the time of her death (which her parents connect with her sexual abuse). That's ample reflection of what is notable in her life -- the RS coverage alone is what we look at for notability in the first place, and the pageviews amply supports that as a matter of prime importance. Furthermore, yes - it is fine for it to be a carbon copy; there is no copyvio issue internally in the article with that being the case, and I do not see it as requiring paring down. 2603:7000:2143:8500:58DD:4A36:625:7DD1 (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey. As per Lead - the introduction requires a summary, not a carbon copy. I fail also to identify how the pageviews have correlation with the person's death. Thanks,  Silikonz  ( 💬 &#124;  🖋 ) 00:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. In addition to the above, if you wish to pare down what is most important, and are offended by the one sentence being the same as below text, feel free to revise the one sentence accordingly. I don't believe that calls for deletion. (BTW, there are many ledes which have a lone sentence that precisely mirrors text from within the article).


 * As to your not seeing my point as to what the most important aspects of the article include, I would say this. Focusing on objective indicia (which are better than subjective feelings), we rely on RS article mentions for a number of things. Such as determining notability. And we also look to pageviews at times. For example, when deciding what the primary article should be in a dab page. Under both criteria, the sexual abuse allegation, and death that her parents say is related, are of the utmost significance from among the textual statements in the article below the lede.2603:7000:2143:8500:58DD:4A36:625:7DD1 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a very prominent section relating to her sexual abuse. However, I do not see how it is important to be included in the introduction, where solely oneself and their contributions should be highlighted to a greater extent.  Silikonz  ( 💬 &#124;  🖋 ) 00:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see the misunderstanding. That's actually not what wp:lede calls for. It states: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents ... The lead should ... explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." (emphasis added). 2603:7000:2143:8500:58DD:4A36:625:7DD1 (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand the discrepancies between what we have established so far. However, you might want to draw in @Drmies as well, who might have more to say. The same MOS you have linked also states that the lead is only in effect for 'all but the shortest articles'. The cause of one's death may be important, but I don't think it's as important as to be highlighted in the beginning in this stub. Thanks,  Silikonz  ( 💬 &#124;  🖋 ) 01:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think we did identify it -- a going-in difference of understanding as to what wp:lede calls for us to use as our guideline. As to what is appropriate for the lede, my understanding is that the test is not our subjective feelings, but objective criteria. WP:lede itself points to that. And the objective criteria, most importantly the RS coverage, and for the reason indicated (secondarily) the pageviews, amply supports that the sentence (which covers both her having said she was abused, and her parents having connected that to her death -- are the two matters that have attracted the most RS coverage (as well as .. by a long shot .. pageviews). And thanks - I think you have notified him. 2603:7000:2143:8500:58DD:4A36:625:7DD1 (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My problem was that it was a quote--that, in my opinion, was undue. If indeed her death is so important, and the sources bear this out (but keep recentism in mind), then sure, her death can be in the lead. But, again, what bothered me was that it was a quote, from a parent. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if the sexual abuse is part of what characterises the article, I agree that it can be included. However, a quote wouldn't be ideal; I think a more generalised, condensed, and concise indication of the events leading up to her death would be more useful in the lead. Silikonz 💬 22:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Just good writing. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Alt talk redirect
Actually I'm fairly sure it's fully appropriate to not use a soft redirect when redirecting the talk of an alt to the talk of your main. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You have a point; a regular redirect will do. Thanks.  Silikonz (alt) 💬 19:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do the exact same for my own alt account since there's no point in me having that talk page not redirect to my user talk page if I don't regularly use the alt (and therefore may miss some messages) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Violent Night edit
Hello. When you said you removed the changes to the Violent Night article because of the source, the reason theres no source is because I don't know how to. The source is box office pro, Violent Night, so add that pls. 172.116.214.66 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey! With your specific source in mind, Help:Referencing for beginners should be able to help. You can then try the edit with the source added. The visual editor/2017 wikitext editor makes citing sources easy; click on the citation button on the toolbar. If you need any more assistance, I'll be happy to provide it. Thanks, Silikonz 💬 00:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello
I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm posting verifiable facts & link to a YouTube page on Breaking Point. This is not vandalism. There are no advertisements, nor am I a band member. Please refrain from trolling my posts. Thank you.

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm posting verifiable facts & link to a YouTube page on Breaking Point. This is not vandalism. There are no advertisements, nor am I a band member. Please refrain from trolling my posts. Thank you. Breaking Point 27 (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello. You might want to review WP:EL and Wikipedia's username policy before you make your edits. Thanks, Silikonz 💬 22:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)