User talk:Silver seren/Archive 11

Request Edits
Thanks so much for your tireless efforts on Wikiproject Cooperation in general and in particular poking folks to help with the request edit queue. It's with a low head that I posted my request on the board to help process the queue, knowing I'm a paid COI bugging volunteers to process my requests. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just annoyed that the people I poked haven't done anything yet. :/ I guess i'll have to do most of the work myself. Oh well. That's how it works out sometimes. Silver  seren C 02:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've got one in there almost 2 months old now. It is difficult because on one hand there is WP:norush and volunteers don't have a responsibility to do anything. On the other, unaddressed request edits will just result in direct editing. I noticed it's on the COIN board now - that's neat. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jesse Thomas (graphic designer)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your approach to fringe topics
Re this edit. You restore the "reference" I objected to, with the summary "Black Belt magazine is not self-published". Please explain how I am supposed to assume good faith for an absurdist approach to editing Wikipedia such as this. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you had removed some of the Black Belt sources, but I see now that you just rearranged things. I do disagree with you changing the lede back to the horrible version it was way in the past, rather than a summary of the article.


 * Furthermore, I don't see why Nigel Cawthorne is an unreliable source. Especially for basic information on ninja hierarchies,. Silver  seren C 08:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your behaviour is unacceptable. Now you reverted with the edit summary asking me to use the talk page, right after I took the pains to point out exactly why your behaviour already was unacceptable both on the article talkpage and on your user page. No, you are not going to get away with defending a blatant hoax just based on WP:ILIKEIT, or ignoratio elenchi. Don't try to make this about procedure when it is painfully obvious you are doing it because you do not have a case. If you want to "save" this article, sit down and present scholarly references. If you cannot do this, step back and let people fix it. It's really as simple as that. Cawthorne is a journalist. I have no idea why this guy has his own bio article, but that's not the issue here. Does "MBI Publishing Company" tell you anything? It does  Author funded publishing . We see this frequently in topics where some fringe theory is desperate for "printed" references. So people do "author funded" printing and then try to present this as "references" for Wikipedia. I am not asking you for journalism, I am asking you for scholarly references. Do you know what this term means? If yes, please go and find one. If no, please don't edit here. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Copying to talk page. Silver  seren C 08:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Proper Attribution
Hi,

As you know, I'm talking about CREWE and WP:Cooperation at a couple of conferences coming up.

In terms of attribution, do you prefer SilverSeren or your real name?

--Philgomes (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My real name is fine. :) Silver  seren C 20:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel FAC
Hey there, I've just left a co-nominator's comment on the FAC page, including a note that I take no position on whether I can edit directly: if it's encouraged, I can; if not, I'll focus on research. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unexpected delays on approved rewrites
Hi there, Silver. I have a small dilemma: two of my rewrite projects seem to have been given the go-ahead, except that I've been asked to make the direct edits, which of course you know I'm avoiding entirely anymore. Coincidentally, the go-ahead has come from DGG, whom I think is not aware of the current discouragement of direct editing with COI implications.

The first concerns Robert X Browning, where he said "Ready to go" on the Paid Editor Help page, perhaps unaware he was being asked to make the change. The second is EduCap, where he replied to me on his Talk page, saying: "I would suggest ... editing the existing page with your additional material. I think you could go ahead and do that". I left a note saying I'd prefer not, and I would ask elsewhere. Here is that elsewhere.

Would you be interested in doing so, or would you want to ask for someone else to do so? Same with Browning: should I ask Qwyrxian about a histmerge? Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am of course very much aware of the current discouragement of direct editing. I've made a comment at the Paid Editor Help page.  DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey there, DGG. As you've probably seen, I've followed up on your Talk page and at Paid Editor Help. So, this is really more a note for Silver that the discussion continues. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Touré's surname in his article
Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Question
Are you interested in doing a Signpost interview about paid editing? Ocaasit &#124; c 19:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! Should I just go and put in answers on that page? Silver  seren C 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! I may edit the answers slightly for the final version in order to arrange a coherent narrative.  I won't misquote you or quote you out of context.  I also might ask some follow-up questions for a second round of the interview, if that's ok with you.  If we move quick enough, it can be posted in the upcoming Signpost on April 7th.  But I'd rather have honesty and deep thought than speed, so... Good luck!  Can't wait to hear your responses.Ocaasit &#124; c 21:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this stub notable?
Hi. I have another one for you, if interested. User:I'm Tony Ahn/Articles/Local Splash Will be a quick review, because its just a stub. My main question is if this company is notable enough to not get nominated for deletion. I need a second opinion since I'm close to the source (client). Let me know what you think, if you have time. And if you think it will survive an AfD, feel free to move it to mainspace. I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving an article from Prep
I think anyone can move an article from Prep back to T:TDYK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Silver -- As one of the major contributors to the Kony 2012 article, you have now been added as one of four editors in line for creator credit on the DYK. If the article is to be removed from the prep area, it would would be best if that were done by a non-involved editor. Cbl62 (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that this is a time sensitive issue and no one is responding on WT:DYK to me. Furthermore, removing it from the queue for further discussion shouldn't be contentious at all. It can always be put right back afterwards. Silver  seren C 08:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Invisible Children, Inc.
Thank you for stopping in at my talk page yesterday – I had noticed, but was too busy to reply at the time. Crzyclarks (talk) came to my attention on March 26, (his/her first edit as an IP) and with my involvement registered before making the second edit later that day.

Since then I have tried to assist and advise. Enthusiasm should be encouraged – not pounced on and intimidated.

I understand your frustration, but please "don't bite the newbie!"

With respect to your experience on Wikipedia, which far extends mine, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the whole paragraph is a BLP problem and I have concerns about whether it should be there at all. Yes, it got a lot of coverage, but time and the police statements have shown that most of the news was reporting erroneous facts, which brings into question the reliability of all of the publications. Furthermore, the incident as a whole is really not that important to Invisible Children and seems to be undue weight for the article. Silver  seren C 08:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Courcelles recall
Hello. User:BarkingFish has backed out of the recall as the initiator and asked that someone else fill his position. Could you please consider taking the role as the initiator rather than a certifier? I am not even sure a new initiator is needed at the moment, but if a recall were to progress it would probably be less controversial if there were someone in that role.--v/r - TP 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's a moot point unless two more people show up. If two more certifiers join, then I will. Silver  seren C 20:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Feldman follow-up
Hi there, seems the CO-OP Help page has been pretty quiet recently: since you weighed in favorably on the Feldman draft, no one else has commented. Given the time elapsed, are you comfortable moving it, or would you still want additional support? Let me know what you think, and if I can help. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already said so at CO-OP Help, but I really appreciate your initiative with the Feldman draft. Also, heads up: I've got some improvements to propose for the JESS3 article very shortly; if all goes to plan, I'll post that tomorrow. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rajo Laurel
I don't think its being reported as reviewed in the queue...reason being is that the queue currently reports one verified hook for April 1, and Maurycy Allerhand has been reviewed for that date, but there are two non-self noms (Rajo Laurel being one of them) that are also ready to go. I'm not super familiar with the DYK mechanics, so maybe this is normal, but I'm not sure... I&#39;m Tony Ahn (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been reviewed yet. If you look at T:TDYK, it's still there, there's just a huge backlog that the DYK people are trying to deal with. Silver  seren C 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply re WV
I'm pretty sure you want wikiversity:Wikiversity:Request custodian action. However, I'd suggest first familiarize yourself with the different standards and culture on that site. Good luck. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could try, it'd probably not go over well, best bet is to seek out advice from a custodian (admin) locally over there. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good, thanks for the update. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

You don't seem to be getting the message
After a rather tedious discussion on Niabot's talk page where I explained in rather more detail than should have been necessary that I played no role in Niabot's block and where you just minutes ago said that you would not mention my name if you brought this up on ANI, why are you writing this bullshit on Jimbo's talk page? Did you just accuse me of calling Niabot a pedophile? I suggest you fix that immediately and make very clear what you are saying, because I've have enough of this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to drag me into your little campaigns. I do not wish to be your playmate. Please consider this your last warning. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should stop accusing people of things in the first place. Then none of this would have ever been an issue. Silver  seren C 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I made you hit me. It's my fault and I better not do it again or I'll get the same thing? Niabot, who defends pedophiles' right to edit Wikipedia, made reference to a joke about pedophilia. You don't believe that it was an innocent comment. I doubt anyone believes it was an innocent comment. Yet somehow you think this was my doing. That's fine, you can believe whatever nonsense you want, just be more careful when you spew that nonsense onto the pages of Wikipedia. Think twice about mentioning my name or alluding to me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, finished draft is up, please check it for fidelity to our 'convo'
Here's the draft that's planned to run Mon/Tues. I re-ordered the questions, made a few very minor phrase changes to questions and answers, added some links, and cut out a few pieces that weren't contributing much. I think continuity and meaning was retained in full. I just want to give you a chance to review it, in case you want to add/remove/tweak anything. Also, I have one last question for you, a harder-nosed question that I didn't feel the need to ask but don't want to leave out (and be accused or sympathizing or somesuch). You can find it in the middle of the page where it says : "answer here". Thanks for putting so much into this. It will be a nice kick-off to the series and hopefully generate some conversation. Ocaasit &#124; c 21:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The interview is coming together nicely. I took out a question that seemed redundant and also the paragraph making a comparison to GLAM which although aspirational was less relevant and part of a quite long answer.  I also added some quote boxes at the suggestions of the other editors.  I realized that I forgot the most obvious question:  Have you ever been paid to work on Wikipedia? Do you think successful Wikipedia editors can sell their services for profit and still remain neutral?  Would you ever consider doing so?  I think the answer is implied by the rest of your responses, but it'd be good to get it out there explicitly.  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the finished interview, and thanks again. Any feedback for how I could have conducted it differently?  Otherwise, see you around! Ocaasit &#124; c 01:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I think you did it perfectly fine. I enjoyed it. Thanks for doing the series in the first place. Silver  seren C 01:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Niabot
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=487751997&oldid=487751947 – Whoops. I see that you beat me to it by several minutes. I was try of waiting; you promised a thread hours ago :( --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like we think alike then. :P Silver  seren C 00:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

EduCap, and other topics
Hi Silver, following my note on the Paid Editor Help page a couple of weeks ago, I've continued to work with DGG on the EduCap article. Having not heard from him since most recent round of edits, it seems that he's busy and also would prefer not to do a merge himself. Worth noting: his last reply on the Talk page there mentioned that if another editor merged my draft with the current article, he'd then make any edits he thought necessary. I've now made almost all the edits that he has asked for, which you can see from Talk:EduCap, and I feel confident that the proposed draft is a significant improvement on the live article, so I'd like to get some other opinions. Would you mind looking at the draft as it stands? I've asked Qwyrxian, as he's able to do the histmerge it would need, but I'd also appreciate your input here.

Meanwhile, if you have any comments on my new draft for the JESS3 article, that would be awesome. As you've likely seen, I posted a request on the Paid Editor Help page last week, but no replies as yet.

Oh, and I would be remiss if I did not say: I really enjoyed reading your interview in the SIgnpost yesterday. All very well said, and thanks for the shout-out, too. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in on those topics. Happily, Qwryxian said he'd look at EduCap in the next few days. Assuming no suggestions to the JESS3 draft emerge, I wonder if a histmerge is necessary? The only history to the current draft is the original posting. It would be great if an admin wasn't always required for multi-section replacements. I'm interested to hear what you think about it. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mail
Ocaasit &#124; c 10:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Dramatica
No where in the ch / se section on the talk page does it reach a consensus that it is a new website. The older content is the same, as is the concept and context. If it quacks like a duck and walks like one...

Please stop vandalising minor edits that try to bring pages up to date. --Panzer71 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Silver - You should follow the "doxbin" link at the end of today's featured article on ED about Daniel Brandt. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Geez. *sighs* Information is still three years outdated. How they try to explain why I go to A&M, but live in Frisco is amusing, considering I haven't lived in Frisco for said three years past.


 * I still don't get why they try to tie me together with Brandt. I made one comment about the guy on WR in the past and suddenly i'm in some sort of collaboration with him. Especially considering when he was complaining on WR about the existence of the NameBase article and was trying to get it deleted, so I went in and improved the article so there was no way for it to be deleted, just to spite him.


 * But thanks for letting me know. I just wish they had more competent "e-detectives". Silver  seren C 21:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rajo Laurel
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

FAC
Hi there, Silver. I am curious about the FAC process for Cracker Barrel: it sure has been quiet for the past few weeks; since I haven't gone through it before, I'm not sure where it stands. Will it eventually be approved, as there does not seem to be opposition? Or will it need a more emphatic recommendation from a reviewer? Just curious. Also, mighty interesting discussions on Jimbo's Talk page this week. My inclination is to stay out of it still, but if I feel like I have something unique to contribute, I might. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we need more reviews and supports. At this point, it'll be closed with no consensus to promote because of the lack of reviews. What we might want to do is go and review some of the other FAC candidates and then ask their nominators to review ours. Silver  seren C 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, glad I asked then. Is it automatically closed after a certain period of inactivity? If so, are we close to that? I can certainly help on other reviews this week. Also: I've started helping User:Woz2 with some requests, as a favor for reviewing some of my proposals, so perhaps he could help as well. I will take a look at the FAC list a bit later today, and I'll let you know when I get started. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know the length of time. We might want to ask about that at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. I notice there is currently also a discussion going on over there about paid editing. Silver  seren C 19:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Aha, I hadn't seen that until just now. One of the critics there, Ling.Nut3, alludes to a discussion with Qwryxian and myself on the GPG Talk page last week. And a few comments later, Mark Arsten mentions Cracker Barrel as a positive example. I think I will reply to that one momentarily. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw the GPG discussion already. If he was discussing this more politely, it would be fine, but he seems to be on a bit of a vendetta. Though I do think that something about the ethanol controversy should be added, as I found a number of sources covering that. There's very little on the Colombia thing though besides a few mentions in sources. Silver  seren C 21:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I didn't want to put it in those terms myself, but the discussion didn't appear to be solution-oriented, so I didn't continue it. I don't have an opinion about ethanol or Colombia now, though of course anyone is free to edit the page, and I may or may not revisit the topic at a later point. Meanwhile, my comment on the FAC discussion is currently the latest there. WWB Too (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kony 2012
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Russell
He was indeed displaying a full-frontal-nudity for a while, he was just not really masturbating (contrary to the popular meme). Or at least, we've got no proof for this. --Niemti (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing userbox
Hey, is there a way to make a userbox which says something like, "This editor is willing and able to edit for pay?" and which, when posted on an editor's talk page, automatically lists that editor on a category page along with all the other editors with that userbox on their userpages? That way, people searching for editors willing to edit for them for compensation could go to one place to find such a list. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can make it yourself. Just take the code for a userbox, like mine, change the info section and replace the image (ID) section with another image that you think would work. The code itself already has a section for a category, so you would just need to reword that to your desired name for the category. And then just edit the category and save something in it, like a definition, so the category has an actual page. Then, when anyone uses the userbox, it will list them in the category. Just copy my code and modify it. It's really rather easy. Silver  seren C 01:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. :) Silver  seren C 07:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

3rr
Consider this 3rr warning for Wikipedia talk:User pages -- which an experienced editor really shouldn't need. Nobody Ent 17:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i've been keeping an eye on it. Silver  seren C 17:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I was unclear -- I'm saying you shouldn't have made your second revert per the edit-warring policy. Nobody Ent 17:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then someone else needs to revert a non-neutral editor closing an RfC long before its end date based on purely their own opinion. Silver  seren C 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. But you didn't give anyone else the chance (the only reason I noticed your revert was because it edit conflicted with mine). Nobody Ent 23:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Silver Seren,

Per WP:SOAP

Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

There's nothing in here about "Improving Wikipedia" advertising is not permitted on user pages per this consensus the rfc is not  needed. Stop re-opening it. ‑KoshVorlon | Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 17:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SOAP isn't really the right thing for you to be quoting though. Sure, it says it applies to user pages too, but the advertising section is pretty much exclusively talking about articles, as it uses "article topics", "articles", "external links", "notability". It actually doesn't say a single thing about what is appropriate for userpages, so it saying it applies to user pages at the top doesn't mean anything when it doesn't explain what applies. SOAP is actually written rather horribly. For example, I think everyone agrees that you can write about yourself on your userpage, almost everyone does it, yet SOAP would imply that that is self promotion, until you realize that it is only talking about articlespace. And the interpretation at the AfD is that, since such things are not explicitly defined, advertisements about Wikipedia are allowed. Silver  seren C 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kosh. Quit it.  Just let the discussion run its course, please.  ‑Scottywong | talk _  18:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Scotty the dicussion has more than run it's course. It's not even a valid RFC. Policy is already established.

The RFC needs to be closed. period.

Whether it's poorly written or not is beside the point:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

Soap applies to user pages as well as articles. Sorry, but the RFC is incorrect, per policy. I have closed it per that policy because policy states CLA68's add can't be on his page. The RFC is not correct,the discussion needs to be on the WP:NOT page and it should be centered on changing SOAP. Right now, SOAP says adds can't be on the user page.

BTW - re-opening an RFC is not proper dispute resolution. (I know you know that :) ).

Bottom line is, policy states what I'm stating and policy currently supports the removal of CLA's add. ‑KoshVorlon | Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 19:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Final vote on which image to use
There's a final vote on which image to use a WikiProject Japan. It's about to close. As you voted in the original poll, you might be interested in having your final say.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 06:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia Pay Discussion,
Hey SS,

There's a nice discussion going on at the most recent interviews (with Phil Gomes): Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-05-07/Paid_editing.

People keep mentioning that we 'need a paid editing noticeboard'. I'm not sure why they're not identifying WP:COIN or WP:PAIDHELP, but there is discussion about something new.

Anyway, thought you might want to chime in. Ocaasit &#124; c 13:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey there
Concerning the edit I made to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article, I don't think I could use the wayback machine to get the reference. Simply because the reference in question is actually only on the current new ED under the section "Is ED racist/homophobic?" in the article about themselves (I can't link to it here obviously, but it's easy to find). Any ideas how I could get that in..? Elvis Clay (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Junius, but the the part i'm quoting is actually only present in the current .se adress. Elvis Clay (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it'll be on Wayback soon enough. You might just want to wait until it is. Silver  seren C 00:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if it does go on wayback i'm pretty sure that'll be a very long wait indeed. Is there any way of making a reference that simply states where the information is, but doesn't actually give a full link? e.g "Encyclopedia Dramatica.se - Encyclopædia Dramatica - Is ED racist/homophobic? Retrieved 2012-05-11" Elvis Clay (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose that would be okay. Though for the text you put in the article, you might want to use a quote at some point, rather than just full paraphrasing. Silver  seren C 17:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just make sure to replace it with a Wayback link once that comes out. And I don't see it being longer than 3 or 4 months, since that's how long .ch existed and that's on there already. Silver  seren C 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Carguy
Just a heads-up for you, I posted a new draft of the "controversy" sections from Lifestyle Lift over at WP:PAIDHELP, with I hope an adequate summary of changes. I didn't use any of the sources you retrieved from HighBeam, since they didn't seem to address the complaints. And of course I don't think Carguy's NBC lawsuit should be included, but maybe he'll be satisfied if the mess is cleaned up a bit. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Needy deletion nomination of Chork


A tag hasn't been placed on Chork, but it still needs to deleted from Wikipedia. This is because the whole concept is just so, so wrong, and in so, so many ways. That someone would come up with the idea to me seems inexplicable to start with; what is even more incredible is that people might buy it.

Look, it really isn't all that difficult to use chopsticks. If anyone thinks that this device is going to help them learn, they are wrong. Though there's a so-called "right" way to use chopsticks, in practice people from all backgrounds use them in whatever way... yes you're right, it's useless going down that path. Ahem. Where was I? Because the page simply needs to be deleted, don't contact one of these administrators. Don't contact anyone. Just make it go away. It's, it's... honestly, words fail me. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I'm not sure if this is a joke. You're saying the article should be deleted because no one in their right mind would see a need for this product? I don't think that's one of the criteria for deletion. The product appears to be notable. Judgments of how good or useful it is don't factor in, at all. If this was a joke then disregard :) (I enjoyed "needy deletion" hehe)  Equazcion  ( talk )  09:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, I would use it. It seems really cool and useful and it's really cheap (only $6 for a 24 pack!). Besides, there's plenty of weirder utensils in List of eating utensils that have articles. I mean, a Splayd? Seriously? Silver  seren C 19:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Equazcion: your friend and mine Silver seren is one tough hombre, and doesn't need... oops, already replied to :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

RBW nomination
RBW UK has been nominated for deletion. If we're going to save it, then we need more sources than just this Bizarre interview. Do you know of any other sources? Silver seren C 21:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only coverage that springs to mind is in Sugar (WikiFur), which merely identifies RBW (and ConFuzzled) as furry conventions. Personally, I am not convinced that RBW's article is justified. While it can claim to be the first "real" furry convention in the UK, it never had more than 300 attendees; others mentioned here are over 1000, and we don't have all of them. I think it is an excellent example of a convention which should be mentioned here, but not that prominently. GreenReaper (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tried GNews and Bing. Off-line paper sources? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure some offline sources exist, especially in papers local to the con. It's just that we don't have the capability of obtaining them. Silver  seren C 17:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!
As an editor who worked with you on Cracker Barrel Old Country Store for GA (and I believe an immediate reassessment of its GA status after), I'm especially glad to see this article pass FAC. Although I had a feeling some COI might exist, you were always completely open-minded in accepting suggestions and worked toward the betterment of the article. Congratulations on this FAC! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And if you ever notice any other issues with the article, feel free to bring them up with me or WWB Too. Silver  seren C 21:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Congrats from me too, Good job sticking with this one for so long. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you run a copy edit in Organ theft in Kosovo?
Mostly grammar issues, I did a rewrite for factual accuracy / NPOV / flow already. --Niemti (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tommi Parzinger
Hello! Your submission of Tommi Parzinger 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! Yoninah (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Politics in the British Isles
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. 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. KarlB (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Per your request. ps: Ive never done a DRV before, so any other suggestions or feedback you have on the nomination appreciated.

DYK for Tommi Parzinger
Orlady (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Commodity trading articles
Hi there, Silver. Since Pine has bowed out of the review process on the commodity pool drafts, I've posted a few notes with others: with Fifelfoo, who may not wish to help, but whose response I expect is most awaited; with Hobbes, who was had approved them on first look; and again with WikiProject Finance, in hopes of finding someone else with specific expertise. Any suggestions on where (or with who) else I might try?

Also, while I don't mean to get involved with the Jack Welch articles, I noticed that an editor named Hipocrite has partly reverted your changes. I think Andrew (Hamilton83) will be responding later today, but figured it couldn't hurt to put on your radar now. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Modern Schools of Ninjutsu
Hi Silver Seren, Just letting you know I'd like to make a comment about the lead paragraph on Modern Schools of Ninjutsu in reply to the question in your edit comment about it. I don't have any interest in the subject per se and I won't revert anything you have edited but it would be nice to get more discussion going and have a look at the MOS on this point. I'll check here; my talk page and on the article's talk page if you would like to reply. Regards, Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Factseducado
Being accused of outing predated the IP slip up. If you read the RfC, the order is pretty clear. They used the IP after they requested to disappear, then wouldn't disappear and kept participating. There is a lot more to this case than meets the eye. Since I was accused of something that is legally a crime, I think I've been quite generous in my handling. You are free to disagree, but you probably should get better acquainted with the chronology first. As to providing bureaucrats with information, I have no idea as I don't have access to this. I've been trying to get them to submit the data to Arbcom since day one, since obviously, we need to know who did this, and obviously, I maintain it wasn't me. Others keep talking about sending without the email headers, but this would be pointless, as the headers contain the most useful information if you are trying to determine information. As for chilling, I would disagree, and in particular with the SPI. Again, if you trace this back far enough, you see the reasons why it was filed, which didn't originate with me. I appreciate your concern, but it is my opinion that you don't have all the information here. It is reams and reams of data, granted, but it is more complicated than it looks at first glance, which is why I asked an Arbcom to get involved early in the case. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously, it couldn't have been you, since you're not a bureaucrat, unless you're the admin that the bureaucrat supposedly gave info to? If not, then you wouldn't know what Factseducado's email is, so there's no way you could have sent the supposed email in question. But my advice is just to stay calm, don't make accusations like Hasteur is doing or get rude, it doesn't help. Things will be worked out over time and incivility isn't going to help it get there any quicker. Silver  seren C 23:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I had remained rather calm in the aftermath. I just wanted to let you know there is a great deal of complication to the issue.  The problem is that I am being accused, and I think I've been rather nice about the whole affair.  I'm not on Hasteur's side, nor do I ever communicate in the same manner that he chooses.  That is his choice, of course.  But I'm not sure that I have been incivil on the talk pages of either Elen or Facts, or at the SPI.  Feel free to point to a statement if I'm wrong.  I have been accused of a great deal more of misdeeds, while simply maintaining a resolution that is 100% consistent with policy:  The editor should substantiate or withdraw their statements.  I said I would accept either.  All of this drama is because they want to be unblocked, and still accuse me of something that is both worthy of being desysoped, and is a crime where I live.  This is not so trivial of a matter.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I've gotten in the bad habit of checking the talk pages of other admins for out of band conversations after I saw this by accident on Drmies' page. I would also think that someone protesting an indef for what appears to be potentially interfering with political aspirations might lead to some drama. Facts already wrote copiously about withdrawing their statement, and only seem to have given up again with mounting pressure from parties with much greater leverage to reveal more personal info in addition to this. The end result is that Facts is still indef block over mere suspicion, and you've been petitioning everywhere for similar sanctions against me for even longer, while your own hopes and dreams are still apparently well and alive. Agent00f (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Facts is still blocked because I have no way of telling whether the alleged event even happened, because Facts refuses to engage with anyone who might have the authority to investigate what happened and take appropriate action. Compounded by Facts telling a different tale on Wikipediocracy. This may be due to technical ignorance, general incompetence, mental incapacity, mendacity, abduction by aliens, or any manner of things, but without evidence I cannot tell. Your insistence that it is reluctance to reveal personal info is without substantiation. In any case, I don't need any of the personal information, I need the headers on the email to attempt to work out who sent it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's uncertain what further investigation would accomplish when the most severe punishment possible for guilt of having suspicions has already been implemented, especially when it seems pretty unlikely that someone with the motivation to send nastygrams with others' personal info would do it through their wiki email. Unless some idiot gets caught, that's irrelevant to personal suspicions anyway. BTW, it was never clarified before the request was only for headers, since it was repeated to "forward any emails to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org". Agent00f (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

New Pages
Hey Silver seren :). I've noticed you've been commenting in places like this on the work we're doing around new pages. You write that our plan is only marginally effective, but we haven't actually fully deployed any of it yet :). Am I missing something? Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just seen NPP people still complaining that the other methods aren't working. At least for what you have deployed, they don't seem very happy about it. Silver  seren C 18:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which people? :S. The feedback we've got for what is still a prototype has been almost universally positive. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I might be behind the times a bit then. The complaints were from about 2-3 weeks ago. If you've implemented new stuff since then, then I wouldn't know about the reception to it. Silver  seren C 20:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We have :). Who is it? I should give them a poke that there are new things to play around with. I have to say I'm a wee bit disappointed they didn't actually say something directly; I'm trying to engage the community. I've got a working prototype deployed on enwiki, we'll be pulling out all the stops advertising it tomorrow, and editors have been involved in development every step of the way. At some point, people have to meet us in the middle; it's useless complaining something doesn't work or isn't good unless you explain what would make it good, and do so to the people with the power to make that happen. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the NPP regulars, those four or five people. If you've gotten positive feedback from them already, then I guess i'm behind the times on this. Silver  seren C 20:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few regulars. Are we talking Blade of the Northern Lights, Kudpung, who? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon my popping in. I was just poking around to see what was up with New Page Patrol and when I saw Oliver had come to talk to you of course had to see why. :D Maybe the important thing is just asking them if they would mind talking about what's working and what isn't and what they'd like to see. :) Can you help with that, SilverSeren? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Okeyes: I am somewhat hesitant to name them now, since I don't want them to be bothered at this point if their opinion has changed. They likely wouldn't be happy about that. But, yes, Blade was one, I remember Maunus too. Not sure if Kudpung was in the discussion. But can we just say that things have apparently changed and not have this discussion anymore?
 * @Mdennis: How would I be able to help exactly? Silver  seren C 22:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you know who they are and hang out in places where they're talking about it (IRC?), I would guess you could ask them. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i'd rather not, since I appear to be wrong. Silver  seren C 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's even better, I guess. :D Hopefully, they'll wind up with a workable system that'll make things easier. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Eep! Sorry! Wrong account. it's late. I need to go do something else. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

British-Irish relations / Politics in the British Isles
I've replied to your comment at the re-listed AfD. I'd appreciate it if you could reply. Thanks, -- RA (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Commodity pool drafts
Hi Silver, I'm not sure how closely you've been following the discussion at Paid Editor Help regarding my drafts for the Commodity Pool Operator, Commodity trading advisor and Managed futures account articles. However, following a few rounds of review, there seems now to be consensus to move the drafts live. Is this the sort of move you tend to think an admin like Qwyrxian would need to make? I can ask him directly, if so. If not, is it one you might be comfortable making? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A histmerge would probably be the best bet for those articles, which an admin needs to do. Silver  seren C 08:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No probs, I've done just that. It would be nice to have another admin involved in the project, though. If Qwyrxian's not available, I may try my luck at the Help desk. WWB Too (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin
Would you accept a nomination for adminship? My first choice isn't confident about his chances. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure on what my chances would be. It depends on how many of the people that hate me that show up. Why do you want to nominate people, by the way? Silver  seren C 00:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to accomplish something before ArbCom bans me. I was planning to nominate users in the future due to the sysop nomination "drought", but I'm out of time. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you think a nomination by you while the Arbcom thing is ongoing will actually lead to more people opposing because of it? Silver  seren C 00:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be difficult for you to find one or more co-nominators? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. If you're really interested in doing this, then I guess it's okay. I should go see if Moonriddengirl will co-nominate. Just make sure to expect some people to oppose just because you're the nominator. I've seen it happen to other people before in other RfAs. Hopefully, the closing bureaucrat will ignore these, since they wouldn't have any actual relation to the nomination. And...well, thanks! This is rather unexpected, I must say. If you could wait until I have a co-nominator lined up, I would appreciate that. Silver  seren C 00:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can wait. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a request here, so you can feel free to keep an eye on it too. Silver  seren C 00:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I advise strongly against this. Having been an admin, and having not been an admin, I can tell you that being a non-admin is much better in almost every way. I also expect that your RfA could be quite a rough ride, but then maybe you don't care (which would be admirable). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh...I was rather nonchalant about the last one. Afterwards, some editors seemed surprised at how well I took it. I guess i'm just not like those that go on a Wikibreak afterwards and get emotional about it. If I don't get it, then I don't get it. No biggie. If I do get it, then I can help out with a number of backlogs and other areas that desperately need some extra admin involvement (like CCI). I mean, if administrator-ship is meant to be no big deal and merely a tool to better help out the encyclopedia, then I should treat it as such, right? Of course, it's still an honor, but it's not something I should be emotionally invested in. Silver  seren C 03:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely you're aware that "adminship is no big deal" is filed right alongside "the check is in the mail" and "your call is very important to us". Adminship is a very big deal indeed, which is much of the reason why RfA has become so dysfunctional. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Well, yeah, but we're not supposed to talk about it. :P) Silver  seren C 04:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You probably already saw it, but the latest Signpost story on adminship was interesting. User:King4057 00:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I did, and it was a very much an interesting read, though not all that surprising. I'm still debating at this point. I'm thinking waiting would be good for now, maybe for a few weeks, at least. Silver seren C 00:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)