User talk:Silver seren/Archive 5

DYK for The Incorrigible Dukane
Hi. I've nominated The Incorrigible Dukane, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Silent Film Posters
I found some great posters for these films but alas I dont have a Commons account, they're in External Links sections ___Koplimek (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * His Supreme Moment
 * A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (1921 film)
 * Disraeli (1921 film)
 * Wine (1924 film)
 * The Alaskan (1924 film)
 * A Sainted Devil
 * The Unholy Garden (1931 film)
 * Sinners In Heaven (1924 film)
 * Lilac Time (1928 film)
 * Eternal Love (1929 film)
 * The Lotus Eater (1921 film)
 * What's Wrong with the Women?(poster is on the IMDb website for the film)
 * Pleasures of the Rich
 * Obey The Law
 * Night Flight (1933 film)
 * You could just upload them directly to Wikipedia (though Commons is always preferable) by clicking on the "Upload File" button on the left hand side. Just make sure to fill out as many sections of the fair use rationale that you choose as possible, so that other users know where the image came, what article it is being used for, and the fact that the posters are the only appropriate image for the film in question. Feel free to refer to the rationale listing for this image in order to know how to word things, though you may want to also refer to other film poster images (since that one is a book cover, not a film poster). Silver  seren C 01:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool!, I didn't know that. I didn't know the status of artwork/lithographs etc as far as copyright infringement. Thanks a mil!Koplimek (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For very old films, it is quite possible that the images might be public domain, HOWEVER, and in case the image licensing has been renewed by subsequent distributors, it would be best to treat them as non-free images and provide proper free use rationales in the file uplaods. For example, check the rationales I used for the image I uploaded per your provided link) for The Incorrigible Dukane. Better safe than sorry.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just took care of Night Flight (1933 film).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Monark Springs, Missouri
-- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass
The article Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass for things which need to be addressed. -- Cirt (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Incorrigible Dukane
-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI comments
FYI - I have amended my comments about which you were "appalled" at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I made a mistake in my recollection of the events and I corrected it. I hope you'll take a look when you get a chance. Thanks. Snotty Wong  converse 02:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw it when you posted it and I apologize for how I worded my comment. I was just a bit surprised. Silver  seren C 05:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Col Warden
At this point the Col has accepted that what they did was unhelpful and agreed not to do it again so the whole thing is moot but the pattern of deterioration in his behaviour is continuing. Sensible people who he trusts need to speak to him about breaking the pattern before he goes too far and gets banned. We have all seen it before but the blame isn't with me or other editors, it has to fall squarely on the Col and those who nod and wink at his disruption and enable further deterioration by telling him that his bad behaviour is OK. He clearly needs to either take a break or refocus his perspective. Spartaz Humbug! 08:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Todd Hanson on the top of your userpage
It needs a disambiguation. I highlight all disambig links in yellow so seeing a single life preserver with a background irritates me to no end. Please fix it or YOU will be the one needing rescuing. BEWARE. (I hope you realize that this is overtly sarcasm; you never know with the Internet. Do fix it, though, or the OCD part of me will make me lose my mind.) –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 11:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for pointing that out to me, I would have never known. Silver  seren C 18:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You have  new messages ( last change ). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Article rescue
appears to be a widely documented propaganda technique, if you feel up to it. Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Silver  seren C 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Banana powder
I commend you for outstanding work to improve this article. I just had 10 minutes available before work to take a peek at possible references. Well done. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Silver  seren C 21:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Two other articles
Would you be interested in working on either or both of these articles? Green Home and Michelle Kaufmann. I've had to defend both in AfD debates recently, both need work and my skills and experience aren't yet the best on such projects. I did some editing on the first, and my role was mostly diplomatic in calming an edit war on the second. Let me know if you have time or interest. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if Green Home can be saved. I mean, what makes it different from green building? A lot of the information is just going to be a parallel to that article. Silver  seren C 20:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I discussed why I think we need two articles at some length in the AfD debate. To summarize, green building is the domain of professionals involved in new construction of a wide variety of buildings. Large commercial buildings are very different from homes.  Green home, on the other hand, goes far beyond new construction, and includes remodel, retrofit and all the decisions involved in running a home daily.  It is practiced by homeowners and renters, not by professionals.  References on the two topics are highly differentiated. Your thoughts? Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs to be started from scratch. That's the only way you're going to show to the people in the AfD that it's a notable subject. Get rid of everything and start using properly formatted reliable sources in it. I'll see what I can do for it. Silver  seren C 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You did an outstanding job, and I commend you. I did some work on Michelle Kaufmann as well.  Thank you very much. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Article rescue
This is a quite bad article, but it's rescuable. Two good starter sources appear to be, which contains a long list of alternative names and three alternatives as to origin, and , which explains what mumijo isn't and which propounds the biological origin. But you might want to first check out whether there's a good reason not to just redirect to shilajit (q.v.). It's not a name that lists, and there might be cross-cultural subtleties. Uncle G (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Silk Purse Award

 * Thanks! :o Is this another one of your special barnstars? I've never seen this one either. Silver  seren C 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I make 'em up as needed. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi there. You might want to check if the sources you are adding to this article fulfill the requirements of WP:RS. The sources you have added (modernghana & ghanaweb) are questionable sources, they are operated by just one person (see here & here, there is no editorial oversight and no reputation for fact checking & accuracy as stipulated by WP:RS. There are reliable sources available for the article, and it will not help matters if questionable sources are continually added into the article. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah...I thought they were reliable. They come up a lot on google news and are used all across Wikipedia. Alright, i'll stay away from them and try to focus on AllAfrica and sources like that. Silver  seren C 23:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately some Wikipedia articles use these questionable sources. Basically there are lots of reliable sources from African newspapers (internet version) for Nollywood actresses & actors; finding them, however, is the real challenge, as some of the news articles sometimes do not appear in the search results of google, which is why the articles have to be sought after from within the newspapers' website search function. Amsaim (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, i'm glad the AfD was closed. It would be kind of ridiculous for an article on one of the Great Six in Nigerian film to get deleted. Silver  seren C 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Banana powder
Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...that was fast. Thanks! Silver  seren C 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Article rescue 2010-12-04
This is rescuable, if one is prepared to carefully pick apart the original research and transplant the actual academic analyses of the text that exists. Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not good at dealing with OR or Copyvios. I'm just good at adding and incorporating references. :/ Silver  seren C 18:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks
Many thanks for your gracious note on my talkpage. Awaiting instructions from you as to what articles to work on next. :) Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Katy Munger
Hi Silver... I was impressed with the work you put into this previously unreferenced BLP, so have nominated it for DYK under the new rules for newly-referenced BLPs here. Regards, EdChem (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks. I didn't think it was long enough though to meet the minimum requirements, even after adding references. Silver  seren C 20:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - the pre-expansion version was 367 characters, and the post-version is over 1500, so it satisfies the minimum size and x2 expansion requirements for a newly-sourced BLP. Of course, that doesn't guarantee acceptance for a main page appearance - that's up to the reviewers - but it is certainly eligible.  Feel free to work on the hook or to suggest a better one.  Regards, EdChem (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a potential alt on there. Silver  seren C 04:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism
I appreciate your effort, but I believe you are trying to save the unsavable.

You have proposed creating something like Communist terrorism (term). I cannot see what benefit this would give above a disambiguation page. The most important reason for deletion is that the POV title is a POV magnet for all kind of synthesis and POV-pushing. Even if you created the best article imaginable, it would not last, but would soon be turned into POV crap.

Nothing has been lost however. The content of Communist terrorism has been moved to other articles. It does not need rescuing. I cannot see what Wikipedia could benefit from having an additional article at a place where logic says no article is needed. I believe that once you familiarize yourself with the sources you realize that all that can be said on the subject is better said in the other existing articles. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, thanks? I agree with the overall point that you're making, but I see no reason why the article can't be a substantial disambiguation page, in the sense that it's more than a bunch of bulleted links to other articles. My version will essentially be a disambiguation page, just with more content in it. Silver  seren C 20:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Epee makes a good point on the AfD, that the article being a POV magnet has nothing to do with the notability of it. Arguing that the article should be deleted due to the fact that it attracts POV means that we should delete our article on abortion or any other contentious subject. Silver  seren C 20:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden RFC/U
FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. Snotty Wong  express 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tart Noir
Courcelles 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

mail

 * And since you've been on board since 2006, and have over 8200 edits, its time to modify your userpage, to show your new status.. pick your favorite of the veteran userboxesm and perhaps even choose to use my own unserbox template, h

Hopefully seen as encouraging non-conrontational rescue of articles...

(Now in page history)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Award of Good Fellowship

 * I wonder if it looks weird to others that almost all of my barnstars are from you. :P Silver  seren C 22:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What? No one else is appreciative of your obvious good efforts? Sharing a barnstar is an easy way to say "thanks". More folks should consider the fellowship that is Wikipedia. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Article rescue 2010-12-09
It's an unsourced biography, if that sways you. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad sources
There are several biographies above. You didn't need to use a self-published source written by the article's creator. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot
 * List of banned users
 * Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot
 * List of banned users
 * D: Darn it, they're getting sneakier with those. It looked legitimate and not like one of those Wikipedia mirror books. Silver  seren C 19:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the various self-publication companies as the publisher is a good warning flag to employ. If you see it, stop and check the author out thoroughly; and look for a better source.  Credentialed experts (such as Milton Halsey Thomas, erstwhile curator at Columbia University and archivist at Princeton University) and recognized university presses are far more preferable.  The joy of historical subjects akin to what we were discussing (as opposed to modern subjects) is that if something truly is a part of the historical record, there will be properly credentialed historians discussing it at length.  Aymatth2 and I have been playing a small game of chase-the-biographer of late, where I've been looking for which authors in the citations themselves have biographies written by the world.  Such research into each author brings home the point (especially with all of the authorlinks at William Horman) should that be needed that the identity of the author is an important thing to think about. But I spotted this case simply because I've experienced several relevant AFD discussions, such as, , and of course . Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

FedEx Express Flight 647
Thanks for your input at the AfD discussion. It looks like we've got another pair of editors like MickMacNee who feel they have to argue every point and counter-point raised. Suggest we both now disengage and let other editors give their rationales for retention or deletion. Should the ARS banned banner be added to the article? Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we've argued the points enough, yeah. Hopefully some Wikiproject: Aircraft people get in there at some point. I'm not sure what this ARS banned thing is that you are talking about. What is it? Silver  seren C 10:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my typo, I meant banner - the template used on articles to show that ARS have taken the article under its wing, so to speak. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean a rescue template? I would advise against it. I think it's not necessary and we don't want people shouting "canvassing" at us again. Just let it run its course. Silver  seren C 11:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. The notices I posted at the three WPs were neutrally-worded notifications. My post at ARS WP was merely asking if the article was worthy of rescue. Had there been no response to the notice, then it would not have mattered. At no point have I suggested to any editor that they should !vote to keep the article, which would be canvassing. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't matter how neutral we do things. They will still accuse us of canvassing regardless. :/ Silver  seren C 11:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, now stop canvassing y'all, and give me the link to the discussion so I can vote delete. What's it about? Hey Mj, how are you? Ran into any windmills recently? Drmies (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Lulu and pseudoscience
Hey Silver, in regards to this edit, allow me to make a few remarks. First, something published through Lulu is not automatically bad, but it's best to stay on the safe side: the book you cite is pseudoscientific. Second, and I learned this only today, the person who created the article, with its incorrect title, is the author of the book you cited, User:Libb Thims a/k/a User:Sadi Carnot. For more information, please see Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot and this AN discussion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That sort of thing has gotten a lot more subtle. It's really annoying to have to check for all of the possible things that could invalidate a book before using it. Silver  seren C 04:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cablegate contents
You removed a fragment of text that I will be readding in a moment. You give as reason the lack of a RS, but with the availability of the primary source to everybody who wants to look, a single secondary source, no matter how obscure, suffices, since it is simple to check the statements for oneself. I checked these same things, and find precisely the same (of course) as privetbank. Moreover, this fragment of text gives the explanation for what is meant by the "deleted" in the release table. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the obscurity of the secondary source, but the reliability of it, per WP:RS. I don't have a problem with you adding it back in, but I ask that you try and look for a reliable source that discusses the information as well. Otherwise, other users are probably going to remove it. Silver  seren C 09:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The same source is our RS for the release table (of which you removed the last entry, maybe by mistake?, all other entries have the same source). I feel that demands on secondary sources can be more relaxed when the primary source is available. Anyway, will add further sources if I happen to find any. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, other users are going to bring up WP:PRIMARY, which deprecates using primary sources for anything beyond an external link. Silver  seren C 09:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But the primary sources are not used in any other way here. The point is that the easy availability of the primary sources, combined with the factual nature of the statements made (which cables are found in which torrent file) makes it less important which authority reports on contents and differences. The WP content must be, and is this case is, eminently so, verifiable. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Biography of a living person with poor sources
You're focussing on these now, right? Well this one is in need of some attention. It's been lacking sources for some several years, and the single-purpose accounts keep removing BLP sources. I've dug up some actual biographies that can be used, as you can see. The Saturday Review article has a fair amount of early life information. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742

Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative
Hi Silver seren. I appreciate that you are working to expand the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article, but please be very cautious about sourcing? Especially if information is removed by another editor, it should not be restored unless accompanied by a reliable source. In these edits, you re-inserted unsourced and poorly sourced information. This is a violation of Wikipedia policies, so please don't do that again (not to mention that you might soon run afoul of WP:3RR). The best way to proceed here, is to ensure that any information which is re-added to the article, be accompanied by a reliable source. Thanks, --Elonka 15:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I find that the 2008 Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative list as transmitted in a secret diplomatic cable to the Secretary of State and released by Wikileaks is a solid, definitive source for the article about Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. The "unsourced" items came from this reliable source.  I've been debating the sourcing issues with Elonka on User:Wnt and to some extent at the article talk page.  I believe that Silver seren's actions in restoring content were entirely appropriate. Wnt (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was in the middle of sourcing that content when Ohconfucius came along and removed that information, along with a large amount of sourced material, such as the Overview section. I have taken him to AN3 if you want to look there for a more complete explanation of what happened, with diffs. The removal of that content is something that should be discussed beforehand if another user disputes its removal, which I did, but Ohconfucius refused to engage on the talk page until after reverting three times and then, not until a few minutes after that. Believe me, I know how 3RR works and I will/would not go over it. Silver  seren C 19:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I can appreciate that things were moving quickly at the time. Do be aware though, that when there is a disagreement as to whether information should stay in an article or be removed, the tiebreaker is related to sources.  Any editor may remove unsourced information from an article at any time, and the burden is then on the editor seeking to restore information, to include reliable sources with it. Talkpage discussion is not required before removing unsourced information:  It can be removed immediately, by any editor. Best practice, of course, is usually to add a fact tag or indicate that citations are needed, before removing the information.  But even so, immediate removal is still authorized, and even encouraged in many cases. --Elonka 20:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was a highly inappropriate action, since I was in the middle of sourcing it. Furthermore, there was already a discussion started on the talk page about the list that the user could have joined in on. But that doesn't really matter anymore, since I found this. Secondary sourcing for every item on the list. Silver  seren C 21:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Business Insider appears to be more of a blog, not a "reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", so I wouldn't recommend leaning on it too hard. To check though, you may wish to start a thread at WP:RSN. --Elonka 21:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As an example of using a poor source on the article. A morning radio show is not a reliable source. Please act to rectify this, by either including reliable secondary sources, or removing unsourced and poorly sourced information.  If reliable secondary sources become available later, the information can always be re-added.  If you continue to add poor sources to the article, or edit war to restore unsourced information, your account access may be blocked from Wikipedia.  To avoid this, it is essential that you stick with using only high quality sources. --Elonka 04:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have put up that source as well for question on RSN. And, could you please tone down the policy jargon a bit? I'm not a new editor, I know how things work. Silver  seren C 05:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I should note that Elonka just recently created User:Elonka/Work1, which I've rebutted at User:Wnt/Work1. Also note her comment at User talk:Viriditas.  So I think we're coming up on another round of debate... if you can suggest improvements to my rebuttal they'd be most appreciated. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to bother arguing with the two of them anymore. Their objections to the use of the primary source have been rebutted by the use of the source from Business Insider, which has been approved as a reliable source at RSN. If they're going to try and go the classified information route, let them try. The most they would be able to do is make us take out the primary link to the cable, which really wouldn't be a major issue. It's something we shouldn't have to do, according to policy, and WP:PRIMARY, but if it comes to that, it's really not a big deal. The notability of the article and of the inclusion of the list has been shown. That's all there is to it. Silver  seren C 02:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Business Insider source most definitely has not been approved as a reliable source at WP:RSN, but you seem to be saying that anyway at WP:AN. This is highly inappropriate behavior, and a clear double-standard: If someone says something you don't like, you accuse them of being involved, but even though you are highly involved, you seem to feel that you have the authority to declare the result of a thread at RSN?  No, it doesn't work like that.  Please correct your statement at WP:AN. --Elonka 03:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to take it that route, what gives you the authority to declare the consensus of the discussions you linked to at AN? Especially when, reading through then, it is quite clear that your consensus is faulty. Other users are already pointing this out at the AN discussion. Silver  seren C 03:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Katy Munger
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue hair reference
Can you explain how the guy you're sourcing the 1943 hair fashions of Paris to here is in any way a reliable source? Is he an expert on hair? AniMate 04:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think making an observation on a style being prevalent requires you to be an expert in that style. But feel free to remove that sentence if you disagree. It's really not that important to the article. Silver  seren C 04:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't have to be an expert to make an observation, but for that observation to be notable or even true you should source it to someone who knows what they're talking about. We can find any number of people who observe something and offer on opinion, it doesn't make it notable. AniMate  04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the sentence. I don't know why you said you were moving the information when you just deleted it. That seems like a fallacious edit summary. Silver  seren C 04:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was working in sections, not the whole article. I haven't deleted anything. AniMate  04:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Jok Church, the artist you have attributed to creating Marge Simpson actually didn't. If you read the reference you cited more carefully, you would see that he's attributing a character in You Can With Beakman and Jax to being inspired by Superman and not Marge Simpson. AniMate  04:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I mis-read it. I've fixed the section in the article. Better now? Silver  seren C 04:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. You still credit him with creating Marge Simpson. She's Matt Groening's creation. AniMate  04:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the very kind words. Sustenance for a month. Happy holidays, Novickas (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Janette Luu
Hello! Your submission of Janette Luu 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! The Interior (Talk) 20:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick rewrite. Have an additional question about the hook that i would appreciate your input on. Cheers,  The Interior (Talk) 21:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job Silver. I was away for a bit.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
I have asked that you be given a WP:DIGWUREN warning. See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Janette Luu
Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment in RfC
Silver seren, in the RfC (regarding use of classified documents in Wikipaedia), you said:

"I completely agree with this. This is how sources should be used across all of Wikipedia in terms of information or articles that are based on a statement of opinion. It doesn't preclude not using such sources, it just means that they have to be used correctly"

Did you perhaps mean:

"I completely agree with this. This is how sources should be used across all of Wikipedia in terms of information or articles that are based on a statement of opinion. It doesn't preclude not using such sources, it just means that they have to be used correctly"?  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 00:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...yes... I think. ._. Whichever one means that I think we should be using the sources, but we must make sure to use them correctly. Silver  seren C 00:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought as much. It's a triple-negative (doesn't - preclude - not), so it is easily done.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 00:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I went and reworded my response so it's less confusing. Silver  seren C 00:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Thyrosafe, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources you added support the redirect you removed, not a separate topic on Thyrosafe. The sources are about potassium iodide in general not Tyrosafe in particular.   There also appears to be a consistent and proven pattern of close coordination and tag-teaming going on here.  These non-notable topics are obviously being created to add false weight to supporting an article on the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative based on "what links here"; without these non-notable articles linking to the list, it is clearly not notable.  This warning message is being left on your talk page because of this ongoing behavioral problem. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See my reply on the article talk page. Silver  seren C 08:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw it, and I also saw that you unilaterally restored the article after three editors came out supporting the redirect. It's all in the record.  You can deny the tag teaming and the coordination, but this is the second article created by Wnt where you've done this.  Hardly a "coincidence".  Not to worry, as I am no longer participating in the content area of things, but keeping a very close eye on who does what, when, and  how.  You received the warning because you have been repeatedly informed about the necessity of using good reliable secondary sources about a topic, and you have once again ignored those concerns. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)



--Nuujinn (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

South Park (season 13)
Hey. You had weighed in at the first FAC for South Park (season 13), which got hung up largely because of the image. Now there is a second FAC discussion ongoing, where once again the image is dominating the conversation. At the FA delegate's suggestion, I am asking everyone who participated in the first FAC to weigh in once again, if it's not too much trouble, but please comment on the full set of FA criteria rather than just the image fair use rationale, so we can work toward a consensus on the overall FAC. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

/sublist|List of Supernatural episodes
The sublist template is only used when there are multiple season pages being transcluded onto a single list of all episodes. That's not the case for List of Pucca episodes. Also, you've copied the template from the seasons of the US show Supernatural. This is Pucca. It's different and doesn't need to be formatted this way.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted a more complete format, though I am admittedly not very knowledgeable on how they work. I just copied and pasted. And I just noticed that when the Supernatural line was removed, the summary section disappeared, though it looks like you fixed that. So we're all good. :) Silver  seren C 20:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Apology
I do apologize for this diff. I have retracted it. It was not meant to imply that you were an idiot, but I immediately upon reading it imagined that you might take it that way. jps (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Pucca

 * Thank you! :o Silver  seren C 23:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Merry Christmas (: BE——Critical __Talk 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To you too. I hope you're having a good day so far. :3 Silver  seren C 00:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally, just about to sit down to dinner. MMMMMMM :D BE——Critical __Talk 00:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Probably should put it back in
Honestly, I'm not concerned about it setting a bad precedent. If Wikipedia worked that way, we could have cited Parks and Recreation (season 1) and Supernatural (season 2) as precedents for an FA that does include an infobox image, and that would have ended the debate. In any event, as I've said before, I personally feel the image should be included, but an FA delegate determined there was not a consensus to keep the image in, and I don't think it's fair or right that the FA die because of this one issue. I suppose you could ask whether he feels the consensus has been reached yet at the second FAC? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gottlob Espenlaub
Hello! Your submission of Gottlob Espenlaub 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!

I suggested an alternative, which was approved by someone else. But please check if you agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks
Nice work so far on the Hogg article. Dunno why Mathsci made those snide comments, as I don't see that user making the sweeping contributory edits you have done. I'm looking forward to seeing what you finally do with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdring (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You want me to do more with it? D: But...I already had to suffer through researching it the first time. It's not the sort of book that you enjoy researching unless there's something very wrong with you. Silver  seren C 20:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah, yeah, there is that. It was a rather large article at one point, though. Very few (if any) refs, of course. I would take it on myself, but I simply don't have the time. Far too many other commitments. I'm very impressed by the work you've done, though. Kdring (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you consider the fact that it was rather large due to the extensive plot summary and character descriptions, which were completely and utterly nauseating, then yeah. :/ Silver  seren C 21:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)
Hey Silverseren. So, it seems at least for now, the image is back in South Park (season 13). I'm pretty much done weighing in on the image, and am going to allow whatever happens with it to happen. However, I wanted to encourage you, if you can spare the time, to continue reviewing the article with regard to the entire FA criteria. I very much agree with and appreciate what you said at the FAC about how the whole discussion has really turned into an argument over the image rather than a review. The FA delegate has made clear it will not pass unless the entire FA criteria is reviewed, so I was hoping would be willing to review it in terms of that entire criteria, and state on the page whether you feel it meets it and why, or whether you feel it doesn't and provide some feedback as to what needs improvement. If you've already reviewed it, perhaps you could state clearly why you feel that it does indeed meet that entire criteria. The article doesn't have a chance at passing unless it's reviewed according to the entire FA criteria like this. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

New messages
Guoguo12 --Talk--  02:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Graffiti4Hire for deletion
The article Graffiti4Hire is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Graffiti4Hire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Them From  Space  21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are you resurrecting promotional articles from banned users anyhow?  Them From  Space  21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I asked Brandon, how is it promotional? It seems like a normal Wikipedia article that you'd see for any other company. Silver  seren C 21:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This kinda sorts out the copyright/attribution issues - A l is o n  ❤ 21:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Graffiti4Hire for deletion
The article Graffiti4Hire is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Graffiti4Hire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...um, I was notified above already. Silver  seren C 21:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Coolidge Parlin
Thank you Victuallers (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)