User talk:Silverhill

Looking for articles to work on?
Hello, Silverhill. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 15:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brain Wave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Los Alamos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

July 2020
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RexxS (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please don't fragment discussions.
 * You wrote: I am *not* "repeatedly changing content" one way or the other. This was my single contact with, and contribution to, the page
 * This edit and this edit shows you inserting and re-inserting exactly the same content. Please don't insult me by claiming those constituted a "single contact with, and contribution to, the page". Your initial edit was reverted with an edit summary of no Wp:RS. You could at least have followed the link to Reliable sources if you didn't understand that. When your edit was reverted, your next step should be to open discussion on the talk page, not to simply re-insert the content. We have a convention, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and you would do well to study it.
 * The reason your edit was reverted was not that the other editor thought the page would be better off without more "cultural-influence references", it's that they felt it would be better off without unsourced material being added. I hope that is clearer now. --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. RexxS (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please don't fragment discussions.
 * You wrote: I am *not* "repeatedly changing content" one way or the other. This was my single contact with, and contribution to, the page
 * This edit and this edit shows you inserting and re-inserting exactly the same content. Please don't insult me by claiming those constituted a "single contact with, and contribution to, the page". Your initial edit was reverted with an edit summary of no Wp:RS. You could at least have followed the link to Reliable sources if you didn't understand that. When your edit was reverted, your next step should be to open discussion on the talk page, not to simply re-insert the content. We have a convention, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and you would do well to study it.
 * The reason your edit was reverted was not that the other editor thought the page would be better off without more "cultural-influence references", it's that they felt it would be better off without unsourced material being added. I hope that is clearer now. --RexxS (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding -- I had various things that needed attending meanwhile.
 * Sorry also for the fragmenting; since the separate notifications I received were from both you and PepperBeast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pepperbeast), it made sense to me to respond to each of you separately (on your separate Talk pages). Please tell me a method of contact that would be more efficient / more approved / etc.
 * I remain baffled by the assertion that I made multiple insertions or reversions, since the article's Revision History page does not support the assertion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gr%C3%A1inne_N%C3%AD_Mh%C3%A1ille&action=history . (Based on this, and on my own memory, I said that I had had only that one contact.)
 * I regret that my contribution was unsourced; I did try to find an online reference to the named album, but it is apparently out of print and even Google seems unable to turn up a reference (such as: by whom, or where, it was being sold). As I said, I have no problem with this admittedly minor contribution being deemed "not notable enough" to include.
 * However, I wish to request clarification on the criteria for Notability. I have looked at the WP:Notability page, but it seems to discuss things at the level of whole articles, instead of smaller components of articles. Should I take it that components inherit the notability criteria for articles? (It would make sense for that to be the case.)
 * Silverhill (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't apologise, there's no deadline on Wikipedia,
 * When I write on someone's talk page, it goes on to my watchlist and I won't remove it for a week or two, so I'll see any response you make on the same talk page. Optionally you can use the reply to template, as I've done at the start of this post. That will notify you that I've replied to you (of course you get a notification of any post on your own talk page anyway, but I wanted to demonstrate how you can get another editor's attention on any page).
 * Wikipedia works by collaboration and it is quite normal for another editor to join a conversation between other editors. In fact we rely on that happening when the original two editors disagree, and we value other opinions in helping resolve disagreements. In any case, it is difficult for a third person to follow a discussion if it's spread over multiple pages, so we generally encourage editors to keep discussions in a single place.
 * I'm baffled that when reading the article's history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gr%C3%A1inne_N%C3%AD_Mh%C3%A1ille&action=history you can't see the two separate edits you made at:
 * 06:02, 12 July 2020 Silverhill 30,109 bytes +121 Cultural impact: added 'Molly and The Tinker' mention
 * 22:08, 13 July 2020 Silverhill 30,109 bytes +121 Reverted 1 edit by Pepperbeast (talk) to last revision by Silverhill (TW)
 * Can't you see that you made those two distinct additions of the same, unsourced material?
 * Let me try to explain about the difference between notability and article content policies. WP:Notability is the guideline Wikipedians use to decide whether a topic should have a stand-alone article or not. So the subject of Gráinne Ní Mháille is notable, because it has significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.
 * However, the content of an article is decided by the policies WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research. So to add something to an article, it must be found in an existing, published, reliable source, and be relevant to the article.
 * Now, it may well be that Molly and The Tinker's song is relevant to Gráinne Ní Mháille, but without a source that can be checked, we can't satisfy the need to verify the information. I hope that makes it clearer to you why your addition was reverted. When it was reverted the first time, you should not have simply re-reverted because that is the start of an edit-war, and that was the point of my original note to you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "...the two separate edits you made at: 06:02, 12 July 2020 [and] 22:08..."
 * This is the weird part. My next-most recent involvement with reversion, according to my Contributions log, was five years ago (and was a minor thing, easily resolved). It has never been my way to get into needless contention over the content here. There is one possibility that has come to mind recently, though: on the 13th, I had a bad system crash. The browser state was not restored in its normal fashion, and it is possible that the Edit window was still open at the time of the crash. If so, the state restoration may have -- as I have seen it do with some other sites -- accidentally repeated a (previously) pending action (such as "Save Edit").
 * "...the two separate edits you made at: 06:02, 12 July 2020 [and] 22:08..."
 * This is the weird part. My next-most recent involvement with reversion, according to my Contributions log, was five years ago (and was a minor thing, easily resolved). It has never been my way to get into needless contention over the content here. There is one possibility that has come to mind recently, though: on the 13th, I had a bad system crash. The browser state was not restored in its normal fashion, and it is possible that the Edit window was still open at the time of the crash. If so, the state restoration may have -- as I have seen it do with some other sites -- accidentally repeated a (previously) pending action (such as "Save Edit").
 * This is the weird part. My next-most recent involvement with reversion, according to my Contributions log, was five years ago (and was a minor thing, easily resolved). It has never been my way to get into needless contention over the content here. There is one possibility that has come to mind recently, though: on the 13th, I had a bad system crash. The browser state was not restored in its normal fashion, and it is possible that the Edit window was still open at the time of the crash. If so, the state restoration may have -- as I have seen it do with some other sites -- accidentally repeated a (previously) pending action (such as "Save Edit").

That's all I can think of. I'm certainly trying not to have this be a "he said/she said" type of affair. (I know that "the past does not predict the future", but I still would like to note that my reversion history has been sparse, minor, and not recent.) Peace?
 * Thanks.

Silverhill (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with... Back in 2014, I created a small article on Isaac Asimov's short story "Star Light". I did not put it on my Watch list, since I did not expect that it would attract much (if any) editorial attention Thus I did not immediately notice when a significant edit was made in 2019 (12 Mar 2019, 09:01; by User:Attilios).

When I did eventually look at the article and its edit history, I was annoyed by the fact of, and the brusqueness of, the change. A month ago I posted the following on Attilios's Talk page:

"Greetings, Attilios! I noticed that you had removed the latter section of my article on Star_Light_(short_story), which showed the derivation of the story's title. I am puzzled as to why you felt that this needed to be done, since you left no explanatory comment.

Since I see no reason why this change should have happened, I wish to revert it (but without getting into needless conflict, such as being accused of starting an Edit War). Please inform me of your thoughts here.

Thank you.

I figured that a month's time was enough to allow for such things as busy personal schedules that might get in the way of making a reply, before trying to get a Higher Authority (an Admin) involved. If a case can be made for the removal of my explanatory material, I would of course like to see it, so as to reach some kind of agreement. If the case cannot be made, I wish to revert the change without (as I said) being accused of starting trouble.

I know, of course, that you cannot force Attilios to respond; so, in the absence of such, what is the best course to follow, please? Silverhill (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * So this rev happened in 2019 (diff), however I think it was the right thing to do because it removed original research. sthg (literally 'something') is less helpful than no summary at all imo, and they have continued using this summary to this day. An admin has warned them about it. @Attilios hasn't responded in the month since you messaged them, but I would have liked them to. I wouldn't re-add the information unless you can find a source that supports the claim. SWinxy (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's the courteous thing to do to respond to you, and they should stop with this tedious edit summary they're using. That said, the removal of the unsourced content you added was fine. Unless you have a reliable source, I'd leave it out. Katietalk 19:34, 27 March 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Silverhill. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Carla Ulbrich, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see );
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see );
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your message on my Talk page. I suggest you use the guidance at WP:COIREQ to make an edit request on the article's Talk page. I think you will come up against WP:COMMONNAME - you will need reliable sources using the new name. Hope that helps, Tacyarg (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For a reliable source, would Ms. Ulbrich's personal declaration -- or maybe a link to the portion of her Facebook page, where she mentioned the stage-name change -- be enough, if submitted to whoever is in charge of such?
 * (There is no formal, announced-in-the-newspaper kind of reference, just her announcement to her group.)
 * Silverhill (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, you need to add the template for a CoI request to the Talk page so that other editors see it. The guidance explains how to do this. I don't think her personal declaration would be enough, no, as it's about what she is called in reliable sources - see the commonname link above - but other editors may disagree. The teahouse is a good resource if you want advice. Tacyarg (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops! I have now put in the "edit COI" tag (with the double braces) at the top of the entry (above the == edit request == line that the system put in for me).
 * Let's see what happens...
 * Silverhill (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)