User talk:Silver seren: Difference between revisions

User:Silver seren/Userpageheader

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Well...here's my talk page. If anyone has questions about an edit I did, please put it here. --Silver seren 14:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Dream Focus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What do you define as 'unconstructive' and why was that post 'vandalism'?

I am trying to up date the things Richard has done..not promotion filled.. but actual projects he has been involved in and you keep deleting them.

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.

Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.

Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01829/middleeast_map21_1829864a.jpg

Hello, please share your thoughts on this rename request: Talk:2011_Yemeni_protests#Uprising.3F --Smart30 (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, if there's a rescue tag on a page when you remove the AfD header, if you could also remove the tag, it would be appreciated. It saves someone else having to remember that it's there and remove it themselves. Silverseren^C 02:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Silver,

Thanks for the note. I'll try to remember to do so in the future. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[With dignity ]. Zilla slow typist because of claws. [Zilla shows little Silver the long, gleaming claws. ] Hardly fair to expect her to post fast like little users! [1] [2] bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Without making a great point of it, perhaps I missed that the AfD had already been closed, and Bish's alterations were, perhaps, contrary to normal usage. To be honest, it doesn't matter that much, except that the AfD should be preserved as it was at closure for the purposes of having a proper DRV, should it arise. To subsequently change it gives editors/analysts an unnecessarily high hill to climb, and I concede that you are correct, although Bish is not thus necessarily incorrect. Thanks. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. The "lighten up" comments really should have been heeded. Tex (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, humor accounts do not give the right to make edits that break policy just in the name of humor. Silverseren^C 01:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...rights"? What "rights"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has the right to edit, since this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but if you edit disruptively, then you voluntarily forfeit that right. Silverseren^C 19:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The intent to disrupt may lead to an involuntary cessation of editing privileges, but there is a huge difference between Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:I just don't like it - other than one is a behavioural guideline and the other an essay. Bishonen/Bishzilla was not acting in an effort to deprecate the encyclopedia, and because you did not like the fact she posted after another volunteer editor had decided to archive the discussion (and those are not the types of actions that are set in stone, anyway) is not sufficient reason to summarily revert a good faith edit. You may have even been right, to the letter, in the stance you took - but you appear to have been reverted by a good many people who were under a different impression. It might have been more productive to discuss this disparity of viewpoints than to have edit warred to the point of 3RR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. It is a common known fact that you are not supposed to edit archived discussions, especially not archived AfD discussion for reasons i've already outlined elsewhere. It is common practice to revert any edit made to an archived AfD and i'm sure you've seen it done multiple times yourself. The editors that were reverting my reversion were not doing so because they disagreed with this common practice, but because they were defending their friend Bishonen against me. It helps that the reverting editors were also editors that i've had disagreements with in the past, so it was just another reason for them to be counterpoint to what I was doing. I sincerely doubt there is a disparity of viewpoints in terms of editing archived discussions and more of direct actions to support your friends and in turn, go against someone you dislike. Oh, and I didn't edit war to the point of 3RR, I only reverted twice, while Tifo also reverted the other editors somewhat by moving the comment below the discussion to show that it's separate. Then, Jack, who dislikes me for my recent points of calling him out on his disruption, reverted it back in again. Silverseren^C 20:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between something that is archived by a bot, or manually, in which a section is taken from the live page and placed in a subpage - often after an elapse of hours or days after the last comment, and when one editor places a set of {{archive}} templates upon content when they think the discussion (should have) ended. The latter is an editorial decision, and as such may be reverted or ignored if desired when making a comment within moments of that action. There are many instances of editors placing comments after the templates are introduced, to be seen in the "real" archives. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The type of archiving that you are talking about, such as on talk pages or at ANI, are different, as they can be unarchived and a discussion continued if users wish to do so. However, AfD discussions are not like this. As i'm sure you know, AfDs cannot be unarchived, they can be reopened for another seven days, but that isn't the same thing and you are not supposed to put votes into the discussion, even inane ones, after they have been closed and archived. Silverseren^C 23:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Institute of Business Administration, University of Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Esha795 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi Silver, Following you for the last year or so.Need your opinion on this

Institute of Business Administration is a business school under University of Dhaka. Recently the school made big headlines in Bangladesh, as a professor was charged with terrorism charges for founding the organization Hizb ut Tahrir and was reported to have played a major role in BDR mutiny.International news agencies like BBC carried news on the professor and the organization and although it was banned by the government, the professor discharged zihadi leaflets among students in almost all universities in Bangladesh.BBC also reported it was having a major influence on the student community of Bangladesh.

As University of Bristol and DePauw university had major controversies and these controversies were not only added to their main wikipage but also had a separate wikipage just on the controversy.So to maintain neutral point of view of the article which has many unreferenced sentences and opinions i added this page .However one wiki user maintains COI and repeatedly deletes the section i have added .

The user in trying to defend the institution and not maintaining a NOPV has told "Why don't i add a rape incident in NSU's wikipage which in this case is a competing institute of IBA" Also since the professor and his organization had negative influence on the students and was with IBA although the Govt banned the organization is a bone of contention. The user Esha795 is not able to fully justify his stand on this and deletes even the "request"

which i added so that fellow wikiusers can give a neutral opinion on the topic.

Can you please advise on this and do the needful? Thanks Dualumni (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Flinders Petrie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Toshio Yamaguchi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Silver seren. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Σ _☭^★ 21:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at ShawnIsHere's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello! Your submission of Salter's duck 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! Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For dealing with the OhInternet/Encyclopedia Dramatica/.Ch mess everyday for Weeks The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :D Silverseren^C 20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some really thankless work in some areas of EnWP. So i always try and give credit where it is due. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am 107.25.238.136, and I was rude earlier. I am sorry for being combative, though I disagree with your position on Encyclopedia Dramatica, I do not for a second think you are trying to do anything other than make Wikipedia a better place. 184.235.52.142 (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the message regarding your revert of ShawnIsHere's edit, you said "WP:BLUE is an essay and is not capable of overriding any consensus at all and it also does not apply here at all. I've made a discussion section on the talk page, go there". Since you either did not notice or ignored my comments on the history and talk pages, I'll make my points here:

• I disagree with the implication that there is a consensus which other editors are trying to override by citing WP:BLUE. There is no consensus. There is considerable disagreement, and WP:BLUE is a relevant guideline for resolving this kind of dispute.
• I disagree with the premise that ED's new URL constitutes a "fork" and therefore has to reestablish notability. If the original content still existed at encyclopediadramatica.com, I would agree. If there were many competing ED clones, I would agree. However, the .com URL just redirects to ohinternet, which has very little if any of the original content. Meanwhile, nearly all of the ED content can be found at the .ch domain. If you google "Encyclopedia Dramatica" the .ch domain is the top result. If there are any other working versions of ED, they are difficult to find.
• Even if the new URL did represent a fork, the new ED has already been mentioned in the Guardian (about as reliable a source as you can get), as I noted on the talk page. They refer to it by name and not by URL, but they are clearly talking about it in the present tense (in an article dated nearly a month after the switch) and they are clearly not talking about Oh Internet. That seems to me a clear demonstration of my final point:
• The gist of what 65.69.204.131 said on the talk page is correct: None of what made ED notable is affected by the change in its administration and URL. It may be at a new domain running on different servers administered by different people, but it is still functionally the same site. It has the same content as before, it serves the same purposes as before, and it continues to be notable for all the same reasons as before.

I'm not reverting the page yet because I would like to give you a chance to respond, but I would like a real response, not just "look at the talk page". I've read the discussion on the talk page, and I see nothing there that refutes my argument.

EDIT: I'm adding this because I realize I may have come off as harsh. I don't want to be a dick about this. I realize that you are trying to protect the page from vandalism and from people who don't understand the ongoing dispute over ED. However, I disagree with your conclusions about what needs to be done with the page, and I would like to hear your reasoning as to why we should ignore what seems to me to be the obvious continuation of ED. The original owners of the site may not be happy about it, but like it or not ED is out of their control, and I think the article should reflect that. zorblek (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this proposal diff, I agree that an interaction ban is the best way to go forward with this. -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we go from here to move forward with implementing this proposal? -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing it, I suppose. Though I think it should be made clear in the proposal that it is also influencing you, Cirt. I really dislike the ANI scenarios that end up with a bunch of people that dislike a user showing up to disparage them some more, which is what seems to be happening with Jayen in the discussion. This interaction ban is for the both of you and I hope you try to be more careful with your editing from now on. The WR folks may just be a bunch of rude jerks, but that doesn't change the fact that they make a good point about certain events more often than not and they certainly have a lot to say about you. Silverseren^C 03:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is most certainly influencing me. I will strive to be more careful in the future. What else can be done here? -- Cirt (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, I think. An interaction ban will clear up most of this drama. If Jayen has any further concerns about your editing in the future, then he can just present it to an uninvolved editor and let them decide if there is a good point to it. That way there shouldn't be anymore extended discussions on your talk page or reams of text on ANI about this stuff. Hopefully, at least.

Now excuse me while I go make a very ill-advised comment on this Arbcom discussion that is going to be very blunt and to the point and is likely to get me in trouble, but I feel that tiptoeing around the obvious in this situation is just ridiculous and that WP:AGF can only be stretched so far. Silverseren^C 03:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, I agree with your analysis of the situation and what should happen next. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elevate_Yemen_to_Civil_War Please express your views when you have the time. Peace & blessings. --Smart (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have commented , and undid you premature revert. Alarabia cannot be used as a neutral source on Iranian topics, when their reporting is not supported by a single credible source. If you insist on using Alarabia, you`d be setting a precedent for using similar state-sponsored questionable sources like Press TV. (Kurdo777 (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, please allow sufficient time for input from uninvolved editors. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, why are you making blind reverts? Karbaschi is not a leader of 2011 protests, that was WP:OR edit that you just restored in a blind manner, because I had removed it. That's very disappointing. Secondly, I don't see a consensus there about Al-Arabiya, 3 to 2, is not considered a consensus. But even if there was a consensus , the reliability a source alone, is not sufficient for inclusion of a questionable claim as a fact on Wikipedia, when no other source has reported this "news". Do you really think that if there were major protests in Iran on that day that resulted in 15 people getting killed, Al-Arabiya would be the only source reporting it? Kurdo777 (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now attributed the report in question to the Saudi TV channel Al-Arabiya. I hope you don't disagree. But if you do, please provide proof or confirmation of these events, by a reputable major news agency like AFP, Al-Jazeera, BBC News, Reuters etc. Kurdo777 (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean discredit? It's common practice to point out which country a news outlet is affiliated with. Fr example, look at the BBC headline here[3] "the Saudi-owned pan-Arab news channel, al-Arabiya " or look up "Iranian news agency" or "Press TV" on Google news, whenever a report by an Iranian news agency is cited or quoted, the country of origin is mentioned. So please restore Saudi-owned, that's crucial to the understanding of the reader in regards to the possible biases and conflict of interests of the source. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yalibnan is citing al Bawaba, which is citing Al-Arabiya. There are all related pan-Arabist media outlets affiliated with MBC, a Saudi company. Please keep in mind WP:Undue. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An authoress post on al Bawaba, is not a WP:RS. Please revert yourself or I will put an accuracy-disputed tag on the article. It seems like you're taking this too personal. Now you're just dumping whatever you find on Google, on the page, to prove a point. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've now soliciting the help of like-minded editors. This is a clear violation WP:Canvass. If you have an issue about the content, bring it up on the discussion page and seek a consensus. Just because you are fishing on Google, find a random site there that supports your POV, it doesn't give you a license to dump it into the page. Everything has a time and place. You're not only violating WP:Undue, what you're doing is borderline disruptive. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amazing that you're calling major news organizations "random sites". Of course, I totally made sure that they printed these articles so that they would "support my POV". It's all a part of my evil plan. Silverseren^C 05:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Bawaba is a " major news organization" now? That just shows how unfamiliar you are with these topics. Anybody can do keyword searches on Google, and find random sites to support a position and dump them into the page, it takes more than that to be a quality expert editor though. But hey, you were the editor who thought Iran was a part of the Arab world, so maybe I am expecting too much here. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at AGK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.anorak.co.uk/282349/politicians/we-are-all-hamza-al-khateeb-the-face-of-sadism-in-syria.html/
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392684/Hamza-Ali-al-Khateeb-child-martyr-tortured-death-Syrias-sadistic-regime.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
• http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/syria-may-28-2011-1258

In Syria a 13 year old boy was detained and tortured. The photo has already inspired tens of thousands on Facebook and in protests, outcry from Hillary Clinton, and tens of RS. I'm thinking about using the image. Will you take a look (graphic, of course)?

Working idea: Multiple RS link content from a video taken by the family and shown on AlJazeera and Syrian Free Press. Stills of the photo have been reproduced extensively in mainstream newspapers confirming the position that the death was from torture and not a gunshot followed by mere decay. The media is discussed in the article and helps illustrate for the reader the visual content involved in the debate between the protesters and the government, which has publicly made claims dismissing the torture allegations. It thus aids the reader's understanding significantly. The family released the original video with the intent to publicize the death. The images are low resolution.

I think that's about it. I'm not looking for another protracted debate, so I figure if I do this one I'll iron out the rationale up front. What do you think? User:Ocaasi ^c 03:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the evidence is just as strong, if not stronger than with Saeed. As long as you include image info with refs in the article, it should be fine. We should have done that originally with Saeed. It would have saved us a lot of drama, possibly. I'm going to go ahead and watchlist the article. Silverseren^C 03:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ocaasi/Hamza

Anything to add? User:Ocaasi ^c 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. ._. Dang, you go all out on this stuff. Silverseren^C 19:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just used google news and WP:REFLINKS. It took about a half hour. User:Ocaasi ^c 20:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  05:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:H644444 created an article on you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]