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]

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

I'm not sure if this one is a good idea - and the name is confusing and quite close to the other one. Is this really a defining genre for novels?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT literature is most definitely a genre. I had to make the clarification within the cat though because it has nothing to do with whether the author is gay, straight, or otherwise, but whether they write literature that features LGBT main characters or otherwise looks at the LGBT community.

Why would you think it isn't a genre? Silverseren^C 01:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, perhaps it's drawing too fine a line and will definitely confuse people. We already have a category for LGBT writers - do we really need to distinguish novelists who write about LGBT themes regardless of whether they are gay or not? I just see it as potentially very confusing - and especially so because you are classifying novelists here, not novels. For novels, it makes sense : Category:American LGBT novels for example as a genre - but when you're classifying a novelist-by-genre they write, but the way you name the cat is American LGBT novelists, it will be very confusing indeed (especially since you made this a subset of LGBT American writers - which isn't necessarily the case!). So, I think at the very least we need a better name for it, and a better parenting structure. Also be careful in creating new novelist genres - the novels project had a bear of a time sorting their novels into genres, and adding new genres for novelists is also not to be taken lightly - I think JPL created a few that were rather rash... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now that I think about it, we should try to mirror as closely as possible this: Category:American_novels_by_genre if creating new genres - I haven't looked but I bet they're different... Then we should link each genre page to the novel page, and vice versa. That would make it easier to navigate between the two. But my comments about somehow renaming that category still hold. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with renaming the category to make it clearer that we're referring to the novels that they write. What do you suggest?

Hmm, I wonder...would Westerns fall under historical? I mean, Western is a pretty well established genre by itself, so i'm not completely sure. Silverseren^C 02:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, would you mind having this conversation at wikiproject novels so the editors who know the answers to these questions can weigh in? Thanks. Oh sorry for butting in ... Truthkeeper (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be best just to copy this discussion over there? Silverseren^C 02:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I no longer care. Whatever you think is the most constructive and the most collaborative way of doing it. If I did care, I'd suggest pulling in the subject experts who know the field, but ya know, WP is all about winning and using force to do so. So whatever. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TK has a point - perhaps just bring these questions there, re: genres - esp as we expand the novelist genres - I don't see any reason they shouldn't in most cases match 1-1 - but they may have other ideas. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've framed a question here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Novelist_genres perhaps we could continue this discussion there? best, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silverseren, I noticed that you have recently returned to the BP Talk page and, as you will have a fresher perspective, I wanted to pick your brains a little about my recent experiences there, particularly as an editor experienced in dealing with COI issues. Recently, I have found that my requests and comments on the Talk page are being responded to negatively by a few editors. There have been comments that my involvement on the Talk page is causing the article to become skewed, despite that the most active editors on the article are opposed to making edits in relation to any of my requests except for minor factual corrections I suggest.

I came across a user talk discussion between a few of the editors from the BP article, where Petrarchan had issued a call-to-action about finding a "professional" (an environmentalist, potentially) to come and offer an opposing POV / COI to mine. I thought about replying that it is not something I would be opposed to, so long as it led to constructive discussion and did not distract volunteer editors by focusing on ideology, but wasn't sure if it was appropriate. In your experience is it appropriate for me to comment in a user talk page discussion that I was not invited to? Secondly, have you seen this approach (bringing in an editor with an opposing POV / COI) on any other pages and do you think it would help editors better assess whether material in the article is neutral?

More generally, I would like your advice on how best to continue working with editors who feel that my contributions are counterproductive, especially as I very much do not believe this to be the case. Along the same lines, are there any policies I should be aware of with regard to interacting with editors, particularly those who are negatively inclined towards me? I mentioned WP:AGF previously, but it was suggested that this policy does not really apply to interaction with COI editors. I would like to make sure I stay within the rules and it would be useful to know how to assess when editors step "over the line" in their interactions with me. I would appreciate any advice you can give me. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have much to offer you. I do my best to avoid having to deal with POV pushers like them. I've had to on occasion and generally going to various noticeboards and otherwise giving focus on the issue with more people helped make it more neutral. But the problem is that Slimvirgin is involved and I don't know how to deal with her. Her POV in this area is very clear to anyone who observes her editing (i.e. always working on writing negative things on corporations) and anyone who's tried to stand up to her in one article or another has invariably been blocked or otherwise been driven to leave the project. I've tried discussing with her a few times on several articles, but she subscribes to the wall of text and dozens of surreptitious edits to an article (often with misleading edit summaries) method of shutting down any opposition. I don't know how to deal with her or work with her, no one does. It's her way or no way.

So i'm afraid that I don't have any advice to offer you. Perhaps try to get more attention on the issue, draw in more people? I don't think commenting in that user talk page section will be helpful. It'll likely just fuel the fire and be an attempt to get you to say something that can be used as "evidence" against you. That or just verbally bully you into agreeing to things that are neither appropriate or neutral for the article. And, no, i've never seen this approach done. It doesn't sound like that bad of an idea, but it really all hinges on who exactly they try to get. If it's someone from the EPA, so long as they're able to properly present reliable sources, then I don't see a problem with it. But the issue of Due Weight remains a problem that you and I both know they are never going to address.

P.S. I know I am being blunt and outspoken here, but it's because I want them to read it. Silverseren^C 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering your thoughts, Silverseren. I will continue to focus on content and stay out of discussions about COI or POV as much as possible. As you say, having more eyes on the article is ideal and I am pleased to see that more editors have become involved in discussion in the last few days, hopefully they will stay. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing i bet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.129.240 (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lol rude Equivamp - talk 18:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of updating my ED article to try and make it actually insulting? I wish you luck, the previous editors left it a mess of gibberish. The only good insulting part is the last part about my writing style and that was written by some other IP. Kinda sad that the IP did better than Meepsheep or H64. One would think they would have experience with actually writing good ED articles, but I guess not.

Anyways, this coming fall i'll be a senior at Texas A&M University, majoring in Molecular Biology. Hope that helps. Silverseren^C 21:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks so much for following up my request on Winton Capital Management. I understand why you'd prefer to leave the naming issue alone, and I'll follow up with Keithbob about it sometime soon. Meanwhile, I want to be careful about not asking too much of your time, though I have two more rounds of small requests for correcting and updating the article ahead. The next one is now posted here. If you're busy elsewhere, that's totally cool, and I'll look for assistance from others a bit later in the week. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Category:American novelists is in need of by-century diffusing. Category:American women poets has only been developed through g. Category:American women journalists is very undeveloped, and Category:American journalists should probably be dispersed into the magazine, newspaper, television and radio sub-cats. We also have other sub-cats like Category:American photojournalists. None of the sub-cats have been well developed. One other project I have been working on is getting more entries into Category:American women judges. That category is still smaller than the mark of shame on wikpedia, Category:American female pornographic film actors. For what it is worth that category has shrunk by 5 articles in the last few days. While Utah with a quoter of the articles at Category:Utah state court judges being females is above average for states (I think Indiana had no females in Category:Indiana state court judges), it is clear that we have way too few articles on women judges. I was able to dig up some like Jennifer Faunce, which I created a while ago that had not until today been categorized as a judge at all, although the article clearly says she is currently a judge. I am not sure what the best course of action is. We may really have fewer articles in wikipedia on women judges than female pornographic film actors. It may be a much more difficult problem to fix. Federal judges are notable, but which state judges pass notablity I am unsure of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is an RFC brewing at category_talk:American novelists, and in general my feeling is, the by-genre categories are no longer going to be diffusing, but the century cats (if kept) are. If you want to help, I'd suggest the first thing would be to go over all of the ethnic american novelists and make sure they are in the by-century cats and any relevant genre cats. Also, if you touch the special bio, you will likely be dragged before ANI, so I suggest staying away. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You asked if I thought Category:American biographical novelists would work. My first guess is it is just too narrow. Do we have an article biogrpahical novels or Category:American biogrpahical novels. I diffused Flynn to the century specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your comment at the American novelists cat page, I'm not sure I fully agree - that is to say, I think a consensus to say "this category is non-diffusing" is acceptable for a sub-section of the community to agree on (and they're calling for an RFC, thus it would be the whole community technically) Look at Category:Presidents of the United States - all of the sub-cats are non-diffusing, as people want all of the presidents in the top cat. This is fine with me. The same would apply to categories for awards (suppose you have a cat of American physicists, and a sub-cat for nobel prize winners - the sub-cat should be non-diffusing). So, if they want _all_ novelists in the head cat, they just have to make the argument that the gender/ethnic cats are non-diffusing (they are, by our rules), the genre cats are non-diffusing (this isn't a hard argument to make - you could say there are always things this writer does outside of that genre), and the century cats are non-diffusing (that's the hard one, as it's different than every other century cat that I've seen, but such an argument could be made or the community could decide to IAR) - and if consensus of editors around those cats is that they don't diffuse, it would be acceptable and wouldn't violate anything major. Just my opinion. (added: But, the reason I've called for a wider RFC on Category:Writers is that there should not be different rules for American novelists than British poets, etc) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a significant difference between Presidents of the United States and novelists. Same with Nobel Prize winners and novelists. The former are limited in scope by their very design and are very small in growing. However, novelists as a category is already huge and has an essentially infinite possibility of growth rate in terms of percentage of Wikipedia articles. Silverseren^C 02:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you - its more of an academic point - e.g. non-diffusing cats, even for reasons other than gender/etc, are allowable. But in this case, I think it should be diffused. I put forth my proposal on the novelists cat talk page, welcome your input. cheers. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Capital, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American LGBT novelists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Silver. I appreciated your help with the Winton article last week, and as I mentioned there, I posted a second request on the Talk page (with a third planned) last weekend. Since then, I've sought feedback at WikiProjects Investment and Companies (I know, not very active, but still worth a try). As yet, no reply to either, so I thought I would come back to you and see if a) you'd be willing to look at the second round, and b) would it be better if I just posted the rest of these questions at the same time? All are fairly simple, but my goal in spreading out the requests is to keep it simple. That said, I think it means I'm more of a bother, and I like to be mindful of the volunteer time that I ask for. So another option might be for me to implement all desired changes in a userspace draft and offer them up all at once, with a clear explanation of each change. What do you think? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone else got to the request (then inquired about why I don't make the changes directly, which I explained back at that user's page). Upcoming: I'll have one final round for the Winton article soon, and then I think just one for David Harding (finance), about the company founder, afterward. Any help is always welcome, but absolutely only if you have the time. Cheers! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to Kohs in the contributing blogger section. This is because it confirms him as the owner of the domain name at the bottom of that post.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But see, that just emphasizes the problem. If he is not "invested financially in the site’s operation, nor does he have moderator’s access to its forum", then who cares if he owns the domain name? Isn't the person who pays for the website more important or the people who are in charge? This is exactly why primary sources aren't meant to be used in this manner. The section is being propped up entirely by primary sources which beg the relevance of why it needs to be included. That's the whole point of relying on secondary source coverage. Silverseren^C 06:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it has relevance as it is effectively like owning the building in which a business operates.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Poisoned AfD. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too late...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

SS, I appreciate that you can't stand Wikipediocracy, and maybe with good reason, but the correct way to overturn a Keep result at AfD is to appeal the case to Deletion Review, not to immediately relist. You know this already, of course. Be advised of Streisand effect and all that. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the AFD provisionally for the reason that Carrite cites. Please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 May 24, where I've copied your entire deletion rationale; you don't need to do anything unless someone asks you a question. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Khuzestan conflict article, your additions are welcome.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some guy is back to "downgrade" the 2011 Khuzestan protests article to "non-conflict" status. Give a look before, before i revert him myself. Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you will take this as some kind of affirmation, but I doubt that others will see it that way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about Violet Blue's opinion on anything, especially not when she's bringing up something from 8 months ago. And, if you notice, she didn't actually respond to my comment, which was about her actions on Wikipedia (and my opinion on how I don't really consider her name change to be a real name anyways). Her bringing up a bunch of legal jargon about her name change is irrelevant to what I said. Silverseren^C 00:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Silver seren, my name is Howicus. I saw the edits you did on Erica Andrews, and I think you may have misunderstood. The info that I removed and you re-added was not added by Qworty. It was added by User:Lightspeedx. Most of the citations in those sections are poor-quality, and they were removed by several editors: Qworty, User:Little green rosetta (now blocked for reasons I don't know), and User:Coffeepusher. I came into the discussion in this DRN discussion Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_70#Erica_Andrews_article, where I gave a complete rundown of the sources involved. Now, Lightspeedx is using Project Qworty as an excuse to add the poorly-sourced info back into the article. I'm going to remove anything that doesn't fit the WP:BLP guidelines. Howicus (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice that. I've now added back the ones with good sources (and stripped off all the sources to Youtube videos and such). More sources for some of the other stuff that was taken off can probably be found if you look for it. Silverseren^C 22:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, glad you understand the situation. Also, good job separating the good sources from the bad. Howicus (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your recent discussion with Jehochman and others here, note Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#History_of_Gibraltar. (In the interest of fairness, I'm dropping Jehochman an identical note.) Andreas JN466 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion on whether to include or remove Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the section "Lewontin's argument and criticism" of the article Race and Genetics. Since you are the original person to input the text into the article, your opinion on the matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. The discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Race_and_genetics BlackHades (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]