Jump to content

User talk:Silver seren/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Global Automakers

Hey, I didn't yet say thank you for making the last couple updates to the commodity pool articles, so, thank you. Meanwhile, at long last I've posted my proposed new draft for the Association of Global Automakers article, with a detailed but I think not excessive explanation at PAIDHELP. I'm still open to the idea of peer review, though I figured it would help to explain the situation first, and WP:CO-OP is still the best place for that. As I say there, I'm not looking for a speedy resolution, but a durable one. Any feedback you may have would be welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Silver. Awful quiet on WP:CO-OP lately—nearly two weeks since I posted my explanation regarding the Global Automakers situation, and no reply still. Late last week I reached out to a couple of listed members (Ocaasi and Bobrayner) who said they would review when they had the opportunity, although this hasn't occurred yet. Other ideas I'm considering: peer review, an RfC, and perhaps even reaching out to the editors whom I feel treated myself and the subject unfairly—if nothing else, it may help later, if I have to seek a more formal process. But it's a tough one. Any thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I would say either remind the two of them or you can also reach out to some Wikiprojects. I apologize for not having gotten to it either, i've been kinda busy and my involvement with CO-OP has been sporadic as of late. I'll see if I can get to it later today. SilverserenC 22:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Just replied to Bobrayner, thanks for the heads up. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:2012 FKF Division One - Zone A results

Hello Silver seren!

I undid your revision on the 2012 FKF Division One - Zone A results template because I never intended for a reflist to be there. All the references are shown in the main article. Davykamanzi → talk  · contribs 15:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your question about NLT and contacting the police at a recent arbitration motion. My understanding of WP:NLT is that it refers to stuff where you would engage in litigation (i.e. civil actions, including things such as defamation or libel), but not to cases where immediate arrests and criminal proceedings might take place, or emergency assistance is required (e.g. suicide threats). Your point about the chilling nature of claiming something is a criminal act is valid, but in such cases (depending on how believable or genuine you judge the claim to be) there is a moral (and sometimes legal) imperative to contact the authorities. Most people are able to distinguish the difference between stuff that would end up in a civil court and stuff that would end up in a criminal court. There is stuff out there about how to deal with claims made on the internet that crimes have taken place or may take place and/or are in progress. But that has little to do with WP:NLT. If you disagree with this, maybe raise it at the talk page: WT:NLT? As someone pointed out at the arbitration discussions, the closest we have to something relating to responding to potential crimes or emergencies is Wikipedia:Threats of violence and Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. It is possible that there is a gap in the guidelines and policy, but it is also possible that most people apply common sense here (reporting such incidents to the authorities rather than discussing on Wikipedia). What shouldn't be done is blocking people who say they made such a report, as that may have the effect of discouraging people from making such reports (and hence crimes going unreported). The internet may seem like a different place to the 'real world', but it is in fact part of the world and crimes or claims about crimes made online need to be reported just the same as anywhere (though whether people do in specific cases is another matter entirely, mainly due to believability and credibility of the 'threat' or 'claim'). Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What I would say is that in terms of reporting someone to the police, as I would think would be the same for starting litigation, you don't discuss it on-wiki. Send the user an email, perhaps, but you keep it off the wiki. Therefore, if someone is starting litigation against someone else, but not discussing it or otherwise doing anything on-wiki about it, then I don't think we would or should block under NLT. Half the point of NLT, in my opinion, is the whole chilling effects issue. I feel that the same should hold true for reporting someone to the police. Inform the other user through another venue, but you do not discuss it on-wiki. Especially, IMO, if you're going to accuse someone of pedophilia, which easily, if proven false, can lead to counter-defamation suits. SilverserenC 07:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That's true, but I do think it is necessary to distinguish between civil and criminal stuff. There is a reason the law (in most countries) distinguishes the two cases, but what is covered by each code can vary from country to country. One of the things to be wary of when travelling abroad (what might get you sued in one country might get you thrown in jail in another)! About contact off-wiki, that can have just as chilling an effect as contact on-wiki. There are cases where editors have been contacted off-wiki and reduced their editing (or retired and started a new account). Was it because of the chilling effect of the off-wiki contact? Anyway, about to log off, so if you want to continue the discussion with others, maybe raise it somewhere else? Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NLT clarification

You brought up an interesting point, which I can link if you need it, but the issue is archived, so I'll simply quote, I suspect you recall "Saying one is going to inform the cops about another user should more or less fall under NLT."

You were told that the answer is no. My sense is that you weren't convinced. I notice that this thread is on point, but I didn't see a clear resolution.

I don't have the energy or the time to start a discussion at NLT, but I wonder is more clarity on the subject is needed. One distinction I think is relevant is that NLT emphasizes civil action while calling the cops is inherently a criminal allegation. However, unless I missed something (and I confess I skimmed) I didn't see that point made (or rejected) squarely.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, guess I should have read the item above before posting :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Twitter

You can feel free to add to Barack Obama on Twitter when you find good content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I think a page move discussion should wait until after the AFD (if it survives).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Cote d'ivoire

I agree with your comment about the supervote in the close. do you think it's worth opening a move review? I think a no-consensus close would have been a better reading. --KarlB (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I very much feel a Move review should be started. This was way too much a supervote to just ignore, especially considering how contentious the discussion was as a whole anyways. Please link me once you start one (and maybe link to the Post closure discussion section in your Move review nomination as well). SilverserenC 09:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thanks - however given your experience, perhaps you might be better suited to frame the move review? Last time I did a DRV, I think I didn't frame the statement well. Cheers! --KarlB (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Stevens Institute of Technology page

Silver,

You have been very helpful in getting editor assistance to assist me with COI edits on the Stevens Institute of Technology page. The editor who has been assisting has been very helpful but has yet been able to complete the final review.

I have posted a notice on the Paid Editor Help board seeking a final review of the page, which you can find here - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_Editor_Help#Stevens_Institute_of_Technology_article_updates_according_to_guidelines_for_college_and_university_articles. If there is anything you can do to help get the final review done, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you! QueenCity11 (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Silver - just wanted to check if another editor has come forward to review this page. Thank you again for your help in reviewing and facilitating. QueenCity11 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Miss Peregrine's Home For Peculiar Children

Alright, thanks for your contribution to the page. I guess what I keep writing is too long. Thanks for simplifying it. I guess I write too much. Wheresyourgreen (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wanna organize your user page?

Wanna organize your user page? I can show you how. Tonymax469 (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by organize? SilverserenC 04:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Look at my user page: User:Tonymax469 —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind some organization, but I also don't want to lose any of the information on my page. Are there any changes that can be made that won't remove the info altogether. SilverserenC 04:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this for a suggestion, make your user page look professional.

How about this for a suggestion, make your user page look professional. First, back up your information to a new page, e.g. /wiki/User:Yourusername/backup1. Next, download Wikiversal/WikiverSuite and use its Wiki Assistant to organize your user page. Last, break your backed up information into pieces and place them at the appropriate places in the new organization. In that way, visitors will see you in a new light and want to interact with you at a new level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonymax469 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh, it's okay. I don't really care enough to bother with having to download and work all that stuff. SilverserenC 04:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
But Silver seren, your user page is utterly boring! From which I conclude that you must be boring as well. I think you should try and be seen in a new light. At the very least, put like some motorcycles or half-naked women on there, it will encourage communication. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Half-naked...women? O_o Ick. SilverserenC 20:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hehe it's not about you; you've already met yourself. As long as the majority of WP editors are straight white male geeks without a girlfriend, yes, naked women are most likely to help you start a good conversation, wouldn't you say? "Hey Silver, that's a great-looking half-naked woman on your user page." "Yes it is, isn't it?". "Yes. Well, goodbye." OK, maybe not. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: Sorry

Understood. It's alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what makes you say, "It does appear that you are not going to be blocked"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
It's appears as if you're wrong. Nice knowing you. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have re-closed the discussion. Please leave it this time. Administrators cannot unblock this user with the consent of ArbCom, as I mentioned in that diff. Please contact AC if you would like to continue with this matter. They are the only ones available to assist you. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Interview

Hey! Thanks for those fixes; I think both changes you made were good ones. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Halfnakedlabrador - interesting outcome. Let me know if your problems persist and I will put a rangeblock in. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

EthicalWiki, DYK one minute AfD the next

Hi Silver, one of the article listed on the Major Contribution page of Co-op is on death row. Care to weigh in? On the surface the issue is notability, but it seems to me there are other under currents too. Woz2 (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, editor Hipocrite has characterized this notification as canvassing. I have no idea how you feel about this, so I think that the accusation is unfair. Apologies if I did something wrong. Woz2 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

You asked me a question. I gave you an answer. If you intend to follow through on this, now is your chance (and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee is the place to do it). If you don't intend to follow through, I'm not sure what the game was, but let's not have a rematch. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom notification

As you participated in the AE thread which led to this request, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Race_and_intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rue Cardinale (talk • contribs) 10:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Mail!

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ocaasi t | c 15:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

As one of these who gave me a barnstar, maybe you might voice your opinion at [1] in case if there was actually a discussion. (I'm not asking for any kind of support, but for a neutral opinion, actually based on my edits.) Thanks. --Niemti (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure: Request for feedback on Community Fellowship proposal

Hi! I'm contacting you because you have participated or discussed The Wikipedia Adventure learning tutorial/game idea. I think you should know about a current Community Fellowship proposal to create the game with some Wikimedia Foundation support. Your feedback on the proposal would be very much appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowship goes forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Thanks again for your consideration.

Proposal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Adventure

Cheers, User:Ocaasi 16:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack Welch

Hi there Silver seren. I've been working on the proposed revision to Jack Welch's article regarding his compensation and have made several changes to the section based upon Maximilianklein and Coaster92's suggestions. Since you have previously participated in the discussion on the talk page, would you have time to read the revised section and make the edit if you approve of the changes? I'll also be asking Coaster92 and Maximilianklein for them to review again. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Get your facts right before making serious accusations

I see you're buying a few comments of the disgruntled. Be sure you're on solid ground before you issue statements that attempt to discredit me. Tony (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're one of the good ones

Dammit Silver, You are one of the good ones. You know it and I know it. In answer to your question, I am me dynamic IP. I've been around for a while and first noticed you when you joined ARS. I have been very impressed with your work ever since. It is something you can be very proud of. I know you've qualified you involvement with ARS as imporving articles rather than !voting. I also source articles to save them and don't ever !vote because I'm an IP I watched your RfA and was very upset at the way the community treated you. You were kicked around at ARS and you were kicked around at your RfA. And I agree, it's not fair. You have been fighting the good fight, trying to make the project better whenever you see an injustice. And that is very important. I've been trying to do the same thing. But over the past few months, you have been taking it a little too far. I agree with you, it's important to question ArbCom when they make a mistake, but you can only go so far before people start ignoring you.

You absolutely are one of the good ones here at Wikipedia and it's important that you keep fighting the good fight, but it's also important to know when to withdraw, otherwise you hurt your position. You've had a good relationship with many people in the community over the years and it's important to maintain these connections in order to get things changed for the better. There's a lot of bad stuff that happens at Wikipedia and it needs to change. And there are very few of us pushing for that change, so it's important to know how far you can push before it becomes counter productive. I know you're upset at things and I expect this message might be percieved negatively. I don't want that because you're one of the few people here I truly respect. I'm just trying to say that you've done as much as you can with this specific issue. ArbCom now knows your concerns and hopefully they will make some changes. Other than that, there's not much else that can be done. Hope you understand. All the best to you. 64.40.57.92 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't really planning on going any farther at this point anyways. NewtonGeek and I are in agreement that this won't get us anywhere and NG has more important avenues to pursue. Thank you for your comment though, I appreciate it. SilverserenC 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Silver. I think it's important that you keep fighting for what is right and just. But I really wish you would not have responded to Phil's comment. I'll just encourage you to show the community your most positive side so that others will be encouraged to help you. Kind regards. 64.40.54.25 (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

clarification please

WRT your recent comments about Delicious Carbuncle getting away with stuff, was the following what you referred to? Delicious_carbuncle_severely_admonished_and_warned

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I have asked Silver seren not to make any further allegations about me, at the risk of facing admin action. I hope that he will be very very careful in his response and that you will not put him in an awkward position with your questions. Perhaps you should ask your questions via email, where seren is free to say whatever he likes about me? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't even understand what you mean by linking to the case decision. I guess i'd give a tentative yes? SilverserenC 21:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help in facilitating the review of the Stevens Institute of Technology article. I also appreciate your attention and focus on improving the process for Paid Editor edits. As a paid editor that is trying to stay true to Wikipedia principles, I am very interested in those efforts and would like to help if there is a way I can be helpful. QueenCity11 (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
At this point, we just need more editors to join the project, especially admin editors. That's the one thing that will help make the process smoother and quicker. The more eyes we have working on the Paid Editor board, the more neutral we'll get and the quicker we can get each request completed. It's as simple as that. And thank you for working so hard to follow the policies of Wikipedia. The patience you have for the process is an amazing example to others. SilverserenC 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

I note that during an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion about the page Criticism of Wikipedia you unilaterally decided that the consensus of a previous discussion was incorrect and reverted the page to an article without discussion or notification. To avoid getting into a war I have not reverted your actions, but I do consider them very inappropriate and others may still revert you. The correct course of action is, as always, to express your views in the currently ongoing XfD discussion where other editors can evaluate your arguments and agree or disagree. I will also be mentioning this at WP:AN/I and you may wish to respond there also. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why I re-added in the RfD template, rather than erasing it completely. SilverserenC 11:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned in a WP:AN/I discussion regarding the Criticism of Wikipedia page

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Criticism of Wikipedia. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your help with the article: Job attitude. The article still hasn't passed DYK. Hopefully it will. But I thank you for all your contributions towards it! :D Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad I could help. I know how hard it is to work on those general, broad topics. SilverserenC 21:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you have super powers to maybe ping someone who can review the article for DYK? -Khyati Gupta (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. SilverserenC 23:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Khyati Gupta (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Bat Yeor

I see that you were interested in the subject there a book of her Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide. I have found three book reviews from scholarly press that could be used a source to the article.I can send it to you if you are interested to expand the article.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I want to focus on Bat Ye'or first, but thanks. And I probably have the scholarly reviews you're talking about, because of my access to Highbeam. SilverserenC 09:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you asked to be notified

Partial unblock of Peter Damian at AN/I.VolunteerMarek 16:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help with the contributed articles from our side. Greatly appreciated! Khyati Gupta (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Glad I could be of assistance. :3 SilverserenC 09:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for believing in the article: Job attitude, its currently live! Khyati Gupta (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Further coverage of James Hansen et al., of further interest?

From your comments on Talk:Global warming#Perception of Climate Change - PNAS Study ... see Wikipedia:Be bold.

This my be of interest ...

Of further interest may be Extreme weather (see [2]), 2011 Texas wildfires (see [3]), 2010 Northern Hemisphere summer (see [4]), 2011 North American heat wave, 2012 Colorado wildfires, 2012 North American drought (see [5]), Heat wave (see [6]) ... etc 108.73.115.131 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Request edits

Hi Silver. Thanks for chipping in on the request edits. I was wondering if you noticed the new templates Noun and I worked on (not to be a annoying about it, but just if they are helpful)

For example, the Jess3 edit requests I would consider non-controversial edits. If you want to, you could reduce the burden a little with the following template: {{edit COI|D|A}}

Or for John Sullivan, if you wanted to, you could take it out of the queue using {{edit COI|D|O}}

Although, it would be less effort to just add the missing item in this case. I don't mean to be annoying about it and pester people to use our templates, but just thought you might find them handy. Most of them still need some work in the wording too, if you find they need tweaking. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 04:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

They're interesting, but they also seem a bit...rude, to me. SilverserenC 04:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... they are a little. They come off as very critical. I'll see how we can tweak them. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 04:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I took a crack at making them sound less critical, mostly by cutting them back. I found that there was some editorializing that was intended as instructions/feedback, but probably came off as condescending or critical. Let me know if you have more feedback and we can keep improving the templates. We could probably borrow a lot more from AfC, but right now it's just kinda scrappy. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 04:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
They're much better now. I don't know how much i'll personally use them, since I prefer a more hands on approach, but other people will probably find them useful. SilverserenC 05:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian Revolution

Hi Silverseren! I just had a fascinating talk with a researcher named Heather Ford about what it was like to edit the 2011 Egyptian Revolution article during the heat of the protests and overthrow of Mubarak. She's very interested in hearing from other editors who were heavily involved in writing and discussing that page. I don't know if you've read her report Wikipedia Sources: Managing sources in rapidly evolving global news articles on the English Wikipedia but it mentions you and Lihaas and Abrazame and Egyptian Liberal, and goes into some detail about the debates we had and decisions we made. I think you'd really enjoy talking to her. If you're interested, she'd love you to contact her at your convenience at hfordsa@gmail.com. Hope you're doing well! Ocaasi t | c 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's really cool. I'll go send an email now. SilverserenC 22:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

JESS3

Hi Silverseren, just wanted to thank you again for your assistance updating the JESS3, Jesse Thomas and Leslie Bradshaw articles and also let you know that I have another small request for the JESS3 article, if you're able to help. As you might know, the company moved its HQ to LA earlier this summer. Right now, the infobox and Background of the article still say they're headquartered in D.C. and they'd like to get that updated. If you have time to review my suggested edits, that would be great. Thanks heaps, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Mysterious_Whisper#Request's talk page.

YRC

I know you know this, so I dont know why your doing it. But it's really not effective to say "most of the defenders must be from Wikipedocracy." I, like Dennis, do not have an account there. In fact, YRC and I don't really get along at all (we've had nice moments, but we ideologically disagree). I think it puts a burden on you to demonstrate that "most of the defenders" really are from Wikipediocracy rather than just saying it and proving that they are in league with YRC. Otherwise, well, it's just an attack. I've seen you around for awhile and my impression of you is that you can do better than that.--v/r - TP 18:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I should have clarified. Apologies for that. But, not including you or Dennis, there were Collect, John lilburne, Cla68, Tarc, Carrite, AndytheGrump, and then the three separate IP addresses that commented. SilverserenC 18:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget to count yourself, Silver... Carrite (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Just for your info, I had never even heard of Wikipediocracy until I came across that thread. But even if I had, your outrageous statement about my presumed identity did not really seem very logical. This YRC character sounds quite intriguing, I must say. But it looks like he's made a complete arse of himself here. 109.149.205.23 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
So you just randomly made your first IP edit and it was to an ANI discussion? That seems highly unlikely. SilverserenC 18:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I make fairly random first ip edits every day, thanks. I find, that way, I don't develop one of those very unhealthy wikipedia egos that I see battling on ANI on a sickeningly regular basis. But I must say, your logic really hasn't improved a lot here. Still, you never know, maybe I'm just pretending to call YRC an arse... you can't be too careful can you! (and lucky for me that you're "offline" at the moment ...) 109.149.205.23 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
A point of information: I'm not "from Wikipediocrazy" (regardless of how you spell it). I signed up there "from Wikipedia", and as it happens I think that at least a few those posting there are shit-stirring trolls (I think I can just about get away with saying that, even under current circumstances), opinions over almost everything differ, and the implication that Wikipediocracy forum users would somehow act as some kind of cabal over this is frankly ridiculous. Hell, If you can manage to get say Collect, Tarc and me to agree over which way clocks rotate, you are doing well, and any suggestion that we all piled into the AN/I discussion under some kind of premeditated common purpose is well into tinfoil-hat territory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Heh, that was a typo.--v/r - TP 17:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I think Andy's right. Hey Andy, did you notice the suggestion that off2Delhi was a setup maybe involving me? That sounds like what you are referring to in such elegant language. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
(Apologies for the late response- missed it on my watchlist.) Not really - for a start, as I said at AN/I, I initially assumed that off2Delhi was Rob - I just don't think that we should block people on the basis of assumptions (even mine), and more to the point, even if it was Rob, it amounted to little more than blowing off steam. Nobody was outed, and if anyone from the 'outing squad' on Wikipediocracy figures out who Cirt is, they will out him because they can, not because Rob/SomeonePretendingToBeRob asks them to. Maybe there is an effluent-agitator on Wikipediocracy smart enough to create a long-term PseudoRob, though trolls on the whole seem to prefer immediate gratification - but as an exercise in trolling, it would have been a whole lot less effective if everyone had stood back and asked what exactly the consequences of RoB/NotRob's post was likely to be: which would only amount to more than 'nothing much' if Wikipediocracy was more than a forum for rants, arguments, and the occasional sensible comment, and actually had the capability (and the will) to systematically 'out' people on request. As for the best way to deal with the Wikipediocracy 'outing squad', I'd say we should either (a) ignore them, or (b) join the forum en-masse (a cabal!) and tell them all to grow up. Wikipediocracy's claim to be serious about reforming Wikipedia rings hollow if you look at their fatuous 'mission statement', their obsession with gossipy trivia, and their general tendency to see everything through conspiracy-theorists eyes. Taking them too seriously is a mistake. I joined more out of curiosity than anything else, and certainly don't see them as anything more than a place to let off steam (which I seem to have rather a lot of at the moment, but that is by the bye), and a way to fill in a few spare minutes. The trolls amongst their forum members want to be noticed - don't feed them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ping

just an FYI: User talk:Ched/YRC — Ched :  ?  20:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren, thank you for your helpful comments. They're most appreciated during these times. A lot. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

re: Crum375 outing

I'm afraid the thread where Crum375 was outed was moved to the WR tarpit. The amount of info released was apparently unacceptable even to them.

I believe your WR account is still unbanned, so this link should work for you. T. (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I needed, thanks. Logged and saved. If you find any other outing incidents in the future, please feel free to let me know. SilverserenC 03:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

PG&E drafts

Hi Silverseren, since your reply to my request last week, Bouchecl has also replied and is happy with the two drafts. If you have some time, do you think you could add the sections into the article, replacing the ones currently there? Hope your classes are going well. Thanks, PParmley (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

Lol, guess you were wrong about me getting too deep on that site.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? SilverserenC 04:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I got banned from there today.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yup. For having an opinion contrary to the person who blocked you, by the look of it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Huh...rather telling, I should say. I'm sorry you were blocked. I wonder how long WO will last before it collapses like WR. SilverserenC 05:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Not long, I suspect. The monumental hypocrisy of a site claiming to "shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with the structural flaws" blocking people for disagreeing with their party line is self-evident to everyone. They are of next-to-no significance anyway. As I pointed out in a (rapidly deleted) new thread there, Wikipediocracy seems to me to be "little more than a whinge-fest for the chronically malcontented, a blog for facile gossip about people that nobody else cares about, and an outlet for failed trolls". Anyone who has anything constructive to say about reforming Wikipedia (and yes, I think many things need reforming) can surely find more relevant places to say it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I hope they do survive long enough to do their Tea Party-style picketing of Wikipedia meetups. That will be an interesting sight. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Sadly, I doubt that they will follow Randy from Boise's proposal for their leaflet. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of irony in it too. Despite the thread in question being up for several days with numerous mods, trustees, and admins commenting, they only moved the discussion to the non-public off-topic area after I got banned or at least right around when I got banned. One of them also said there was a discussion "elsewhere" about how I would react to one of their arguments, but I don't think it was in any area I could access. It seems that, despite being so angry about secrecy on Wikipedia, they don't have a problem with secrecy on their forum.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I wish I could have read the thread before it was moved to the non-public forum. I guess they've got plenty of skeletons that they don't discuss and act like they don't exist. Rather weakens any criticism they may have about Wikipedia, doesn't it? SilverserenC 18:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking into it. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
DA, which thread was it? VolunteerMarek 17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The initial thread was "Calling a spade a spade" and the discussion was about whether the Internet has had a significant positive impact on society. Damian, Murphy, Kohs, Kelly, and biscuit all argued that essentially the Internet has made little to no positive change even arguing that, if anything, it has had a negative impact and I said that there had been considerable positive change noting how limited access to information in the past had enabled intolerance towards different groups and ideas whereas now people can readily find information presenting information that would contradict such preconceptions. However, I am a little perplexed now regarding where the thread is located. Kelly commented noting that the discussion had been moved to the Off-topic forum so when I tried to click the link she provided it simply asked me to log in because I didn't have permission due to the ban, now the link takes me to a page saying "requested topic does not exist" so the thread may have been deleted altogether or moved somewhere else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It's in the "Oubliette" section. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There is now a 'Calling a spade a spade' thread in the public forum [7] - but TDA's comments have all been removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
...okay, that's just petty. Like, really, really childish. Who's the mod that's doing that? SilverserenC 23:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Aren't those comments the ones that were moved to the "Oubliette" section? Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I have never seen that section and given the meaning of the term it seems likely that is a part of the site restricted to a select few and that probably means just mods, admins, and trustees. Am I right?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yup. I didn't realize it before. Anyway, as far as it stands right now, it doesn't appear that the other moderators and trustees are going to relent on their decision. Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Was the decision seriously because he had an opposing opinion to theirs? SilverserenC 05:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
They would undoubtedly say I was "trolling", but that really just means the same thing in this case. When people get intellectually frustrated with an argument on the Internet the "t" word is a common defense mechanism to re-assure them of their rightness. Rather than allowing that I presented a sound and well-reasoned argument, which they were unable to effectively refute, they conclude that I must have only been saying it to cause trouble. In other words, it's sour grapes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Awkward situation with Laura Mercier Cosmetics

Hi Silverseren, not sure if you've seen the request at Paid Editor Help about Laura Mercier Cosmetics, but in case not, I just wanted to write you a short note to explain what happened and see if you'd be able to help. Basically, I was providing guidance to an editor (User:Minorvariation) who was proposing new drafts for the articles for Laura Mercier Cosmetics and Gurwitch Products. The drafts were written on behalf of Gurwitch Products and User:Minorvariation was acting on their behalf to propose the new material. Unfortunately, what I did not know at the time was that editor had (earlier, on their own recognizance) set up multiple accounts to try and get a new article created about some minor radio celebrities. Long story short, over the weekend all their accounts were banned including User:Minorvariation. As I say, I had no idea this was going on until after the fact, and am now in the fairly awkward position of picking up where they left off with the Gurwitch articles. With your experience assisting editors with a COI, I was hoping you might be able to help me get discussion going on both the articles again, with the eventual aim of getting the new versions live. If you can help, please let me know. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This just popped up on my watchlist, and I have to admit I had visions of finding someone sporting a really bad makeup job. I think it's going to be a matter of checking back on the sources. The second sentence under Products (about the revive boutique) is a real non-sequitur though. It either needs expanding (explain what this thing is) or ditching. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Elen of the Roads, I do see what you mean now that I look at it again. I'll see if I can figure out a connective statement and will add that in tomorrow. Thanks for taking a look! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey Silverseren and Elen of the Roads, thanks to both of you for checking out the LMC and Gurwitch drafts. Silverseren, I noticed you formatted the references in the LMC draft and I've now done the same in the Gurwitch draft. You'll also see if you check back that I've removed the wording about the ReVive boutique, as the link for the source was no longer working and I couldn't find another source describing the boutique's history. In its place I've added a sentence describing Gurwitch's acquisition of ReVive and Bays-Brown Laboratories. I think this section makes more sense now. For the LMC draft, I've updated the wording about the brand's aim and the detail about the "flawless face" so that it reads better and gives a bit more context.
If either (or both!) of you are able to, I'd really appreciate your review of these drafts as they now stand. I also have a draft for Laura Mercier's article, too, if you'd be interested in looking at that at the same time—since there's a reasonable overlap in information. Thanks again to both of you, let me know if you have any more thoughts about any of the drafts. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
At least for the LMC one, it looks ready to go. I'd be happy to transfer it over if you'd like (or maybe we should get an admin to do a histmerge?). I haven't looked at the other two articles yet, but i'll do that now. SilverserenC 17:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll do a histmerge - its the proper course as there are multiple contributors. With the Gurwitch article, having read the sources, I think it needs to talk a bit more about the history of the company - there's no mention of it being taken over by Altcor for instance. I'd ditch the 'product history' headline, and have it all as company history. Do you have a date for source 1 being compiled? I can't find one on the site, or that it was co-owned by Neiman Marcus at one point. It should also be clear that it only makes products for it's two trading brands - it's "doesn't make cereals for anyone else". The way it's phrased at the moment, that's not completely clear. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
That's brilliant about LMC, thanks Silverseren for your review and Elen of the Roads for offering to do the histmerge. I agree its a good idea to do a histmerge so that it shows the changes made when it was in userspace. Elen of the Roads, appreciate your thoughts on Gurwitch and I have to agree with the points you make, the draft as it was when I took over isn't what I would ideally have wanted to propose. I'll see what I can find about Alticor and work on the wording about the two products. Regarding the Businessweek source, those kinds of company profile don't tend to have a specific date attached to them. Also, as far as I know the company wasn't co-owned by Neiman Marcus, but Janet Gurwitch did work there before she set up the business - I'll look into that to make absolutely sure. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
According to Businesswire it was "founded in 1995 by Janet Gurwitch and Gary Kusin, in partnership with Neiman Marcus". bizjournals says of LMC that "the line originally was co-owned by Gurwitch Products and The Neiman Marcus Group. When Neiman Marcus was sold about two years ago, Alticor bought Gurwitch Products and inherited the Laura Mercier line".Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Elen of the Roads, you're absolutely right about Neiman Marcus, I just missed that somehow. I've made some more changes in the Gurwitch Products draft to include mention of the previous part-ownership by Neiman, the acquisition by Alticor and to clarify that LMC and ReVive are the only two brands. If it looks ok now, would you mind doing a histmerge? Let me know if there's any other changes needed before it's ready. Also, let me know if either of you have any thoughts about the Laura Mercier draft. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Silverseren and Elen of the Roads, do either of you have any further thoughts on either the Gurwitch Products or Laura Mercier drafts? If you're busy right now, I'll see if I can find some others to take a look too, but if these drafts look ok, would you mind carrying out a histmerge on each of them? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll have more free time Thursday afternoon. I'll deal with this then. Sorry for the wait. SilverserenC 04:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all about the wait. Were you able to look at the drafts yesterday? If not, no worries, but do let me know if you're bogged down in other obligations and it would be better for me to ping someone else. I'll be checking in periodically over the weekend if you have any questions. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I let Elen know about them yesterday here. She said that she'd get the histmerges done this weekend. SilverserenC 16:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much to both of you for you help with these two drafts, I really appreciate it. If one of you is able to, could you fix the categories for both articles? I forgot to mention that I'd made these inactive in the user page versions. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Cash Mob question

Hi, Silver seren! Although it preceded the coinage of the term “cash mob,” I think the Scentsy “Contribute 2009” cash mob was such a large-scale event that it is relevant to the cash mob phenomenon and should be included in the Wikipedia article. An example of including the history of a phenomenon/trend before the actual naming of the trend is the “Trashion” entry on Wikipedia. Please contact me at kellylynnbrown1@gmail.com to discuss this further and help me understand what you think I should do to make the inclusion of the Scentsy cash mob as accurate and in following with the Wikipedia protocol as possible. Thank you much and have a terrific day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelllehbee (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cookies for you

Cookies!

16912 Rhiannon has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks so much for helping with the Laura Mercier and Gurwitch articles! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 00:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

DYK for Do Not Ask What Good We Do

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter
Background

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.

Progress so far
Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner.

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Proposed changes

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum.

2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

  • This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
  • It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
  • If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
  • The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
  • Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
  • Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
  • Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Silver_seren/Archive_12&oldid=1254595643"