User talk:Silver seren/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Silver seren. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Request your immediate attention for a couple of articles

Would request your attention again for articles on Periannan Senapathy and Parallel Genome Assembly. There is a heated debate going on, and I am afraid that the discussion is not fully unbiased. In particular a couple of senior editors seem to superimposing their views. Would request you to provide your views in the respective discussion pages and in the Delete section page. rahul regula (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lycanthropy

Hello, I just realised I was editting at the same time as you - I think I probably didn't get it right - my last edit should be undone - just trash it - but I don't want to accidentally affect your edit. So I'm stepping away from the page now if you are still working there and would be kind enough to undo my bad edit of the talk page EdwardLane (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC) :)

Thwack!

+WP:TROUT, following Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Plenty_of_trouts_to_go_around_here. I might also be back to attempt to flog you for your shortcomings with a wilted lettuces leaf --Shirt58 (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion on the Periannan Senapathy page

I have found further secondary sources to the page on Periannan Senapathy. I have written a new piece on the same on the talk page of Periannan Senapathy. Would like your views so that we can move the discussion forward. Rahulr7 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Weeping Angels

Sorry, perhaps I didn't make clear which image I meant. I'm referring to the second (lower) image on the page, which was replaced here for instance, and is not taken from the episode. Perhaps you could revise your comment accordingly? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 19:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Silence Article and AfD

I'm not sure how it can be appropriate to require people to leave an AfD tag in place that requires discussion on deletion, while simultaneously requiring a rescue tag to remain that skews the discussion in favor of 'keep' by implying that the article WILL be improved.

I'm in favor of keeping the content from the article in question whether its merged or not. Honestly, I don't see why Treasury was so keen to kill it so fast. BUT, I don't feel it is right to announce "THIS ARTICLE IS BEING RESCUED DON'T DELETE!!!!" if it doesn't actually get improved. I would be fine with a tag that says "This article requires X,Y, and Z in order to meet encyclopedic guidelines", but the rescue tag as written is a VERY biased and inappropriate tag in light of the idea of community consensus. If people care and improve the article, a deletion discussion would make no sense. But a tag like this only distracts people. Whether it might have been done for 5 years, is not my concern. What the guidelines in Wikipedia say NOW is what I am concerned with. I will remove this tag and if re-added, I will take it up the chain to have the tag improved, but for now, I will consider it vandalism if added again, unless it can be sufficiently shown that it is a proper tag in light of the problems I have mentioned here. -- Avanu (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Encyclopedia Dramatica

Sorry, I didn't know about that. I rarely read the talk pages unless it is an article I am heavily working on. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Short thank you

I appreciate your discussion and guidance on my Talk page. It might sometimes seem that people aren't listening to one another when they are debating things, but I wanted to let you know that it helps when editors are willing to discuss, even if they don't agree. Again, thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, in light of these discussions, I have proposed different wording and working through the consensus process at the rescue tag template page. I'm going to take it slower and follow BRD more closely. I'm still a fairly new editor in many ways, despite my account being created in 2006 (took a VERY long break). Take care. -- Avanu (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yemen Uprising

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

Rescue tag

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. Silver seren^C 02:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Reverting Bishzilla

[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).

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)

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

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

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

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. Silver seren^C 19:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. Silver seren^C 20:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. Silver seren^C 23:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Opinion on IBA Dhaka University

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)

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.

--Σ _☭^★ 21:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Salter's duck

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)

For you

		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)

Thank you. :D Silver seren^C 20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank you

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)

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

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. Silver seren^C 03:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. Silver seren^C 03:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Upgrading Yemen to Civil War Status

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

DYK for Salter's duck

On 29 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salter's duck, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Salter's duck is a wave-powered generator that uses gyroscopes to convert up to 90% of wave power into electricity? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Re

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Silver seren^C 05:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

By the way, which one of of those sources you've mentioned (LA Time, Guardian, REFL, Shirin Ebadi, or even Al Bawaba or Al Arabiya) actually uses the terminology "Ahwazi" or "Ahwazi Protests" to refer to the event, for you to to assume that "2011 Ahwazi protest" would be a policy-appropriate title per WP:AT? The keyword here being 'assumption' or as it is called in Wikipedia WP:OR. If you're citing sources for a particular event, then you need to use the same terminology used in those sources (and Wikipedia) for the title, which are Ahvaz and Iranian Arabs. You see, it becomes very hard to work with you when you ignore most fundamental Wikipedia polices on naming etc, just because you think you're always right and WP:TRUTH is with you, and when I bring these issues up with you, you reply with sarcasm and personal attacks, instead of instead of accepting criticism and feedback. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME doesn't really apply when there is no common name for something. I don't think any of the sources for the 2011 Iranian protests called it that, nor for any of the other protest articles in other countries. The names were chosen because they were logical and they're changed to a common name once the media chooses one. If they don't, then we decide what is the most logical title to call it. Essentially, for these types of articles, we go with the common method of titling that replicates the others if we don't have a common name to go on. Silver seren^C 18:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

talkback

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)

Photo for Hamza al-Khateeb

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)

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. Silver seren^C 03:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Ocaasi/Hamza

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

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

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

Lone Star Dinosaurs

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)

ED.ch article

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

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with the article I asked you about? I'd be willing to help out with such a project, but I don't really have time to go and create an entire project for it (neither do you, I think, with your work on the tutorial thing, good work on that so far, by the way). Once I get done with a few things that i'm working on, i'd be willing to create a project like that.

Could you respond about the article I asked about though? Silver seren^C 00:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. Mini-project, created quickly, picking one article at a time to improve. Could work one article per two weeks rotating through until they're all GA/FA. I'll keep you posted. Great to have any help. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 01:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi^{t | c} 04:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocks in December 2010 of User:Mbz1

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block log of Mbz1 regarding the December 2010 block of User:Mbz1. Thank you. AGK [•] 11:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ford Focus BEV

Hi, as you are an uninvolved editor would you mind redetermining the consensus based on the original discussion here and the current dialogue here? I am unable to convince Mariordo and Ebikeguy that canvassed votes should be excluded (despite the advice of others as well) and I keep being told that the final verdict of "keep" cannot be overruled despite the fact that it was an involved editor (Mariordo) who made the verdict in the first place. Your help would be much appreciated as I feel like I am talking to a brick wall (well two actually). Thank you, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in this matter. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, or require some fresh eyes at a discussion or article, you know where to ask. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 09:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean about the brick wall? OSX (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And this. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with Kolleen Park

Hi!!! I made a new article for Kolleen Park who is a host on Korea's Got Talent because the other hosts have articles but not her. I was wondering if you have any advice for making it better? Thanks!!! Autorodents, transform and squeak out! (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There's some beginning organization. I have to get to bed, but i'll work on it some more when I get up. Feel free to add more references and information to the article. Just make sure that the references are reliable sources, such as newspapers and books. Silver seren^C 11:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

okay, I'll keep trying to find more stuff. Why when I add a link does it makes me do the "captcha" thing, it's reeeeeally annoying. And sorry about the multiple refs thing. Thanks!!! Automice, transform and squeak out! (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why it's making you do CAPTCHA, but I have one ideas. I don't think your account is autoconfirmed yet, which happens after 10 edits and four days. It's a system that doesn't allow you to access higher functions until after that period, in order to deter vandals from ruining more important stuff. So, after that amount of time, it should stop, I believe. Silver seren^C 20:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Silver seren. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help Desk.
Message added 03:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK review

Hook now updated at Template talk:Did you know#Tammy Locke. Many thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Maria Bashir

You caught me just in time, I was sneaking a last look ...

I don't find her, and I don't find any Marie Bashir other than the Australian one, either. (Both of those confirmed by googling including Wikipedia as a search term.) Nor do I find prosecutor general of Afghanistan, so there may be different terminology for the post. I'd say go for it, and good luck. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bacon Challenge 2012

Hello! You have been invited to take part in the Bacon Challenge 2012. In case you don't know or need a refresher, the Bacon Challenge is an annual celebration of bacon on Wikipedia in which editors come together to help create, expand, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. The event lasts all the way through National Pig Day 2012, giving participants plenty of time to work at their pleasure. In addition to the Bacon Challenge is the Bacon WikiCup 2012, a side event to the Challenge in which all bacon-related contributions done by those participating in the Challenge are submitted and scored by the scorekeeper (me) based on the scoring chart. At the end of the Challenge, the user with the most points in the Bacon WikiCup will win a shiny trophy for their userpage. In addition, the users who score the highest in specific categories (not yet finalized, but the categories include most image uploads, most article creations, most DYK submissions, and more) will win barnstars. Finally, all participants will receive a medal. While the awards are nice, in the end, the important thing is to have fun and enjoy what we're all here for, which is improving Wikipedia.

If you decide to participate, great! You may add your name to the participants list at the main page of the Bacon Challenge 2012, and pick up the userbox for your userpage if you desire. Signing up for the Challenge will also automatically enter you into the Bacon WikiCup. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine too - maybe next year! In the meantime, if you know anyone who might also be interested in participating, feel free to invite them! The Challenge is open to anyone and accepts participants at any time, so feel free to let anyone who might be interested know.

Note that I, the scorekeeper of the Bacon WikiCup, will be on vacation starting on the 18th of June all the way up until the 5th of July. I will have limited access to the internet, so I may or may not be able to score users' contributions during this time. Sorry for any delay in scoring (but since the Challenge lasts for more than half a year, there's no rush, right? (= ).

I'm looking forward to another fun, successful year. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Interesting

I was trying to do something nice for you and you turn it into a conspiracy theory. The reason that page wasn't deleted is because it was not on the long list of sub-pages at the bottom of the article. You're welcome. --Zaiger (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I do thank you for deleting it. I wasn't offended by the article at all, I just found it funny how sad it was. And I never said that it was a conspiracy theory, I just said that it remaining undeleted means that it stays a prime example of the privacy violations that ED.ch conducts. But, yes, thanks for deleting it. Silver seren^C 00:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charcuterie: The Craft of Salting, Smoking and Curing

Hello! Your submission of Charcuterie: The Craft of Salting, Smoking and Curing 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! Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Barnstar! It came at just the right time... it's been a discouraging few days of editing elsewhere, and the encouragement was a very welcome burst of refreshment. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

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)

I noticed you're a wikifur user. Considering furries are not on good terms with anonymous you are likely to be biased. And indeed you are, constantly trying to prevent mention of ED's url on ED's article, demanding that a source was neccesarry. When a source did turn up, you argued against any further mention of information about ED. The article currently reads as if ED is dead, which is not true. You are using wikipedia to spread false information about a group of people you have a problem with. If you actually wanted to make wikipedia a better place you would keep your biased hands out of ED's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.99.68.22 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charcuterie: The Craft of Salting, Smoking and Curing

On 25 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charcuterie: The Craft of Salting, Smoking and Curing, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 2005 book Charcuterie: The Craft of Salting, Smoking and Curing brought renewed national attention to the process of charcuterie and methods of curing meat? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom leak

If you haven't see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Account_security, you might take a look. I think that you might be able to lend some insight into some of the proposals there. I just dug down to what happened, so I am not yet sure what implications I can draw from recent events, but I thought you should know about the discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

About your question on ANI

I may or may not have misrepresented your viewpoint, but it's hard to get a word in past all the edit conflicts.

You asked: "Is there more stuff like this in your discussions?"

I would say the answer is almost certainly yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And that's where the problem lies. People keep commenting that, "well, it's their private business", or "it's off-wiki". That doesn't excuse them. The mailing list is a part of the Wiki that is supposed to be expressly used for Arbcom discussion and decision-making. Not a common forum to chat about how they hate certain people. I can completely understand "chatting", in the sense of making off-topic comments with each other and asking about their days and stuff, we do that on-wiki, but we shouldn't condone them making comments to each other like Iridescent did. Silver seren^C 23:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a procedural question, where did you get the email in question that you referenced? [5] I'm not finding it, and I'd appreciate a source, if you don't mind. Buddy431 (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to give people access to where they are being released in such a public forum as ANI. The hacker appears to be a member of Wikipedia Review and has been releasing them over there in separate threads depending on the subject. The one where Iridescent made that comment can be found here. Silver seren^C 23:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Most discouraging (the leak, of course, but more so what the leak contains). Buddy431 (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The leak was useful and informative. How can we judge how well elected officers do their jobs if we can't see them do it? The Arbitrators have abused the faith of those who voted for them, and that should be exposed so we could make a wiser and more informed decision in the next election. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for efforts

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For championing the victims "outed" by stolen personal correspondence on Wikipedia Review, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

...*blinks* What...does that mean exactly? Silver seren^C 01:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

When I checked WR, you seemed to be the only person stating that the correspondence with a vulnerable person should be removed, at least that correspondence whose publication could lead to harm of the person.

At ArbCom, you reported that the material had been moved to a sub-site where it would not be suggested by Google, so I assume that your statement of concern was responsible for this improvement.

I am sorry that correspondence related to you was also stolen and publicized. I was unaware of the ANI thread until now. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Baconnaise

On 27 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baconnaise, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Baconnaise is a kosher mayonnaise-based product that tastes like bacon, but has no bacon in it? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Whole Beast: Nose to Tail Eating

On 27 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Whole Beast: Nose to Tail Eating, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, because of its popularity, The Whole Beast: Nose to Tail Eating was called the "Ulysses of the whole Slow Food movement" and a "cult cookbook"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The lion of Egyptian revolution (Qasr al-Nil Bridge).jpg

I was wondering if you could give you opinion on the picture nomination to be a featured picture. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that they are crossing out any votes from new Commons accounts and that would include me, so there wouldn't be any point in me voting. Silver seren^C 07:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Said you never Got one. Consider it a reward for the ED drama The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

silverseren started all the drama he even as a ED article about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frigthe4 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Ahvaz

My personal thanx for your assistance on the 2005 Ahvaz unrest - it seems the article is quiet mature now, and there is an understanding among editors, including between me and Kurdo. Hope this is a good sign.
Anyway, i wanted to ask your collaboration on related Iranian issues, namely the Ahvaz bombings (related to the unrest), and another issue of Kurdish refugees in Iran - which i think requires a huge deal of attention. There is even no wiki article on the topic, but there are 4 million Kurdish refugees in Iran resulted from Kurdish Iraqi wars and the Iran-Iraq War (!).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, after i'm done with the references on the 2005 article, i'm going to make to make the 2011 Ahvaz protests article from the sources I have (and see if there are any new ones since then). But, after that? Sure. Silver seren^C 21:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Have me in mind, if you shall need any help on 2011 article. Waiting forward when you finish.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Email

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.

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Dreadstar

Care to tell me what is "creepy" about a smiley face, or what Dreadstar has done here or off-wiki that could possibly be described as "creepy"? Anything will do... Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting an email that just consists of a smiley face icon from someone whose only contact you have had with is that you have said they did something wrong is kinda creepy, in my opinion. Silver seren^C 04:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. User:Dreadstar, who has been active on this project since 2005, is an administrator in good standing. Here's a long list of awards he's received. Trying to turn a message of good will into something "creepy" doesn't cut it in my book. Your mileage may vary. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a decorated military veteran with six years of service yet if my only contact with you was an email with a picture of a clown, you might call that creepy. You might even feel that my military service and consequent awards were beside the point. Protonk (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. I don't see what being in good standing or having awards has to do with sending creepy emails (or the not of sending them, I guess?). Being a good editor on Wikipedia says absolutely nothing about what a person is actually like. And if your only relationship with an editor was questioning their actions and they sent that, it's creepy. And I still have no idea what it means...which enhances the creepiness, really. Silver seren^C 09:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much...not. False analogies are a dime a dozen. There's not a thing "creepy" about a trusted administrator sending a smiley to a user who was involved in a disagreement with him. You're going to run into people who disagree with you throughout your life. Trying to smear them as "creepy" isn't your best strategy. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to smear anyone. I'm saying that I found the email creepy. If Dreadstar wants to go ahead and explain what the email was for and what it meant, then he is free to do so. Otherwise, I am entitled to my opinion of an out of blue email from a user I openly disagreed with. Silver seren^C 10:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not that this really needs much more discussion but how did the object described as "creepy" change from the email in your first sentence to the administrator in the second? Especially when the original edit stated that the email was creepy, not the administrator? Protonk (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

An all American apple pie for you!

Happy 4th of July! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Bernard Lewinsky

I'm not sure what to make of this.[6] Overall, AFD aside, I have no doubt this kind of information belongs in the article. Within the AFD, I changed my vote from "very weak keep" to "keep" because I became convinced his involvement went beyond BLP1E and was worth describing in detail. There is something pathological going on in Wikipedia when people are afraid to let a person's own remarks in a major interview be covered, because somehow they're supposed to be insulting to themselves. Wnt (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I know this is kind of a political thing to do, but I would ask that you wait until the AfD is over before adding that information back in. Just because of how this AfD is worded and the backstory behind it with Kiwi Bomb, the farthest away we can keep the article from Monica Lewinsky, the better. Afterwards, fine. Silver seren^C 22:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but reading over that AfD, I don't think it's helping to keep that information out of it. Frankly, I can't even argue to keep the article without referencing that sort of information. Besides, there is just something impure about it which I'd prefer to avoid - we might win or lose either way, but I'd prefer to win or lose based on the article as it should be. Wnt (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Silver, re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Lewinsky, you may well be right on Bigtimepeace, but I happen to be on the other side, and I've read the entire discussion. You also happen to have an editor review, where one editor remarked on what they perceived to be a battlefield mentality, and I think I agree with that comment. Maybe my point was somewhat obtuse: sarcasm rarely wins over an opponent. All the best, Drmies (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

the Admin Board

Quite a place. I did not mean to cause a stir. Is it always such a Blood Feast? I want to edit an article about local wildlife, hope It is more pleasant on the Bambi page. Dot196 (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the older editors seem to have issues with new editors that know what they're doing. They think that means you're someone who was banned before and are here to destroy the site...or something. I dunno. As long as you are making edits that are helpful and improve things, you should be fine. Silver seren^C 00:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems simple enough to edit with all of the resources off of the Help page. Please check my edits, do I need to use the articles talk page for such small adjustments? Dot196 (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The two edits you've done so far look perfectly fine to me. Good job. Silver seren^C 01:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiwi

I'll answer here since he has now taken to removing my comments without comment...an action, along with his refusal to ever answer a question from me directly...that gets my Spidey-sense tingling in another direction, but we'll leave that for now... Kiki is hitting up against an WP:AUTOBLOCK, where even if you're logged in, you're getting snagged by a rangeblock of IP addresses. I had this happen to me once as well, as one of the places I post form is kindof a haven for vandals. usually they just do the "har har John wuz here lololol" shit on a random page via anon IP, but one time someone from where I'm at created an account and went on a quite vulgar spree. So he/she got blocked along with their underlying IP, which snared me the next time I logged on.

Anyways, what we have here is pretty clear; Kiwi found an open proxy in HK (there are lists and websites that update daily, easily obtainable, I used to to it (not here) for other purposes) so he could dodge the expected sockpuppet investigation that could have linked him to his previous account name. Unfortunately, such IPs get blacklisted here sooner or later, so he'll either have to pick another IP off the list...maybe he'll pop up from Singapore or the Ukraine next time... Tarc (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Prine

On 10 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Carl Prine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that military investigative reporter Carl Prine was accused by the Railroad Development Corporation's owner, Henry Posner, of "profiting from the promotion of hysteria"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)