User talk:Silver seren

Silverseren

edit count | | offline

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

Stacey bendet

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

Elvis Presley

Some days ago, in order to support your opinion, I have added some additional sources to the Elvis talk page. See Talk:Elvis Presley. However, you should be aware of the fact that there is a certain gang that polices the Elvis article. These guys frequently remove contributions they do not like, even if they are well sourced. See also these personal attacks by DocKino from 2010: [1]. Onefortyone (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now cited some further sources. See Talk:Elvis Presley. But DocKino is still suppressing all sources that prove him wrong. Onefortyone (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino has written on the Elvis talk page: "If you wish to make a new proposal about a sentence you'd like to add addressing 'the issues that came up with Priscilla's age', please do so in a new thread." Indeed, we should make a new proposal. For that purpose, I have cited some additional sources that contradict Guralnick's claim. By the way, concerning the questionable behavior of DocKino, you should also consult the following page: Requests_for_comment/DocKino. Onefortyone (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino now goes so far as to remove critical comments by other users from the Elvis talk page. See [2]. Onefortyone (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For a new proposal concerning young Priscilla Presley at Graceland, may I ask you to have a further look at Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if DocKino has still some serious ownership issues concerning the Elvis article. He calls the recent proposal "terrible", "ill-considered", "potentially libelous", "clearly biased", and "poorly sourced" and threatens to revert any attempt to bring it into the article claiming that such reversions are not subject to the 3RR. See these comments: [3] and [4]. In my opinion, his behavior is not acceptable. What do you think? Onefortyone (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Colonel Parker and Priscilla Presley there are some new proposals on Talk:Elvis Presley. Perhaps with one of these we can move forward. What is your opinion? Onefortyone (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Thanks!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for your unexpected and helpful contributions to the Jocelyn Wildenstein AfD, as well as for your support regarding User: Delicious carbuncle. I've pretty much given up on the issue, and will bow down to the will of DC (would rather just get on with other wiki stuff at this point) . . . but I appreciate your words to my defense. Especially considering back and forth arguing (debating?) that we've had in the past. Cheers!

RfC on COI

Did you happen to see this RfC, of some relevance to WP:CO-OP? I haven't read too closely, though there are some familiar names in the mix. Short version: an editor proposes to eliminate WP:COI and the COI/N for what sound like well-intentioned reasons, but I don't think actually make sense. That surely won't happen, but there are a number of interesting perspectives to be found there, and maybe a few potential WP:CO-OP participants. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i've been keeping an eye on it. Just remember, we all agreed not to get involved in trying to change policy. Asking people if they want to join the Wikiproject, fine, but we shouldn't be posting in the RfC or anything like that. It's best for the community to hash it out. Silverseren^C 18:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about that, although I never try to influence policy, as a matter of, er, policy. That said, there are some CO-OP members weighing in, I presume representing only themselves. Also, you should check out the flow chart Phil Gomes has posted to the CREWE Facebook page; some good thinking and good discussion around that, too. WWB Too (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The people that have posted so far weren't in the Wikiproject when we made the agreement, so they're fine. I know i'm going to stay out of it. At least it seems that the majority thus far are focusing on the idea that it's how a person edits and not why that should be the focus.

And I like the decision tree. Silverseren^C 20:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cash mob

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2012 Stratfor email leak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to F16

Cash mob (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Blogger

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Brian Lamb + Cracker Barrel redux

Hi there, Silver. Funny thing, seemed like we were on the cusp of consensus for the Brian Lamb article, and then there hasn't been a reply since I updated the draft earlier in the week. Anyhow, I've just pinged Jasper and Qwyrxian to see what they think now. By the way, one week later I notice there still hasn't been any pickup on the Cracker Barrel peer re-review. Is it common for it to take so long? Seemed like it happened much faster before. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It does generally take this long. We got lucky before when someone replied right away. We might want to notify some other Wikiprojects and things like that. Silverseren^C 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for following up with Qwyrxian; I just noticed he made the changes this morning. But I've also just realized that I introduced a couple of late errors by snipping some full citations out of the Personal life section although they're needed elsewhere. I've explained in full (with markup to replace) back at Paid Editor Help; let me know if you can fix. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally created article

I finally had some free time, so our long planned 2011 Khuzestan protests is finally created. Your contributions highly appreciated.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject?

Sure, I'm in; I've added my name on the WikiProject page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor review?

Are you still interested in editor review comments? (That is, is this still active? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's essentially perpetually open, so feel free. Though the info in there about what i've done is rather severely out of date. Silverseren^C 02:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay. It would be helpful to me if you'd indicate one or more specific areas (and/or edits) where you'd like some feedback. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've posted some questions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can respond to your answer to Q1 within a week or so. I've posted a suggestion regarding your answer to Q2. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CO-OP

Hi there, Silver. I'm curious for your latest thinking on WikiProject Cooperation and how it's working so far. Better than expected? Less than? I do have some thoughts of my own, including a few ideas about how to possibly adjust its mission, but even in matters of non-policy that seem vaguely policy-like, my instinct is to be deferential. Consider me curious to know what you think about it (and perhaps its relationship to CREWE) a couple of months in. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely better than expected, since I wasn't sure if it would take off at all. I do wish project members would be more involved in the discussions we have though. There's only about five people that post with any regularity. As for CREWE, I wish more of them would become involved with the Wikiproject as well. Or at least use the help page. You're the only one that's really used it for anything at this point. What were your thoughts? Silverseren^C 05:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good point: it wasn't guaranteed to have any traction at all, but it certainly has. Although you point to the issue I had in mind: namely, the fact that only I've really made use of the Help page, and the limited participation otherwise. (Relatedly, I saw your CREWE note only after posting here last night.) As I mentioned on Qwyrxian's page yesterday, it's not necessarily fair to him or (perhaps) me that he's the only admin at the moment, and becomes the de facto gatekeeper anytime histmerge comes up.

Meanwhile, there has been an uptick in {{Request edit}} usage recently, but not necessarily a corresponding increase in responses. Unsurprising: it's a mere category page, which doesn't lend itself to discussion, although some have tried. Absent an organized study, it's impossible to tell whether the template and category are working or not.

Somehow there must be a way for WP:CO-OP and Category:Requested edits to work in, well, cooperation together, rather than separately in parallel. Perhaps the template could mention WP:CO-OP. Perhaps WP:CO-OP could find a way to import these templates. Maybe both, maybe something else. I suggest this in part because someone actually mentioned the category on the Help talk page in late January, but I only just noticed this week. There's gotta be a way to bring the two together. What do you think? WWB Too (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fallout: Nuka Break (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to CGI and The Escapist

2011 Khuzestan protests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kalashnikov

Occupy Ashland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tea Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for a featured article

Hi! I just stumbled upon this gem: Nineteen Eighty-Four and I really don't know who or where to turn to to suggest an article as front page material. (I found you because you reverted me on something, anyway. Hum-hum) The people who read it seem to think highly of it too, since all the grades are either 4,2 or 4,3 and there's a lot of chaps who voted. It's really the most interesting and most complete article I read, personally. Could you direct me to the place I'd need to submit it? Certainly, that's the way to do things, some sort of voting system in order to determine what goes on the front page? Or maybe it's better if you nominate it (if you like it and have some time to read!) since you certainly weigh a lot more than me here. Anyway, I'm watching your page like Big Brother for a follow-up! Cheers. Mattaidepikiw (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks pretty good, but there's still a lot of parts that are unreferenced, so those would need to be fixed before it would even have a chance at being promoted to Featured Article status. But, once you've done that, you can submit it for review and promotion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates by following the nomination procedure section. Do note that Featured Article candidacies take quite a while to complete, usually around a month, and the reviewers there will come up with improvements that they expect you (or someone in general) to make to the article before they'll approve it. The Featured Article system has often been called one of the most grueling things to work through on Wikipedia, so make sure you're up to it and knowledgeable about the subject you're promoting.

I've unfortunately got my hands full with a different article i'm working on promoting to Featured Article status. If you require any assistance with the article, i'd suggest you ask one of the peer review volunteers, because they're experienced at improving articles. Good luck with the article. Silverseren^C 08:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, it seems to be a lot more work than I thought. Thank you for the pointers though, I'll save the links on my glorious user page in case I one day have the time and will to try to get it shining on the front page. BTW, they ask for references for the songs inspired by this book (there are like 30 songs) I guess a youtube reference is out of the question? Mattaidepikiw (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:YOUTUBE, it depends. In this sort of situation, yeah, you likely won't be allowed to use Youtube. The only time Youtube videos can really be used is if the video is a news broadcast hosted on the official Youtube channel of the news station. Other than that, generally not.

For the songs (and all the rest in that section), all you'd really need is a news article, published book, or scholarly academic paper that mentions the song and connects it to 1984. For those, you've got Google News (don't forget to hit archives on the left hand side after you search), Google Books, and Google Scholar. For the most part, you should be able to find what you need from one of those three places, only going to a generalized Google web search if those three fail to bring up anything useful. For example, for the first film adaptation in the section, I ran this Google Books search and came across this article ("Sensitivity to Criticism More Acute in TV", Page 14), which, in the fourth paragraph, states the info we need to use it as a reference.

So, it's not that difficult, just time consuming, as most editing on Wikipedia is if you want to actually do a good job at it. But I hope that helps. Silverseren^C 08:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It sure is helpful, thanks! Mattaidepikiw (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of François Asselineau for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François Asselineau is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Lawren00 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2012 Stratfor email leak

Hello! Your submission of 2012 Stratfor email leak 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! Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on Jimbo's talk page

Sorry, I don't think I had any choice but to remove your comment, per WP:CHILDPROTECT. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Abandoned Drafts

Category:Abandoned Drafts, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 2012 Stratfor email leak

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing on Wikipedia draft

Hi Silver seren, I finally finished massive draft on our own very topical subject of paid editing on Wikipedia. I would love your careful assessment in checking it for neutrality, formatting, organization, reference detail, etc. I hope you can take a quick look. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Occupy movement merge request (included inside this bribe)

Five awesome, freshly-baked brownies for you! Can you recommend two cities which you feel are safe, unobjectionable "easy merge" because my judgment is off. Of the 5 I posited, two of them failed. It's a lot of work, but if you tell me two cities, then there's a good chance that if it's good enough for you, it will be good enough for everybody else. My dilemma of having to "choose blind" is that I'm absolutely unsure what others will think--but you are a "swing vote" and I can strategically assume you'll vote "merge" on your own suggestion, thus giving a nearly guaranteed pair of results. So, if you're not too busy, could you spend 5 minutes looking over the list of suggestions? Just reply here with the two city names, and I'll go over there and propose it. Thanks! 완젬스 (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Occupy Syracuse was already redirected, though it looks like the content was deleted and then redirected and the info isn't on the Occupy Movements in the US page, so you might want to ask about getting whatever that info was.

Occupy Rochester NY should be okay to merge. There are some really recent sources that seem to indicate something is going on with them, but nothing particularly noteworthy has occurred yet. Until that does happen, it should stay merged.

Occupy Providence should also be okay to merge. There's probably something that can be expanded in relation to their work with the homeless, but that should probably wait to see how much info can actually be gleaned from that in the future. Silverseren^C 15:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away for a few days. I hope you'll share the same sentiment here at the relevant talk page. Thanks for your two suggestions--it really helps me rest assured that my hair will not be pulled out. My initiative was solely a proper correction to Viriditas's misguided exuberance! ;-) If we can come away with a small, yet significant (7 out of 49) removal of the totemic over-expansion of the defining protest movement of our lifetime, then I will continue having a full head of hair. (nothing has ever been more frustrating & unproductive than jumping into unfamiliar territories of Wikipedia brazenly trumpeting the mass removal of self-ascribed "insignificant" articles which people have poured their blood, sweat, tears, and ego into!) 완젬스 (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

French Wikipedia?

I noticed your edit, you might bring some interesting feedback in Talk:French Wikipedia#Title. Asavaa (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about Global Automakers

Hi there, Silver. Thanks for replying to Andrew (User:Hamilton83) on his Strayer request. And I saw your pings of other non-COI project participants yesterday: very cool. Meanwhile, I'd like your advice on something. At the start of the year, you were generous enough to help work out disagreements regarding the Cracker Barrel article; however, it wasn't my only project to go awry at the time. Now I'd like to return to the other project I was working on then, and see how it can be fixed.

In December, I prepared a draft for a new article about an organization called the Association of Global Automakers. At the outset, I wrote a draft very much like the ones I usually do, and sought to work through WikiProject Automobiles. Only once I received basic support for its creation did I catch the attention of some antagonistic editors, who declared it a "puff piece", apparently for lacking a criticism section. That there really isn't any organized criticism of the group in reliable sources (or any sources) did not satisfy them. One editor in particular began stretching facts and writing POV-ish summaries of benign details. If you skim the Talk page, you can see how hard I got trolled; a couple of other editors came to my defense, although this only made the antagonists dig in. Then, as soon as we dropped it, the antagonists walked away, leaving the article a complete mess.

I decided to leave it alone for awhile, but now I would like to begin the process of finding consensus for an appropriately weighted draft. In particular, I've been thinking about doing this through peer review. So what do you think: should I propose it there, with a similar explanation? Or would there be a better forum to begin seeking new opinions about the issues raised? Your insight would be very appreciated. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I would say is that those two sections in your "draft" should probably just be one section under the title History, perhaps with sub sections. That would be the best way to do it. And then to expand on the other stuff that's in the article now.

I think peer review would be fine, but it's going to take a while going through that process. If you're fine with that, then I would say go for it. And keep me posted. :3 Silverseren^C 23:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The "draft" I linked is the last version of the article prior to the trouble. I'm certainly open to a different draft than what I had in the first place, and I can certainly see why History would be a more appropriate heading than Challenging trade restrictions. So I'll work on a new alternative. The problem with the other stuff in the article now is that it much of it is off-topic, more about the car industry than about the association itself; some of the articles linked don't mention Global Automakers at all, and some mention it differently than is described in the article. With that in mind, any other thoughts? Because there is so much to explain, I'm wondering if maybe WP:CO-OP is still the right place. Let me know what you think. WWB Too (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not much else. I do think peer review would be a good route to take, so long as you aren't in any sort of rush. Silverseren^C 04:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Request Edits

Thanks so much for your tireless efforts on Wikiproject Cooperation in general and in particular poking folks to help with the request edit queue. It's with a low head that I posted my request on the board to help process the queue, knowing I'm a paid COI bugging volunteers to process my requests. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just annoyed that the people I poked haven't done anything yet. :/ I guess i'll have to do most of the work myself. Oh well. That's how it works out sometimes. Silverseren^C 02:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've got one in there almost 2 months old now. It is difficult because on one hand there is WP:norush and volunteers don't have a responsibility to do anything. On the other, unaddressed request edits will just result in direct editing. I noticed it's on the COIN board now - that's neat. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jesse Thomas (graphic designer)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your approach to fringe topics

Re this edit. You restore the "reference" I objected to,

• Cawthorne, Nigel (2009). The Immortals: History's Fighting Elites. MBI Publishing Company. p. 40. Retrieved October 16, 2011. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

with the summary "Black Belt magazine is not self-published". Please explain how I am supposed to assume good faith for an absurdist approach to editing Wikipedia such as this. --dab (𒁳) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought you had removed some of the Black Belt sources, but I see now that you just rearranged things. I do disagree with you changing the lede back to the horrible version it was way in the past, rather than a summary of the article.

Furthermore, I don't see why Nigel Cawthorne is an unreliable source. Especially for basic information on ninja hierarchies,. Silverseren^C 08:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your behaviour is unacceptable. Now you reverted with the edit summary asking me to use the talk page, right after I took the pains to point out exactly why your behaviour already was unacceptable both on the article talkpage and on your user page. No, you are not going to get away with defending a blatant hoax just based on WP:ILIKEIT, or ignoratio elenchi. Don't try to make this about procedure when it is painfully obvious you are doing it because you do not have a case. If you want to "save" this article, sit down and present scholarly references. If you cannot do this, step back and let people fix it. It's really as simple as that. Cawthorne is a journalist. I have no idea why this guy has his own bio article, but that's not the issue here. Does "MBI Publishing Company" tell you anything? It does Author funded publishing . We see this frequently in topics where some fringe theory is desperate for "printed" references. So people do "author funded" printing and then try to present this as "references" for Wikipedia. I am not asking you for journalism, I am asking you for scholarly references. Do you know what this term means? If yes, please go and find one. If no, please don't edit here. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Copying to talk page. Silverseren^C 08:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Proper Attribution

Hi,

As you know, I'm talking about CREWE and WP:Cooperation at a couple of conferences coming up.

In terms of attribution, do you prefer SilverSeren or your real name?

--Philgomes (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My real name is fine. :) Silverseren^C 20:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel FAC

Hey there, I've just left a co-nominator's comment on the FAC page, including a note that I take no position on whether I can edit directly: if it's encouraged, I can; if not, I'll focus on research. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unexpected delays on approved rewrites

Hi there, Silver. I have a small dilemma: two of my rewrite projects seem to have been given the go-ahead, except that I've been asked to make the direct edits, which of course you know I'm avoiding entirely anymore. Coincidentally, the go-ahead has come from DGG, whom I think is not aware of the current discouragement of direct editing with COI implications.

The first concerns Robert X Browning, where he said "Ready to go" on the Paid Editor Help page, perhaps unaware he was being asked to make the change. The second is EduCap, where he replied to me on his Talk page, saying: "I would suggest ... editing the existing page with your additional material. I think you could go ahead and do that". I left a note saying I'd prefer not, and I would ask elsewhere. Here is that elsewhere.

Would you be interested in doing so, or would you want to ask for someone else to do so? Same with Browning: should I ask Qwyrxian about a histmerge? Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am of course very much aware of the current discouragement of direct editing. I've made a comment at the Paid Editor Help page. [5] DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, DGG. As you've probably seen, I've followed up on your Talk page and at Paid Editor Help. So, this is really more a note for Silver that the discussion continues. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Touré's surname in his article

Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

TB

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

Question

Are you interested in doing a Signpost interview about paid editing? [6] Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Should I just go and put in answers on that page? Silverseren^C 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely! I may edit the answers slightly for the final version in order to arrange a coherent narrative. I won't misquote you or quote you out of context. I also might ask some follow-up questions for a second round of the interview, if that's ok with you. If we move quick enough, it can be posted in the upcoming Signpost on April 7th. But I'd rather have honesty and deep thought than speed, so... Good luck! Can't wait to hear your responses.Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.7.209 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)