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)

responded to you on my talk page

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

Comment

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

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

Additional comments needed

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

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

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

Talkback

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

Brilliant

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

Talkback

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

Talkback

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

Talkback regarding ED

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

DYK for Baconnaise

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

DYK for The Whole Beast: Nose to Tail Eating

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. Silverseren^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. Silverseren^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 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. Silverseren^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. Silverseren^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. Silverseren^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.[1] 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. Silverseren^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. Silverseren^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. Silverseren^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

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

Two talk pages for Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts?

The "Discussion" tab for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts is a different page from the talk page mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. Can you please fix this? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Offense

I'm very sorry that you took offense from my posting.[2] I thought the project was relevant so I mentioned it. It was not intended to attack anyone and I hadn't imagined that the comment could be viewed as an insult. Personally, I don't think anyone owns sandboxes, any more than they own user pages or projects. But I'll modify my remark to make it less offensive.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When posting a link to the Wikiproject after someone asks what kind of people steals sandbox drafts, it's kind of hard not to take offense at that. But, thank you. I'll go strike my comment. Silverseren^C 07:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually think the project is a good idea.   Will Beback  talk  08:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

RS

I was told by a wikipedian that these following three sources are unreliable [3]. Is that true? Pass a Method talk 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources seem potentially reliable, but the way that the added sentences were worded was not neutral in the slightest. Furthermore, you should be opening a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in order to discuss the reliability of those sources and not just contacting me. It can be seen as canvassing otherwise. Silverseren^C 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI. I did also mention on the user's talk page re: canvassing, which I think has been accepted. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel I should remind you of this...

Upon Googling my name, I saw the discussion where you accused me of being a meatpuppet of H64. I don't care what kind of personal vendetta you have with him, you do not need to be accusing me of such things. I've not spoken to H64, and in fact didn't know he was on Wikipedia. I can understand your bias against the site, but dragging my name through the mud simply because I disagree with you just shows your abilities as an admin. Please do not make such statements again without at least informing me of the conversation so I can defend myself against such slander. Thank you. Equivamp(talk) 09:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me a diff to where I said this? I don't remember calling you a meatpuppet, unless you are considering my general statement that all ED.ch users arriving at that poll were likely canvassed and, thus, would be considered meatpuppets. If that's what you're referring to, then I stand by that statement, especially after your specific comment about myself and Conti on ED.ch. Furthermore, didn't I say that one or two months ago? Are you bringing this up now just because of the Google search? It's kind of a bit after the fact and i'm fairly certain you saw me say it in the first place anyways, since you were responding in the same section. Silverseren^C 09:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica. It was on something else, Wikipedia:Administrator Incidents or something similar, I don't remember exactly, where you were discussing H64 creating an article ED.ch. You can play the oblivious card all you wish, but I'm not falling for it. Equivamp(talk) 10:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I went and found it. You are referring to this discussion, yes? And specifically, you are referring to where I said "Note: Hmm? I know this discussion isn't about the ED article talk page, but still, meatpuppetry. At least User:Equivamp can be added to the list."

I'm afraid to say that I stand by what I said there. It's too bad that ED.ch is currently down (and that it's on the spam blacklist), because then you could access that link, which is where you made a personal attack against me. But, either way, I do believe that actions by ED.ch users on the Encyclopedia Dramatica talk page constitutes meatpuppetry and saying so is not a personal attack. And I didn't say that you were a meatpuppet of H64, I think you're confusing meatpuppet and sockpuppet. Meatpuppetry means you were canvassed from off-Wiki to push the same agenda as another user. Based on the comment you made on ED.ch, I completely believe that. I do apologize, however, if i've offended you with the term, but the meaning behind it applies. Silverseren^C 11:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(I know the difference between a meatpuppet and a sockpuppet, thanks. I assumed you meant H64 had sent me to back up his claims.)

I know what edit you are refering to. That was not an attack against you. If anything it could be viewed as an attack against the the collective "everybody else" I'd been refering to, but that's not the case, either. It was merely an observation I made of the situation using crude language to emphasise my frustration about the situation at the time. I apologize if I offended your sensibilities, but I wasn't insulting you. (Though the fact that you're apparently watching the page shows more than amptly your bias against the site. Equivamp(talk) 13:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Just like you were searching your own username, I was searching my username on the site to see what else H64 has uploaded and/or said about me. That's how I ran across your comment in the first place way back when. And, as I remember, there were specific words that you called myself and Conti that would definitely fall under a personal attack and wasn't just at "everybody else". Silverseren^C 01:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Pages moved from MfD

Hi. I have closed as delete two MfDs where what I deleted was actually redirects to two pages you had moved into your user space: User:Silver seren/Alexandre Vinokourov and User:Silver seren/Bert Oosterbosch. I gathered from the discussions that you no longer require these, but I leave you to tag them {{db-u1}} if that's so. Although a histmerge was requested for Bert Oosterbosch, I decided that was unnecessary because the edits before the original draft was cut and pasted to an article were all by the same editor, so attribution is OK. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Tagged and bagged. Thanks for reminding me. Silverseren^C 10:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Template:Off-topic

Hi, at the article Jewish religious terrorism you removed a template without discussing it at the relevant section on the Discussion page. To repeat here what the problem is, Burgess doesn't posit a link between the first-century Zealots and the modern-day Jewish religious terrorists; rather, he argues that first-century Zealotry was precursor of subsequent generations of terrorists. It's ok to say that Zealotry was the precursor of terrorism later in history at the article on Zealotry. It's not ok to say that Jewish religious terrorism developed out of Zealotry at Jewish religious terrorism. Do you follow what I'm saying?—Biosketch (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Matthew Lewis article

I've added an image to the article which I was able to get the license changed on Flickr to something that's Wiki-friendly - a very nice image IMO. I saw your comment on the WBEZ page for the discussion and thought I'd give you a heads up on that. If you do get a response from Matthew (or his manager/agent/assistant/etc.) give me a heads up so I swap the image out. Tabercil (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Silverseren^C 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fontanellar gun

Hi Silver, I reviewed your nomination and have a small quibble before I approve it. Could you please stop by T:TDYK and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Because pulling wheelies is for motorcross, and we are here to edit an encyclopedia, not for moot court. Cerejota (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. :3 Silverseren^C 23:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	The Resilient Barnstar for you because of your mighty resilience. Why the Resilient Barnstar? Because of your mighty resilience. Shirt58 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Bachmann

Unless you disagree with my assessment,[4] can you please remove this source from the list? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren^C 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DRV

"S Marshall, you have already voted Keep Deleted up above, which you bolded. Please either remove the bold or either comment, so it doesn't seem like you're trying to vote twice" - It's a different user, they just seem to have copied the signature of the user whose vote they were seconding. Their own signature follows. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

...*blinks* You're...not allowed to do that. That's semi-impersonation, even with your own signature following it. Silverseren^C 05:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured it was a n00b mistake and that perhaps the user had just copied to avoid misspelling, but now that I look, the user's been around nearly as long as I have and should probably have known better. Anyway, this was basically to say it wasn't S Marshall voting twice. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain what the link you put on my talk page is about?

I have no idea what I'm supposed to be looking at with it and I scrolled up and down that page and didnt see anything that I cared about or that was exactly what I wrote at AN/I. I'm really confused what you were trying to say.Camelbinky (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You say that "I'm going to be watching the article and the talk page after this to make sure that this isn't an attempt to make the article entirely negative POV-wise." I completely support that action, and I'll happily intervene if I feel it gets too anti-GNAA or unencyclopedic. You can hold me to that. In addition, I will step in to stop anti-GNAA editors from editing the article. As it stands, I have no intention of allowing the article to degenerate into an anti-GNAA mess, and I do not agree with the viewpoints espoused by anti-GNAA editors. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fontanellar gun

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 03:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 18:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's Argument etc.

Hello, I've created the article Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy (scientific paper). I believe we are justified in this because A. The result of AfD was keep, and B. No one has opposed it after 24 hours. --³SlowhandBlues¯ 03:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For remembering

Permanent link to removal of original section and labeling as "trolling nonsense". Permanent link to addition of my comment on subject.

Silverseren^C 10:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)