User talk:Silver seren
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)
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2015)
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2015)
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2015)
This week's article for improvement (week 53, 2015)
This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2016)
Luke Brugnara article vandalized, please help!
The Luke Brugnara article has been vandalized with removal of new factual information supported by references and I am requesting that User:Donner60 and User:Jpgordon be blocked or prevented from further vandalizing the Luke Brugnara article and stonewalling any new insightful facts as these two individuals are clearly biased. Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Joshualeverburg1: Nope, sorry. It seems pretty clear to me that if there's any vandalism going on, it's your POV edits. Your claim in your edit is not backed up by the source. Unless you have a reliable source to back any claim like that one, then it's not going to happen. SilverserenC 09:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2016)
Invitation to the Google Doodle task force
|Hello, Silver seren. You're invited to join the Google Doodle task force of the Today's articles for improvement project. We aim to improve articles on current and previous Google Doodles to turn them into a valuable and inspiring resource for interested readers.
If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thank you for your consideration.
Need some advice
Hey Seren, hope you're doing well. I wanted to solicit your advice about some obstacles I've run into regarding my paid COI work. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree with the work that I do, but I'm unsure how to proceed in a case like this. I had made an edit request for David M. Cote, and it was denied for being spam. In my honest judgment, I felt that it was quality content, otherwise I would not have made the request. I asked the user who denied my request to elaborate on why they felt it was spam, but they reverted my question off of their talk page, again in the name of spam. I don't want to escalate this too far, but I'm not exactly sure where to go from here. Any thoughts?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- @FacultiesIntact: I assume this is about the Career section discussion at the bottom of the talk page? Looking over your version, there are definitely some useful additions to the first and last section that I wouldn't call spam at all. For the middle section on TRW, however, I would say that "of the $16 billion Cleveland-based products and services provider for the automotive, aerospace and information technology markets" is not needed and seems a bit promotional. If they want to know what TRW does, the reader can click the link right in that sentence to that page. Other than that though, the other proposed additions sound useful. I'll go have a talk with Joseph. SilverserenC 00:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- @FacultiesIntact: Anyways, back to the content. So, outside of the TRW addition, the other two sections look fine. And the references look good. I just have one question/request. For the total compensation information, I assume there's not a secondary source with the info or you'd be using that as a reference, but is there potentially a primary source that is independent of Honeywell? Like some sort of agency that would record said information? That would be preferable as a source. SilverserenC 18:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, thanks for sticking up for me. It really means a lot, personally. Regarding the content, I can see your point about the TRW info being extraneous. I included it as it was part of the article when I initially started working on it, and it has since been removed. Generally, I try to avoid deleting original content as that can be just as, if not more contentious than adding content. That said, your point still stands and I think it reads better without it. As for the total compensation, I used the Honeywell document because, since they are a publicly traded company, this is the same information that they present to the SEC. I haven't found anywhere that records these numbers directly, and other sources of CEO incomes (like Forbes and Bloomberg) typically differ in how they calculate it. While I can see why an internal document wouldn't normally be ideal, I think this is the best source for the information since it's directly accountable to the federal government.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)