Dubious Irony (talk | contribs) →Using YouTube to update view counts: new section |
|||
Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
Hi! There's a discussion about using YouTube as a primary source for view counts on [[Talk:Friday_(Rebecca_Black_song)#View_Count_Updates]]. I started the discussion after you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friday_%28Rebecca_Black_song%29&diff=next&oldid=419262710 reverted] one of my edits. I actually agree with your position but I wanted to seek community input since I was curious what the general consensus was on this matter. I figured you might want to know in case you have an opinion you want to share. Thanks! [[User:Dubious Irony|<b><font face="Verdana" color='#CC0000'>Dubious</font><font face="Verdana" color='#333333'>Irony</font></b>]] [[User talk:Dubious Irony|<sup><b><font color='FF6600'>yell</font></b></sup>]] 05:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
Hi! There's a discussion about using YouTube as a primary source for view counts on [[Talk:Friday_(Rebecca_Black_song)#View_Count_Updates]]. I started the discussion after you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friday_%28Rebecca_Black_song%29&diff=next&oldid=419262710 reverted] one of my edits. I actually agree with your position but I wanted to seek community input since I was curious what the general consensus was on this matter. I figured you might want to know in case you have an opinion you want to share. Thanks! [[User:Dubious Irony|<b><font face="Verdana" color='#CC0000'>Dubious</font><font face="Verdana" color='#333333'>Irony</font></b>]] [[User talk:Dubious Irony|<sup><b><font color='FF6600'>yell</font></b></sup>]] 05:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
==WQA== |
|||
I have file da [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Silverseren|Wikiquette Alert]] about an issue in which you have been involved.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:53, 28 March 2011
Silverseren |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
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)
Hey!
Long time no see ;-) Yamakiri TC § 12-18-2008 • 23:26:14
responded to you on my 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
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
- Okay, I made the reference addition, per your request on the articles talk page. I tried to make it as "fair" as possible. The Scythian 04:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Bacon Challenge 2011 coming to a close
Dear ever-so-valiant Bacon Challenge 2011 participant:
Almost a year ago, the Bacon Challenge 2011 kicked off for the third year in a row with the annual mission of expanding and bettering Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. We are almost at the end of this year's Bacon Challenge, which ends on March 1st. I am pleased to say that, during this time period, Bacon Challenge participants have done a great job. Ten new pages have been created. Two articles have been granted the status of being good articles. Over one hundred reliable sources have been placed into articles, and over 7,500 words have been added. Six articles have been featured on Wikipedia's main page under the "Did you know..." section. These are all excellent results.
The Bacon WikiCup has also been exciting to watch. Contributors have been racking up more and more points as the deadline approaches. As I post this message, Worm That Turned is in the lead, with Cirt in second, and Acather96 in third. Cirt currently has created the most new pages, while Worm That Turned has done the most work in expanding articles and achieving DYKs. Acather96 has done the most work with image uploads. Remember, while the Bacon Challenge is ending in just a few days, it's not too late to make any last-minute contributions to get a few more Bacon WikiCup points. Everyone who contributes at least something will earn a virtual commemorative medal, so if you haven't contributed anything bacon-related to Wikipedia, now's your chance. Contributions can be submitted up until the end of March 7th, but only for contributions that were done before the beginning of March. The extra week is provided for participants to report any last-minute contributions, and to allow for any contributions that require a timely process (such as a good article or DYK nomination) to go through. At the end of the event, scores for the Bacon WikiCup will be completed and re-checked, and prizes will be distributed. Thanks and good luck! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
User name conflict
Hi, thanks for the tip. When I looked at the page on usurping an existing name, the tool said someone on the Italian Wikipedia registered under the name without making any edits. I should be fine to take it over, though I think I'll wait and see how I feel. Thanks again. Gonfalone (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Communist terrorism
Per your suggestion I waited for a few days and then did an edit protect, the admin who looked in agreed there was a consensus for the inclusion of the content and added it. However The Four Deuces has now begun an RFC [1] so now a further 30 days shall be wasted arguing over the same points. How is one to get any work done on this article? Is there not a rule against this kind of behavior? I was under the impression once a consensus was achieved the edit could stand? What does one do in this situation? Tentontunic (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- For right now, they have technically not done anything disruptive, since TFD is trying to gauge further "consensus" on the issue, since consensus can always change. Your best bet would be to inform the relevant wikiprojects in a neutral manner and then place a comment in the RfC that is as explanatory and convincing as you can make. SilverserenC 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
New categories
There is nothing wrong with adding a category to an article and then creating it. In fact, for me, it is the easiest way to create a new category because then after adding it to the article, all I have to do is click on the red link to create it. I can't do that if, the minute I add it someone removes it. If an editor adds a category and it's still red after an hour or more, then go ahead and remove it, but there's no need to while I'm in the very process of creating it. If you do not like red-linked categories, you can find a bunch at Special:Wantedcategories. A lot of editors do seem to create categories and, unlike me, forget about them. I'm sure your help will be greatly appreciated. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I iz returnin'
Been away for about 10 days w/o the internet. Am back now, may be a few days before I have time to catch up though! Though I know the first article i'm gonna check on ....--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops--thanks. That's what you get for editing too many articles on similar topics with kids running around. Time for coffee. BTW, I'm not convinced of the source itself (a collection of blurbs...), but that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a collection of blurbs purposefully obtained from the top people in the video game industry, having been asked specifically what they think about Old Man Murray. I think that that is literally the best source you will ever get in terms of critical reception for a gaming topic. SilverserenC 02:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Erm...
I'm on the Arbitration Committee actually. Shell babelfish 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, i've fixed it. I was going off of the information on your userpage. I apologize for the misunderstanding. SilverserenC 21:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Western Sahara
I removed Western Sahara per discussion under the heading "Consensus needed on which borderline countries are included in this article" for the same reason that Somalia was removed. Even though protests have happened in both countries, no mainstream source that I've seen yet includes either country on the list of countries involved in Tunisia-inspired unrest, which is basically what I understand the article to be about. But don't take my word for it, anyone can download a freeware SVG editor and change the map! Personally I think some kind of moderation or protection is needed on this subject before it turns into an edit war. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, I'd say that qualifies. If that link was posted on the talk page, I missed it in the mess of emotional arguments. -ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
request for response to my challenge on the Fads and fallacies talk-page
I took offense to your post here. Please respond. Hpvpp (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well Done!
You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.
Keep up the great work!
A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- What have you done? A look at your contributions shows the long and dedicated effort you've made to this encyclopedia. A very excellent effort indeed! A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Saeed
Holy crap, I need a break. Want to take over? ;p I don't think I've ever had this long of a discussion about anything, even at Chiropractic... Ocaasi (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I got this. Those sources you found were perfect. SilverserenC 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Moral Issues: Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable: Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject; Those that are unfairly obtained; Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life. These are categories which are matters of common decency rather than law. They find a reflection in the wording of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. The extent to which a particular photograph is "unfair" or "intrusive" will depend on the nature of the shot, whether it was taken in a public or private place, the title/description, and on the type of subject (e.g., a celebrity, a non-famous person, etc). This is all a matter of degree. A snatched shot of a celebrity caught in an embarrassing position in a public place may well be acceptable to the community; a similar shot of an anonymous member of the public may or may not be acceptable, depending on what is shown and how it is presented. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#moral issues
- Yeah, no need to contort yourself. Every possible objection has been raised, even the ones with obviously no basis in policy, and even seemingly some alternatives as if it wouldn't be nixed on other grounds. The worst case scenario is to try and go through Wael to get to the family, which may or may not be so easy, and really seems unnecessary given the circumstances. I hate to say it, but sometimes I am really tempted to just seek the common sense of Jimbo. There's no way he would take the NFCC claims here seriously, although he might reserve judgment or even hedge on the offensiveness issue. Anyway, this can only go on... Request for Copyright Permissions, RfCs... it could be months.
- Meanwhile, the list of sources I yoinked together Talk:Death of Khaled Saeed/Sources is a bit awesome, and we should use it to expand the article. Also, I think we can move it now to -> Khaled Saeed, now that he's basically the face, martyr, and cause of the revolution. BLP1E is really not an issue any more, now that Mubarak is out. Ocaasi (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to put my chain back on if it looks out of order. I can't quite fathom that we are taking the illegality seriously. I'm pretty sure, if we can clear the other issues, that an RfC on this point would result in a Keep. But what's going to actually happen here? We'll be left with split (no) consensus on whether it's needlessly shocking and whether it's necessary, a lingering claim that we should get the image from the family directly to avoid whatever other issues are floating around, and the immoral/illegal issue. Do we then have an RfC on all of the this? Even if we can get from Wael to Saeed's family, there will still be Image Use policy issues, offensive material issues, and the illegality that has been alleged wouldn't matter if the family uploaded the image themselves. And yet, this image belongs here, per the RS and common sense. Ocaasi (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- So, looks like good news. For future reference, literally, if the discussion comes up again, I compiled a massive resource: User_talk:Ocaasi/Saeed. I'm looking to work on the article, but just if it gets brought back to NFCR... USchick and Soundvisions are still not pleased with the result, and are both for different reasons and on different points continuing to object. Nice getting this wrapped up. Ocaasi c 14:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: ?
Certainly. Following WP:NAMB, Wikipedia guidelines on use of hatnotes, Friday (Rebecca Black song) is not an ambiguous article title. Nobody is going to come to Friday (Rebecca Black song) looking for a song by another artist, or another use of the word "Friday". Yves (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure?
Hi! I'm the one who proposed deleting the Glee 'Born this Way' article. You said it's been discussed a lot and there are sources etc. I agree with you, but Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine(even if it is reliable gossip). I think you should let the episode before it air once(which is still 3 weeks later) or at least draw a little nearer before creating this article. It's airing date is not even known yet. I'm sure some Wikipedia policy will complement my theory. If I have your consent, I'll put the delete thingy back up. However, if you still happen to disagree, I'll leave it. Think about it! --Kanavb (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Did as you said. Opened it at the articles for deleteion, as you have already seen.Kanavb (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Per Kanavb's talk page, I have speedily closed the AfD discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I guess you were right! Btw, thanks to editors like you I'm really learning how to edit Wikipedia! Sorry for any inconveniance! Kanavb (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Editor review
Hiya Silver seren, I saw your request for editor review on your user page and was thinking of reviewing you, then realised the request is a whole year old. Are you still looking for a review?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's a perpetually open review. I didn't feel like making one every six months, so I just have that one so people can review me whenever they want. However, I should probably update the info I present in it, since it's a little out of date. If I updated it now, I would make sure to mention how I got Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass to GA class and also the work i've been doing on 2011 Iranian protests. But, sure, feel free to review me, I encourage it. :3 SilverserenC 23:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ah okay, that makes sense. I'll review you in the next few days then if I have time. I'll try to give some thoughtful and helpful comments. I should warn you that I've only been here for a few months myself and this would be my first editor review - feel free to decline if that bothers you. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The upbeat vandal
Although I agree that such persistence shouldn't be needed, I appreciate that you persisted regardless. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
In Case You're Interested
I found a reference to Sidatio on your user page. Per the user contributions, one or both of them are back very occasionally. Just thought you'd like to know. =) CycloneGU (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if having last edited in December counts as back, but thanks for letting me know. SilverserenC 00:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
What if the nominator explicitly recommends Delete
You wrote: "The nominator shouldn't vote delete in the discussion itself". Is that a rule in some guideline? All I can find is the statement in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion that "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise." This is not normative but informative; moreover, that paragraph is concluded with: "However, some nominators explicitly indicate their recommendation." --Lambiam 00:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if its written policy anywhere, but I know that it's how things are done. The explicit statement is normally done in the nomination text as it is. The reason for this is that the nominator voting in the discussion section itself has the possibility of confusing the closing admin, making him and others think that there is an extra person voting when there isn't. As much as we like to say that AfD isn't a vote, when it comes down to established users arguing with each other and both having good arguments, it does pretty much become a vote. That's why the nominator also voting in the discussion section can be seen as a method of there pretending to be more delete votes than there are, which would fall under gaming the system. But, like I said, it's not expressly stated in policy anywhere, it's just expected of nominators not to do that. It's also a common courtesy sort of thing. SilverserenC 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
CYOA Incident
Silver, would you be interested in help document whats going on CYOA as a wiki-incident article? Phearson (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- You mean an ANI report? Um, sure, though i'd want to make sure that I have backing if I do. I don't want to get lambasted over there. SilverserenC 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, you'll need to be a bit more explanatory then or find that example, because I still have no idea what you mean by "wiki-incident article". ._. SilverserenC 00:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can't for the life of me find it, but here is a potential news source that could be used in a future incident article involving Wikipedia: [3]
- Okay, you'll need to be a bit more explanatory then or find that example, because I still have no idea what you mean by "wiki-incident article". ._. SilverserenC 00:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Using YouTube to update view counts
Hi! There's a discussion about using YouTube as a primary source for view counts on Talk:Friday_(Rebecca_Black_song)#View_Count_Updates. I started the discussion after you reverted one of my edits. I actually agree with your position but I wanted to seek community input since I was curious what the general consensus was on this matter. I figured you might want to know in case you have an opinion you want to share. Thanks! DubiousIrony yell 05:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
WQA
I have file da Wikiquette Alert about an issue in which you have been involved.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)