Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Hi. I was interested to read your opinion here[1]. This led me to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Political culture, however it's actually inactive — with a merge proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. I've commented on this here. Perhaps you would also like to comment? Restructuring the politics project might offer a way out of the Conservatism quagmire. --Kleinzach 06:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to fix these messes that Noxiousnews has created. I cannot deal with this sort of individual much longer.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to help sort out Bhangra related articles. As you can tell I eat sleep drink Bhangra, primarily cuz I think its a misunderstood genre that carries huge potential for the future of music in general and could one day, carry out its stated mission of blurring out the lines between Eastern music traditions and Western music traditions.Noxiousnews (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Silver seren, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. (Note: This invitation is open to any interested Wikipedian — If you're reading this, and would like to be interviewed as well, please contact me.) Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Well you have created much more than 25. I can see you are well on your way to 50. I see your DYK's and note that they are as eye catching as a hypercube. Keep up the good work. Thanks from me and the wiki. Victuallers (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :D Silverseren^C 22:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Silver seren! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For your significant improvements to the Tom Segalstad article while it's still in AfD. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :3 Silverseren^C 01:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'd also add big thanks for your article fixup -- I've been traveling (and still am), and am very pleased to see your improvement to the article, and its probable rescue from deletion. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey there brother, congratulations. Libya is now free from Gaddafi. Glad to see also Tunisia just had its first free election. Listen, Alaa is facing a military trial and I think it will be ITN worthy so I was hoping you can help expand the page about him and get it up to standards. I personally know alaa so I have a problem writing about him cuz it will be POV so Im looking for someone else I trust to do it and I thought of you. Let me know if you need any info and if you can do it. If you expand it 5x it will be also in the DYK section. Thanks in advance :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I won't have much time this week. I have two projects to do and a test to look forward to. I'll probably still be editing Wikipedia, but not focusing on any major content contributions until Friday evening. After that though, i'll be free to help. Sorry. Silverseren^C 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This was incivil, and should not be repeated. Hipocrite (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking to create articles on topics we're missing, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Stanford Archive answers, Wikipedia:ACF Regionals answers, and the various related projects. Raul654 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Silver seren for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Alexandria (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't do things like this. It is very obviously POV-pushing, since none of the other items on the list have anything next to them. I am removing it, please don't do it again. Silverseren^C 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel directly quoting the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten on the page devoted to the Bugei Ryuha Daijiten is highly inappropriate and POV-pushing. I did it because of the number of ninja related articles that use reference to the Bugei document of Togakure-ryu as some kind of 'proof' that there's a historical lineage to modern ninjutsu. Including it among the 'Listed Ryuha' section of that article without giving the context to indicate that it was 'listed' as untrustworthy implies that there is historical legitimacy to Togakure-ryu and is very POV. I'll assume that your POV changes to the article were done in good faith and will revert them. Please don't do it again. If you can find quotations regarding the legitimacy (or lack thereof) for other arts listed in the article I would encourage you to do so. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding any quotes about legitimacy without cause is still POV. It is similar to you adding the out of context Draeger quote to every article related to Togakure and many other articles besides. Silverseren^C 15:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think that quotes from the Bugei in the article about it are POV . . . but singling out one martial art is somewhat POV. Tell you what . . . I've modified the Bugei page again it now clearly indicates that not all listed ryu are legitimate (my main contention) and is no longer singling out Togakure (your main contention). Is this acceptable to you?

Regarding the Draeger quote: This relates to legitimacy of historical claims regarding ninjutsu. It's a valid reference. Please feel free to expand the quote further if you believe that it's being used out of context. Regards, --Stvfetterly (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that Draeger's comment really isn't related to historical claims. Neither Masaaki or his Bujinkan organization have claimed that their students and members are ninjas, as far as I know. And it doesn't seem like something they would realistically claim. Some of them might jokingly say as such, but not seriously. Draeger's comment that Seiko was the last ninja is historically correct. There haven't been any employed ninja, aka "espionage agents" trained in ninjutsu, since Seiko. But Draeger saying Seiko was the last has little to nothing to do with the legitimacy of Togakure-ryu or any of the schools of ninjutsu, especially not when he states in the next line that Masaaki is considered a "modern authority". Silverseren^C 17:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see the point that you're making. If the Bujinkan didn't call themselves (and their predecessors ninja) then I'd agree with you. A quick 2 second search though shows a Bujinkan instructor calling Takamatsu 'The last shinobi' for example: Ettig, Wolfgang (2006). Takamatsu Toshitsugu - The Last Shinobi. Tengu-Publishing. ISBN 3924862109.</ref>. Here's a website run by Richard Van Donk (a 14th dan with the Bujinkan) calling Takamatsu the 'Last true living ninja' [[2]]. The Bujinkan is full of these claims . . . so the quote still stands as relevant to the issue.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't two separate claims really. Both Takamatsu and Seiko were active during WWII as espionage agents and both were trained in Ninjutsu. sure, you would argue that whichever of them died the latest would be then the last, but that's still more of an opinionated judgement call, because both were really "active" as ninja during WWII and not after that. In a manner of speaking, they're both the "last ninja". Draeger believes Seiko is the last and he's probably right based on what criteria he's using. But Bujinkan saying Takamatsu is the last isn't necessarily incorrect either. If we can find a source that discusses both Takamatsu and Seiko, we can tie them together in the article, describing the views of both parties, Draeger and Bujinkan. But I don't think there's a source like that, i'm pretty sure I would have found it already. Silverseren^C 17:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find any (non-Bujinkan) sources to indicate Takamatsu's involvement for the Japanese government as a ninja espionage agent, I'd be more than happy to add them to the articles. These shouldn't be too hard to find if he did have any involvement. The Japanese are meticulous record keepers, and have released most documents related to World War II. Until we can prove that Takamatsu had any affiliation or relationship to ninja at all, then we should provide all available information both for (so far, only from Bujinkan sources) and against this assertion. The Draeger quote indicates that as of '69 the last ninja had died. Takamatsu died in '72. That's a pretty clear cut comment, it's related to the articles that it's in, and we seem to have gone past the "Bujinkan doesn't claim to be ninjas" bit.

If you can tie together Seiko, Takamastsu, Draeger, and the Bujinkan with new references, that would be awesome. I'd love to have a final, definitive source to either say "Hatsumi's full of crap" or "The Bujinkan are legit ninja warriors". At the moment, the Bugei is the closest that we have to that source, and it appears to indicate more the former (at least regarding Togakure-ryu) rather than the latter. --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am pretty new on Wikipedia stuff. Do you have any guideline on how can I fix/improve references problem? I don't fully understand what I did wrong.

(Cadvga (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

Dear Silver seren,

Can I have your opinion regarding this topic? thanks. Bahraini Activist (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey! It's been a good few months since the Bacon Challenge 2012 kicked off in June, and I'm pleased to say that decent progress has been made. While we were a bit slow to start, bacon-related contributions have been picking up again, and scores have been rising in the Bacon WikiCup. Here's a quick rundown of the overall positions as they stand:

• 1^st: Silver seren
• 2^nd: Worm That Turned
• 3^rd: Rcsprinter123
• 4th: Doh5678
• 5th: Cirt

Currently, only a handful of participants have reported contributions: to those who haven't, remember, there is still plenty of time left to contribute and rise up in through the positions, as the Challenge and WikiCup run up until March. Just like last year, all participants will receive a shiny medal which they can place on their userpages, or use as a self-esteem booster if need be (just joking...sort of). If you need ideas for what to work on, a list is available here.

One last thing! Per request, we are bringing back territory representation into the WikiCup! Editors can now represent nations, states, or provinces, just to add a bit of fun and Olympic-flair to the event. Simply reply to this message with the territory you wish to represent, if you choose to do so.

Thanks for reading! Good luck! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Nebraska Silverseren^C 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you've gone after my pigs! Given other time pressures, I'm probably going to have to bow out (or at least participate less), so you might be having that covetted trophy. I advise you push hard though... in case I'm inspired in February ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You're the one that let me know those pigs existed because you added those infoboxes. ;3 Silverseren^C 18:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have provided you with the original draft (with it's history) in your userspace, at User:Silver seren/Circball, and removed the DRV. I'd appreciate the article either being worked on or deleted, I can't see a reason to have it floating around. So if you do not work on improving it, please tag it for deletion. I'll check up on it in a few weeks, and if no progress has been made we will have to reevaluate it's existence. If you have any questions please let me know. Prodego ^talk 03:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not okay with this. We do not delete drafts just because they haven't been worked on. This is completely unacceptable. Silverseren^C 03:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is why the draft has been undeleted. However, unused drafts created by banned users are deleted, that is CSD G5. Neither of these issues are being addressed in the DRV. If you disagree with CSD G5 then you'll have to start a policy discussion. If you disagree with this page being deleted because you wanted to work on it then the issue should be addressed. If you wanted a page created by a banned user undeleted and have no intention of doing anything with it, then I can't see your argument as more than an attempt at making a point, and I will have to redelete the page. Prodego ^talk 03:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood. And I will be working on it. Though i'm going to be moving it back to the Wikiproject page. Silverseren^C 03:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Prodego ^talk 04:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's quite instructive to read the discussion of Circball at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, the discussion page for Filipino editors, where the notability and sourcing of this article on Circball were greeted with a blend of skepticism and derision. These are folks who don't often visit the drama boards, but who know what reliable Filipino sources are (and aren't). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It was really just one user, it looks like. And I never said that the sourcing was good, that's why the article needs to be worked on. Silverseren^C 07:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Circball, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Circball and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts/Circball during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 08:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Houston tunnel system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross Sterling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If that counted as an "independent interest", then the policy would have no meaning at all. Proxying for banned editors is one of the most disruptive activities an editor can perform. The only way to get rid of them is to ensure that they have no hope whatsoever of influencing Wikipedia. The value of using a banned editor's article as the foundation for an article on an obscure sport is trivial, and, should the topic be notable, there would be nothing that prevented you from writing such an article from scratch: something you would gladly do if you were genuinely interested in the topic.

If you feel that I have been threatening, here it is in non-threatening language: you have committed a profound error of judgment that must never be repeated. Please do not do so again.—Kww(talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't proxying for anyone, I am trying to work on an article that I think can become a nice article with some work. If the issue is that it is a version that has the blocked (blocked, not banned) editor's edits in the history, then fine, i'll "rewrite it". But like I said in the MfD, i'm going to be using the same sources he did, so it's not really going to sound much different. It seems like a waste of time to do it all from scratch when I can just change what's currently there. Silverseren^C 01:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The more important issue is that you responded positively to a request from a sockpuppet even after you knew it was a sockpuppet. If you had unknowingly incorporated the material, I would have no issue whatsoever. What you did was to specifically reward a blocked user by doing exactly what he asked you to do.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what he does or does not want me to do. I did it because I was interested in the subject, because I want to work on an article on Circball. I don't care if User:Thekohser wanted me to make an article on Cell bank, I made it because i'm a science major and interested in the subject. Or Charles Coolidge Parlin for that matter, or Gottlob Espenlaub, or Carl Prine. I made all of them because I wanted to do it, not because a banned user wanted them to be made. And I made them neutrally and well. If the issue is that the Circball article is one that the user directly edited, then fine, i'll make a new one. But if the problem is that it's going to "reward" him, how is a different version that I personally make going to be any different from that? Silverseren^C 01:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should question why Circball has to be next, or even soon. There are millions of topics out there that haven't got a banned editor hoping for it to happen.—Kww(talk) 01:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't be making my decisions on what articles to work on based on whether there is a banned editor involved with it. Silverseren^C 02:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only should you, you must. I didn't write the policies against proxying for banned editors: I've just informed you of them. There's no real doubt that that is what you have done. Defending it instead of agreeing not to do it again just makes it worse, because it makes it clearer that you don't understand why it's wrong and are likely to repeat the offense in the future.—Kww(talk) 03:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what proxying means. I am not doing any editing on behalf of or at the direction of any banned user. I am editing topics because I am interested in them and feel like editing them. I am interested in Circball and want to work on improving it. Unless you're going to say that all a banned user has to do is express interest in a topic being created and that's proxying if someone makes or edits an article on that topic. In that case, all banned users would have to do is list their interest in every possible article to be made and then no one could ever make an article again or they'd be proxying for them. Silverseren^C 03:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I know exactly what proxying means. A blocked sockpuppet made a request. You specifically granted it, with knowledge that the user whose request you were granting was a sockpuppet of a blocked user. You acted to accomplish something the blocked user could not accomplish for himself, despite the fact that had never shown any interest in Circball prior to his request. That's proxying. You don't have to be taking dictation to be proxying, you simply have to be acting at the request of a blocked user in a manner that enables the blocked user to achieve his goals. The reason it works is that paragraph you attempted to misapply: editors with an independent interest in a topic get some leeway to prevent the abuse that you are concerned about. In this case, you have no independent interest, and you didn't just happen to create an article on a topic he's interested in: you took the words he wrote and the sources he gathered, exactly as he requested, and are using them to recreate an article. That's proxying. No other word for it.—Kww(talk) 04:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

How am I using the words he wrote when i'm rewriting them and removing huge sections of what was written? Users are allowed to take ownership of articles that blocked users have written and work on them. This is specifically a part of both WP:BAN and the CSD criteria. I was to change the article that he made. And I was involved in the AfD, I didn't just approach the article at the Wikiproject, I already knew about it beforehand. So, yes, I had an interest in it prior to his request. Silverseren^C 04:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to presume at this point that your misunderstanding is intentional. Hopefully the nearly universal condemnation your actions have received will be sufficient to keep you from repeating this behaviour, even if you are unwilling to acknowledge that it is wrong.—Kww(talk) 04:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the "condemnation" is because MuZemike was upset that I undid his admin powers, so he complained about it on ANI and made that sarcastic unblock request. None of you are using any policy-based response at all. In fact, most of them are just using non-notable, which is completely useless at MfD. This is just another example of how Wikipedia is a contest and everyone is trying to make sure they one-up everyone else and keep other users "down". I'm one of the few people here that's actually trying to write an encyclopedia and improve content. Silverseren^C 04:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My discussion with you has been strictly policy based. Don't try to use an argument that claims that your proxying is somehow noble because it enables you to write an article. It's not a matter of a contest. I work extremely hard to reduce sockpuppeting and make sure that productive editors have an environment that they can work in. I dislike seeing those efforts intentionally undermined.—Kww(talk) 12:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

How is a noindexed draft of an article undermining that? What Galing wants is publicity for the sport, that's not going to happen while it's in draft form, so he's not getting what he wants. This is a draft that I want to work on. And he's not getting publicity in the process. I would have asked for a copy of it anyways to work on and we'd be in the same place, making all of this completely worthless arguing. Galing should be able to see by now that the article is not going to be staying the same like i'm sure he wanted. I plan to throw out all of the crap and focus on, mainly, the news broadcasts. Silverseren^C 19:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Circball. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Relist 108.23.117.2 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty soon we're gonna have a community ban if this keeps up (speaking of this block evading IP).Jasper Deng (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be necessary at this point. But, as I stated before, POV pushers don't determine what we do with articles. If we disallowed article making or improvement based on POV pushers, then we would be unable to have any coverage of climate change or Israel-Palestine on Wikipedia, not to mention so many other areas. Silverseren^C 21:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Minicraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2-D (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection wouldn't be a bad idea. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in reorganizing the Occupy Windsor page. Stvfetterly (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Five more months and then I can drink that. :3 Silverseren^C 21:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You're still 18?--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

? I'm 20. Drinking age is 21. Silverseren^C 19:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh right . . . I forgot about the barbaric US drinking age. Old enough to enlist in the military at 17 (with parental consent), trusted to drive a car at 16, but can't handle booze until you're 21. WTF. :P --Stvfetterly (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I protected the article for 2 weeks. If you could drop the new editors involved talk page messages directly explaining why you reverted them etc, that would be awesome. That way maybe we can avoid more protection in the near future. :) Happy New Year, Steven Walling • talk 00:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I just did it with Writerkid, since he's the only one that's been active the most lately in regards to that article. The others seem to have faded away. Silverseren^C 01:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Steven Walling • talk 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to explain, with reliable sources, why Ashida Kim aka Chris Hunter aka Radford Davis is unreliable. I know where Ashida Kim links to, but I also know the whole first two sentences are original research, as the sources are not secondary (and the court case says nothing about ninjutsu). So, please explain with sources how he is unreliable.

And you were right about Iaijutsu, I read the book wrong. It was supposed to say close combat and fast drawing (Iaijutsu) techniques. That would be better. Silverseren^C 20:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away on holidays for the Christmas break or I would have got back to you sooner.

Ashida Kim aka Chris Hunter aka Radford Davis (as he refers to himself in his own legal documents [3]) is a font of misinformation with regards to most things, including martial arts. Aside from the two-bit magic tricks that he passes off as technique (seriously, it's good for some lols: [4]) it's pretty easy to prove that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Take this interview with him [5] where starting around 1:40 he claims that the first five forms learned in Goju Ryu, Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Isshin Ryu, and hard Korean martial arts (Tae Kwon Do I'm assuming here?) are all identical. Let's take a look at this claim and see if it can be verified:

Goju Ryu Karate (Gekisai 1 and 2 are always taught first, the other three are the order that I learned them in . . . although I'm not sure that this is standardized across all dojos):

• Gekisai (basic kata 1) [6]
• Gekisai (basic kata 2) [7]
• Saifa [8]
• Sanchin [9]
• Tensho [10]

Shotokan Karate:

• Heian Shodan [11]
• Heian Nidan [12]
• Heian Sandan [13]
• Heian Yondan [14]
• Heian Godan [15]

Tae Kwon Do (WTF):

• Taeguk Il Jang [16]
• Taeguk Ee Jang [17]
• Taeguk Sam Jang [18]
• Taeguk Sa Jang [19]
• Taeguk Oh Jang [20]

Tae Kwon Do (ITF):

• Choon-Ji [21]
• Dan-Gun [22]
• Do-San [23]
• Won-Hyo [24]
• Yul-Gok [25]

If you're still paying attention, you'll notice that the forms contain similar motions but are all quite different. This clearly shows that he's not accurate in his martial arts claims. Don't get me wrong, it's hard to stay mad at the guy who brought us the 'true biography' titled "The Amorous Adventures of Ashida Kim" [26] . . . which I would heartily recommend for you to read (again, purely for the lols). That said . . . he's really, really, really, not an encyclopedic source. :P

There's also the fact that Kim is pretty wild with other historical facts he spouts. In this interview [27] he claims that he has learned his martial arts from the 'Black Dragon Fighting Society' . . . which he goes on to claim is derived from a 6000 year old Chinese school called the 'Polestar School' which he believes has been preserving knowledge since the time of Atlantis. (Please find me corroborating third party evidence if you believe these claims! Kim/Hunter/Davis's stuff is always fun for a laugh!) In the same paragraph he claims that the planet undergoes a cataclysm every 43,000 years due to the Earth's poles shifting (I think this is his version of the Pole shift hypothesis . . . a theory not supported by any scientific evidence. Again, just showing that Kim/Hunter/Davis is not really an encyclopedic source and makes some pretty wild assertions that aren't backed by evidence.

Finally, I think it's poor wording to indicate that Iaijutsu is a method of close combat swordplay . . . that's just not part of the definition of the word. Iaijutsu refers to techniques for drawing the sword. No more, no less. That's the definition here: [28], here: [29], and in the book "Secrets of the Samurai" 1st edition (by Oscar Ratti/Adele Westbrook p.275 second paragraph - I just happened to have my copy sitting out on my desk) as well as on the wiki article regarding the subject. If you would like to see some Iaijutsu techniques performed at longer range check out the video here [30] at about 3:35 and onwards.

In light of the above, I'm going to remove the reference to Kim's material, and also will reword the sentence in the article so that it doesn't sound like Iaijutsu is primarily close quarters swordplay (it certainly has nothing to do with the ninjato). Regards,--Stvfetterly (talk) 08:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Ninpo and Ninjutsu their has been an overzealousness towards deleting or painting in a shady light most proponents of these arts, including the deletion of Genbukan and Shoto Tanemura related articles, such as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genbukan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sh%C5%8Dt%C5%8D_Tanemura Where either deletion is speedy or sources are first asked for and then questioned: articles from Black Belt Magazine are specifically asked for, provided, then questioned, secondary sources such as "Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and Innovation" which has an impresive list of colaborators and a whole description on Ninpo/Ninjutsu past and present is ignored. It is true that some claims of ancient conections _is_ questioned and _is_ probably legendary, word of mouth from master to student, but things should balance out on the Wiki, not this edit war where who is stronger on the Martial Project wins: that should not be the spirit of this all.

http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=P-Nv_LUi6KgC&pg=PA171&dq=tanemura+martial+arts&hl=es&sa=X&ei=uggET6bTBYSCtgeN2tGfDw&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=tanemura%20martial%20arts&f=false

And I do not believe that claiming that every body that has had anything to do with Genbukan or Bujinkan is a "non verifiable primary source" is not correct: Where do most information about Judo, Aikido or, lets say, Modern String Theory comes from? There is also what seems to be a purpose of confusing the Ninja of the Hollywood movies with what Bujinkan or Genbukan or these japanese schools have developped: That is as far fetched as thinking that Aikido is a Steven Seagal martial arts movie. It is my feeling some people are trashing other people's work because they prefer other martial arts. Cheers! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

for the moral support. I found the suggestion that I'd violated policy a bit strange (and, to be honest, a bit unsettling when he repeated it). A gentle word and a simple link to the wording he'd added to the guideline probably would have sufficed to persuade me to withdraw the tags. Anyway, he can have the last word; I probably shouldn't have replied again, and I'm going to disengage now. I appreciate your speaking up. Rivertorch (talk) aka The Disparager11:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm still completely flabbergasted that he tried to say that that was a BLP violation. Silverseren^C 12:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You addition lasted four minutes. I was going to remove it for exactly the same reason. Youreallycan (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Three minutes longer than I expected. Silverseren^C 00:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I let myself down - these days I tire of such worthless stress. Youreallycan (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Who knows what will come of this, but I saw your invite and it looks like something I'd like to be involved in. I don't know if you consider it a competing project to WP:PAIDEDITS but I certainly prefer this approach. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I always prefer positive, community-building actions to the opposite and I think this Wikiproject is a much better way to go about things. Silverseren^C 01:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. bobrayner (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in what you have to say about [it, since after all it was addressed to you, and this really seems to be a "let's-you-and-him-fight" ploy as they would say in Transactional Analysis, which I don't see how that is helpful. Do you not have opinions of your own? Herostratus (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that that does appear to be POV editing and I would also like to hear what his response is to it. I would also like to know if there are any instances of other users adding in referenced negative information to articles he was working on and if he tried to remove it.

Because, on the whole, that one example you gave isn't that big of a deal. It is an issue, but if it's something where, if you bring it up with him and he fixes it, I find it to be a minimal issue. No one's perfect in their editing and that includes everyone on Wikipedia. As we've seen in the past with issues like close paraphrasing, people mess up. I would need to see a far larger pattern of events before I made a more formulated opinion. And part of that opinion does also hinge on the user's responses to it. If they accept the criticism of what they did wrong and work to fix it and try their best not to do it again, then I consider them a worthwhile editor, far more worthwhile than some who freak out at criticism and quit the project. Silverseren^C 06:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Silver, thanks for bringing the issue to my attention. I've posted a response on Herostratus' page, here. Short version: I understand the objection and, though my decision was based on sources and guidelines, it was a close call and I should have highlighted it when I offered the page for review. Moreover, I am certainly open to further revision. And all the more reason why WP:COOPERATION is such a good idea. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though we do not occupy the exact same point on the A B continuum, to use my option terms, I bet we are on the same page regarding the following:

It would be disastrous if an editors signed up for the projects assuming the plan was to implement Option A when they would only support Option B or vice-versa.

I also hope you note that my use of the phrase " A B continuum " is an acceptance that the choice isn't binary, and it may be that the community can support an approach that is somewhere between the two extremes.

I'm not signing up at the moment, because I am over-committed, but I'll try to stay abreast of what's happening. It would be a shame if we could not figure how how to tap into a large group of people who can write, and want to write. We just have to ensure that we don't compromise any principles.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that, if the community is taking care to watch, we can make sure no principles are compromised and obtain a number of well-written articles in return. In truth, it would require far less effort than the amount we expend on trying to catch the untrustworthy ones in the first place. Silverseren^C 21:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Silver, I left some comments at the peer review for Cracker Barrel, hope that they are helpful. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or clarification requests. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you participated in the BLP thread, the DRV discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Qian_Zhijun_and_Little_Fatty WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey there Silver, I've had a chance to look through Mark Arsten's peer review notes today and they look pretty good, so I've stared making some of his suggested changes (though I erred at first, and made one change to the direct article; I quickly reverted). I'm about to start again, but there's plenty to look at there, so I probably won't finish until tomorrow at least. Meanwhile, I've also done a peer review on Bernard Lee, and I hope making direct changes to the article was OK. Again, my reference is GA review, where that's cool, but I don't want to step on any toes.

I mentioned yesterday that I'd been spending some time looking at recent changes to the article; I've got my thoughts together now on that and have some questions and suggestions—recent changes from the live version that I think have introduced new problems, including factual inaccuracies. Since I don't want to hijack the peer review process, where do you think would be best to raise these? Some of my thoughts do relate to Mark's notes, so I'm wondering if you think it would be appropriate to post them in the peer review and ask for his / anyone else's input. Let me know what you think. And w/r/t to your question about the dead link, that's on my list, too. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize we're still in the middle of Cracker Barrel cleanup, but I have another client project nearly ready to share, perhaps by early next week. It's also an expansion of an existing article, but considerably shorter than than Cracker Barrel, so that's a plus. As always, I would like to have other eyes on it, to make sure that it's neutral and guideline-appropriate before it's approved for the mainspace. I guess this gets to the next question of how WP:CO-OP will work: what's the process? Will this happen in-house at WP:CO-OP? Do we use the resources of WP:PR? (Boy, isn't that an ironic shortcut?) I realize you'll be offline this weekend, and I'm in no particular rush, but it's something to figure out soon. Welcome to your thoughts here, or perhaps we could take this discussion back to the CO-OP Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In re: your reply at my Talk page, that sounds excellent. And perhaps, in the near term, a WP:COOPERATION task force for submitting new drafts (and smaller requests) for review? Truth be told, I have a couple of near-term projects for others to look at. One is a longish BLP expansion that might be a better test case; it should be less contentious on the merits, though my conflict regarding that one will be immediately apparent to anyone who saw my C-SPAN interview. Then again, all future projects would have to go through the same process at some time or another, so maybe it doesn't matter greatly which comes first. Your thoughts again welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

GLAM. --LauraHale (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarifies plenty. People are being paid to be involved with GLAM and you're setting things up to make it extremely difficult for cultural institutions to have staff work on articles, contribute content, etc. Your name isn't Wikiproject:Marketers for corporations doing paid editing work on Wikipedia who have not properly declared their COI or who have declared COI and we will hound, it is just paid editing. You've included GLAM people in your project because of the nature of their work.--LauraHale (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Silver seren,

Thank you very much for your help with editing the article on Stefano Pelinga, and saving it from deletion. We appreciate your honesty and accuracy. Keep up the good work and best wishes to you in 2012!

Distefwiki (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited NameBase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Silver. As I've just posted on Mark Arsten's Talk page, I didn't return to the peer review until today, but I believe I've now addressed all his key points. In some cases, I've posted replies and, as I suggested to you recently, in some cases take issue with the recent changes of other editors. I think it would be a good idea to bring those editors back to the table, considering we are after stability for the article. I'm certainly willing to reach out to them myself, unless you think it would be counterproductive at this time; I'd like to think it would be productive for me to do so, but I'll take your advice on the matter. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In 1991, an intra-company memo called for employees to be dismissed if they did not display "normal heterosexual values".

To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as "normal heterosexual values", so I find that statement beyond belief. Do you know if there is a list of companies who have discriminated in the past or who still have these policies? I think it would make for a fascinating article. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. Not sure what sort of title you'd arrange such an article under though. Silverseren^C 00:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'll have to think about that. FWIW, "normal heterosexual values" without artificially imposed social restrictions would be indistinguishable from "normal homosexual values". Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What about Employment discrimination in the United States? Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That won't work because it is easily confused with employment discrimination law in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Silver. Hope you had a good blackout day. As mentioned last week, I have some client-related projects in the pipeline, and I've just posted one in my userspace: User:WWB Too/Steve Scully, about a producer and on-air host for C-SPAN. The current article, as you might expect, is Steve Scully. Unlike Cracker Barrel, there should be fewer issues of either puffiness or controversy to deal with, and my draft is also much shorter than the current one, which contains much unencyclopedic or irrelevant material. And all sources, save for a couple of Roll Call stories, are available online.

In the past, my M.O. would be to first post a link to the draft and explanation on the article's Talk page, perhaps with a {{request edit}} template and, if no response was forthcoming, seek input at relevant WikiProjects (in Scully's case, there are quite a few: I'd probably go to Journalism and Television first. Those still seem to me like reasonable steps, however we'd discussed the prospect of bringing this first to WikiProject Cooperation and perhaps to Peer review as well. What do you think is the best course of action? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

All right, I've posted a concise explanation of the current and proposed Scully versions at Paid Editor Help#Steve Scully (which should probably be Paid editor help, but I digress) and followed it with a note on the WP:CO-OP Talk page. And I guess we'll find out how this works in practice. Best, WWB Too (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant that I asked Wikipedian with checkuser privileges to check that Rabbit run account, as that's account looks like an obvious sock. It's allowed per WP:CHECKUSER that a checkuser request don't have to be public and on Wiki. And again the checkusers need to follow the guidelines in checkuser. And honestly I asked for the checkuser in the SPI IRC channel, which is a public IRC channel, not private. It's extremely hard to make these types of checkusers disallowed as sometimes the checkuser information needs to be private, for very private matters in which personal information might be involved. So I recommend for it to be, unless there's clear abuse of the checkuser tool by multiple checkusers, which I'm not seeing, and that's why we have the Audit Subcommittee to handle these matters. Secret ^account 22:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a checkuser was/is being performed to certain users, but clearly not all, like a obvious GWARP sock, or other editors that are clearly sockpuppets of banned users though behavior evidence (such as nominating Wikipedia Review for deletion on the person third edit). I kinda know (though behavior evidence) who the sock who nominated the Wikipedia Review article for AFD is, that's why I asked for a checkuser to just confirm it. But not all users need to find out about a checkuser, as it would make the banned users change their editing which will make them even more difficult to track them. Not to mention the private/personal information concerns. Again not a good idea. I only agree for editors who been long-standing in the community, that a checkuser should be notified. Thanks Secret ^account 00:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=472379034&oldid=472378836

Can you please tell User:Edison on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tarc_reported_by_User:WR_Reader_.28Result:_.29 that http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/ is the Wikipedia Review, not a successor or a replacement. The domain name (wikipediareview.com) is the only thing that expired. The forum, its threads, and the accounts are still there. Tell him that you can still log in to your account. See http://184.172.174.94/~wikipede/index.php?showtopic=36278 for some background. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to join the new Wikiproject, to which I have now replied. Somehow I didn't notice your message until today. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited British Edda, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sumeria and Trojans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Silver. Saw you'd continued adding accessdates to the CB draft yesterday, which, very cool. Meanwhile, Nomo's challenge to my Nexis sources over the weekend, which I know you've seen, has led me to figure out that indeed Lexis-Nexis offers permalinks for articles, although of course they are available only to subscribers. Perhaps these could be added to existing citations where a normal web link is unavailable? It would take a little while for me to set aside the time, but I could line them all up in the next week or so.

Second, Mark Arsten hasn't been back to our Peer review for a few days, and there has been no further discussion around the remaining issues I've raised, particularly the DeLay section. What would be your suggestion for seeking additional input? This again is where I'd considered reaching out to previously involved editors from both sides of the matter, but as yet I haven't done so. Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think adding the Lexis-Nexus links would be perfect. It would also allow other people, including readers, who have access to the site or are willing to pay to do so, to be able to find those articles. Besides, with WP:PAYWALL, the links we add don't have to be publicly view-able, just accessible. So, yes, please do so. :3

Did you ever reply to the second set of comments (at the bottom) that he left? We might want to deal with those first. After that, we can poke Mark again and see if he has anything else to add and then we can go about contacting other people for comments. Silverseren^C 17:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, I looked at them just briefly. The "nutrition" detail is about Cracker Barrel's elimination of trans fats, and the "stockholder" detail seems part of the 1990s controversies. I'll give the latter a close read and post a reply, hopefully later today.

BTW, when you have a chance, I've just posted a second proposed draft for review at WP:CO-OP, here. As mentioned before, very possibly a more complicated topic than Mr. Scully, but I've aimed to "write for the opposition" as they say. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Silver, I've just posted a response to Mark Arsten's two questions, with brief new proposed additions based on them. It's probably easiest to view them by following the note I just placed on Mark's Talk page. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)