User talk:City of Silver/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

New Page Reviewing

Hello, CityOfSilver. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Whether or not I end up applying, I want you to know that I'm really honored and humbled that you think I have this sort of potential. I was really impressed by that flowchart until I realized I'd have to, uh, know the whole thing so while I like to think I could do this, I have a ton of homework to do before I know for sure. Thank you again! CityOfSilver 04:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

lol. I went through your contribs before suggesting, and I didnt find any issue. :)
In the beginning, the flowchart, and the process in general look very complicated; yes. But once you've understood it, in the practice it doesnt seem complicated at all. So I would suggest you to read tutorial at leisure time, and keep an eye on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Then if you think you up for the task, you can request for the right. :)
And at any time (whether you have the right or not), you can ask any questions to me, TonyBallioni, or at the talkpage. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind comments about the flowchart (that was a contribution of mine). It is best used as a tool while reviewing, and since you only follow one path for any given article, it ends up being a lot simpler than it looks. You'll find that there are a lot of similar articles in the feed, so once you've figured out how to review one, you will be ready to review other similar articles with a minimal need to check for additional stuff. Also, you don't need to feel like you are obligated to review anything; if you don't feel 100% confident, do the stuff you are confident about and then leave it as 'unreviewed' for another reviewer to look over. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I actually considered pinging you in my message up there but if I'd made that chart, I'd have needed to hibernate for like a year so I figured maybe I wouldn't bug you. It is an incredible effort. Thank you for this note; deciding if I should go forward is going to be a process but these sorts of messages make me hope I'm right for this. CityOfSilver 18:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Question about Intelligent Design

불 Recently I found the wiki page of Stephen C. Meyer to state that he promotes the "pseudoscience" of intelligent design. I am curious as to what exactly makes his work pseudoscience. Stephen works according to the scientific method. The inference of what can be taken from the science does not discredit the actual results. The scientific results are there, regardless if they were attained by an evolutionist or a creationist. I will mention ID does not infer God, rather it infers "intelligence". Of what kind? We don't know, but we should find out how this intelligence works. I will refer you to this video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQf29Pden30&t=3s . Starting at 17:42 to 20:20. Then also 30:00 to 33:05. Please listen to these parts and I look forward to your response. Preceding comment added by MattBrando (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@MattBrando: If I were the supreme, unquestionable dictator of Wikipedia, one of the first things I would do is remove the word "pseudoscientific" from most articles that use it. I can't really comment on whether it's right or wrong but in most instances, it definitely seems to have been added as a deliberate, confrontational effort to marginalize people. This has been a problem on here for years, and it ranges across countless topics: once we have a widely accepted way of doing things, anyone who does anything differently gets treated like an idiot. To wit: the widely accepted way of doing things on here is to accept the theory of evolution as generally true, to accept it as generally (but not entirely) incompatible with intelligent design, and to define intelligent design as generally false and/or unprovable. Consequently, its proponents have no substantial voice on here.

I watched the first of two part of that video you recommended (I can't watch the second right now) and I noticed that Meyer never actually says "pseudoscience" or any of its variations. The word he keeps using is "unscientific." While I'm not an expert, I think it's possible for something to be both scientific and pseudoscientific while it's not possible for something to be both scientific and unscientific. The widely accepted stance is that ID is pseudoscience. If intelligent design is pseudoscience, any advocate of it is a proponent of pseudoscience.

But that inference might be the key. Your best bet regarding removing the word from Meyer's article is to back up your edit with our policy forbidding synthesis statements. Basically, if we say something on here, it's because a reliable source explicitly says it, not because a Wikipedia editor combined multiple claims from reliable sources and inferred something none of the sources say. See WP:SYNTH. Step one would be removing the word with an explanation that says "unsourced." You would probably get reverted almost instantly by someone who should add sources, which would probably just be the sources we use at the intelligent design article. At that point, you could revert again because that's technically a SYNTH violation: if those sources don't specifically name Meyer (and I bet they don't) and say he is a proponent of pseudoscience, we can't make that claim here. This likely wouldn't work because the article's tricky rhetoric describes ID as pseudoscience but doesn't say Meyer is a pseudoscientist. And it definitely won't work if someone finds a reliable source clearly using the "p" word to refer to Meyer. And fair warning: anything you try will cause a strong backlash. I have no idea how to deal with that sort of thing. CityOfSilver 18:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: I find it interesting, that you would prefer not to have the term "pseudoscience" on Wiki. Yet, you will actively edit a page to say "pseudoscience". If your opinion is that this word is used to intentionally discredit work without proper cause, then should you not actively work to edit these pages, to something more appropriate? If it has been a problem for years, should you not work to fix it? Wiki depends on donations. It is supposed to be an unbiased website. Your comments display a very unscientific way of thinking. It reminds me of how religion used to do things in the past. I will now post some definitions for you-

Science-

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Pseudoscience-

"a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method."

From just these two definitions. You can see how calling Stephen Meyer and his work "Pseudoscience" is intentionally trying to discredit his legitimate scientific research. The distinction between "unscientific" and "pseudoscience" is negligible, I believe Stephen was referring to both these terms, as they mean pretty much the same thing.

"If intelligent design is pseudoscience, any advocate of it is a proponent of pseudoscience."

As I have pointed out, this statement is based off of false accusations.

"Basically, if we say something on here, it's because a reliable source explicitly says it, not because a Wikipedia editor combined multiple claims from reliable sources and inferred something none of the sources say."

This is a curious statement as I have yet to see a link to such "reliable source". If you could provide that, that would be appreciated. Seeing as how it is part of the websites requirements.

"This likely wouldn't work because the article's tricky rhetoric describes ID as pseudoscience but doesn't say Meyer is a pseudoscientist."

This statement is just semantics. If you call someones work "pseudoscience", you can make the connection that the advocate is a "pseudoscientist", this is what happens in reality. People do not distinguish the two.

I am curious as to what "citing" you would require for Stephen's work to be considered science? If I cite his lectures and you actually watched them or read his book. That would be all the proof you need, that he does indeed do real science. I am fairly disappointed in the current viewpoint of wiki editors. The viewpoint is irrational and extremely biased. If there were a way to fix this, I would encourage you to look into it. This type of thinking is not helping the website and it's credibility. I will refer you to the wiki of "Polystrate fossils" located here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

If you read that page, you will discover some pretty biased writing. Example-

"This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon[11][12][13][14][15] and Rygel et al.,[16] have published detailed field-sketches and pictures of upright tree-fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. In the case of the upright fossil trees of the Yellowstone petrified forests, geologists – again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin – found that the upright fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments."

If you are paying attention when reading that. It is making a distinction between "creationists" and "geologists". It is okay to call a creationist a geologist, if that is his or her profession. I don't believe it is okay to call evolutionists geologists, while ONLY calling creationists "creationists". Do you see what I'm getting at? In that article, it cleverly makes you believe that the creationists are NOT doing geology. When in fact they are, just as much as any evolutionist.

"I have no idea how to deal with that sort of thing."

Well, seeing as how it is your job to edit these pages. You can start by researching the things you are editing and making sure it is accurate. Instead of just listening to what your apparent biased sources are telling you.

I really hope you take my comments into consideration when editing in the future. I made an account simply to show you the bias and it seems you are already aware. I will not be relying on or using Wikipedia to research anything anymore and I will point out these flaws to anyone who refers me to Wikipedia. If you guys want donations, I suggest being unbiased and using the actual definition of science. Instead of the definition that apparently must filter through evolution first, before it becomes "science". I hope you don't take this as a personal attack or anything like that. I'm just pointing out my view on this and I have shown examples. Thanks for your time. --Preceding message added by User:MattBrando at 19:23 (UTC)

@MattBrando: The temptation here is to fisk this but Wikipedia's markup is quite a bit more difficult than Blogger's so I won't. I'll try to go through this as much as I can, though.

I am opposed to the word "psuedoscience" because it's marginalizing and offensive, not because it's false. There's nothing inherently wrong with the word except that it's a discussion-ender, an academic way of calling someone unintelligent.

I have no desire to contribute to a debate over semantics. If you accept the word "pseudoscience" to match that definition you added, then that's that. I said that I have no concrete knowledge on the rhetorical

"You can see how calling Stephen Meyer and his work Pseudoscience' is intentionally trying to discredit his legitimate scientific research."

This? Right here? If you want to move forward, move way, way away from things like this. Specifically, your use of the word "intentionally" is a textbook example of someone impugning others' attitudes and beliefs and it's arguably a personal attack. Those are bright-line banned; see WP:NPA. If you find yourself calling other users liars, uneducated, deliberate bad-faith actors, or anything like that, take a step back.

As I've said: if it is accepted that intelligent is pseudoscience, then its proponents are advocates of pseudoscience. That is a simple logical construct; you could replace "intelligent design" with "phrenology" and it would still be true. Calling it "based off of false accusations" is a statement you keep making in one form or another but it's not one you've sourced. And before you try, I'll recommend again you look at WP:PRIMARY. Meyer could be biased to believe he's right about things he's not right about he is not considered a reliable source about himself. (This would be true for anybody. If we're using Richard Dawkins's words to source absolutely anything controversial about his research, it would be a violation.) So far, you've said several things here where it seems like you haven't looked at WP:PRIMARY. Meyer is not a reliable source about Meyer and if you respond to claim that makes no sense or is absurd, it'll be the latest thing you've said that indicates you haven't read that sourcing rule.

The first sentence of the intelligent design article concludes by calling it pseudoscience and immediately after that, there are links to three sources. I categorically refuse to get into the weeds with how reliable those scholars (Maarten Boudry, Massimo Pigliucci, Matt Young, and Taner Edis) are. If you'd like to fight that fight, I can't support or oppose you because I have no expertise.

"seeing as how it is your job to edit these pages" It is not my job to edit these pages. I wish Wikipedia paid me but it doesn't.

I'll also note that, to my memory, I've never explicitly given my personal opinion on this debate. CityOfSilver 03:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A message for User:MySuperBelt85

I don't know if you've noticed but you and I actually haven't gone back and forth in a pretty good while. There are 37 editors watching my talk page so if I'm inactive, your attacks get vaporized before I've ever even seen them. Now, that doesn't work for either of us. I don't want any of these three dozen fine editors to waste their time on you. You want to punish me for my insolence but I'm not suffering your wrath if your attacks are always gone before I see them. Next time you need to scratch that itch, could you hold off until you've checked my contributions to make sure I'm on here? Thanks a lot. CityOfSilver 18:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

removed incoherent message written by a shitposter who, because I stopped him from adding a lie to an effing video game article, has said a bunch of times that I'm the person in this discussion who doesn't have a life. This person is in his thirties. COfS

All this gibberish notwithstanding, is "you will be the first one to see my posts" a promise? You'll wait until I'm on here to attack me? Because again, you keep getting reverted but not by me. I'm not being ironic or insincere here: you're trying to troll me but if you won't make sure I see what you're doing, you're failing at trolling like you failed to add that lie to Mafia III. CityOfSilver 02:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Days later and a message that took real work got no response. Some people who like to bark orders can't handle it when they're told "no," I guess. CityOfSilver

I'm sorry you took offence at me templating you for not bothering to warn an editor for vandalism when you clearly stated it was vandalism. I added personal, specific comment to that effect and apologized for doing so. Since you clearly have access to a revert button, you likely have access to a tool that will allow you to quickly template such behaviour. Do it or don't bother to revert. It steals the opportunity that others who will warn unconstructive editors that their behaviour is unacceptable. So please decide if you're here, or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC) @Walter Görlitz: It was entirely fair of you to see that and wonder what I was doing. I've never, not once, had a problem explaining myself when someone comes here and just asks. "Hey, you called this vandalism but didn't warn the editor. How come?" That probably would have taken you a few seconds to type out. I have a link to DTTR at the top of this page but I should probably delete it, not only because it's getting roundly ignored but also because, in a way, it's templating regulars who have almost certainly read that essay by now. It's frustrating to be like, "Next time just ask!" because I don't want to be condescending and patronizing to someone who's been here forever. But if you're getting irritated that someone is talking down to you, well, now you know how your behavior here made me feel. Immediately after I saved that I regretted characterizing the edit as "arguably vandalism" since it almost definitely wasn't. When "Christian rapper" and similar terms get removed from performers of gospel/Christian music by new users, it's probably not vandalism. (It happens somewhat regularly but what does that matter if the person doing it has never edited here before?) These edits are almost always motivated by something the performer said. Do we edit according to subjects' preferences? Of course not. Regardless, it's a compelling point that certain Christian musicians don't want to be pigeonholed like that. If you're a new editor who's never had reason to read the policy in question, this is plainly absurd: we don't edit NF's article according to things he says. It was on me to explain PRIMARY or, failing that, to come up with a better explanation. A uwerror or uwvandalism warning would have been out of line. I don't do fully automated edits. I don't recall if I've ever used Huggle, Twinkle, or any of those tools but I definitely don't use them now. Every template I've left has been manually added: open bracket, open bracket, uw hyphen vandalism1 vertical bar John Cabot close bracket close bracket space tilde tilde tilde tilde. (And yes, I manually typed out every letter of the preceding sentence.) Everyone has their own favorite methods for interacting with the website and this is one of mine. So I will not automatically template users. I will continue manually issuing templates when I've judged it necessary and I will not issue templates when I've decided that doing so is not appropriate. CityOfSilver 16:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: About your comment on the article for "media conglomerate"...

Well, since you saw fit to remove the comment during your recent archiving activities, and the comment wasn't responded to, I will re-post the comment here:

This was a month ago so I'm a bit rusty on this. The article could potentially get a section or a paragraph from every single one of the world's 50 most populous nations but most of its text was and is about the United States. (The "Country Examples" section is 553 words long and 430 of those are about the US; five categories in the "Notable examples" section are about American, America-centric companies while no other country has two.) Thus, your explanation, "Removed Globalize/US tag because the issue has been fixed", was confusing and I was remiss not to say so. Would you mind linking me to a few edits, whether you or someone else made them, that worked towards addressing this issue? CityOfSilver 18:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, not sure how to link to whatever edits, but I would think that, since more & more international companies (such as Sony-Japan, Bertelsmann-Germany, Vivendi-France, Televisa-Mexico, Grupo Globo-Brazil, & ABS-CBN-Phillippines) have been added to the "Notable examples" table (making it so that it no longer consists of just American ones), that is one way the "Globalization"issue has been addressed; also, the fact of the companies (Yomiuri Shimbun Holdings, ProSiebanSat.1, Hubert Burda Meda, Fuji Media Holdings, ITV, Mediaset, Axel Springer, JCDecaux, China Central Television, Asahi Shimbun Company, Grupo Globo, Baidu, and Bertelsmann) listed in "Country examples" is another way the issue has been addressed.

So, the thing is, I don't think it matters whether or not there is more than one company listed for a specific country, as long as there is at least one company per country listed.

In the end, that is why I believe the "Globalize/US" tag no longer needs to be at the top of the article, as more & more international companies are being added to the article here & there every so often.

But, in the end, if you still believe what you stated above, then I suggest a solution to our dilemma: start a discussion about the presence of the "Globalize/US" tag and have a voting section beneath the discussion, so that people can vote whether the tag remains, or if it gets removed. See how many people believe what you do & how many believe what I do. Have the discussion/vote run for a specific amount of time. Then, when that period of time is over with, whichever stance (yours or mine) has the most support/votes is what gets done to the article; meaning that if more lean in your favor, the tag stays & I won't bring up its removal again/anymore, but if more lean in my favor, then the tag gets removed & stays off the article.

So, what do you think about my proposal? 2602:304:CEBF:8650:E004:548B:7400:5233 (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You feel I shouldn't have archived this thread before I'd responded to this message. I agree. I apologize.

My concern, and it's not particularly fair, was that your edit seemed to have a bit of a nationalist bent. If we express concerns that an article suffers because of narrow-mindedness, a narrow-minded user might dismiss those concerns. In this specific instance, there was a stated concern that the article was too tilted towards the American point-of-view and that's the sort of thing that an American might come across and go, "Nope, don't see it." Now that you've thoroughly explained what you did, it's clear my guess was wrong and I apologize for that too. (I'm sensing a bit of irony that I edited out of a concern that someone else was narrow-minded.) I agree with your reasoning and even if I didn't, it wouldn't matter: you're allowed to make good-faith edits that others might not agree with, you did so here, and unless someone comes across that article or its talk and wants to start a discussion, the matter seems pretty much settled. CityOfSilver 16:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Here we go. CityOfSilver 16:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it came off that my edit seemed to have some nationalist bent, I apologize, as that was not my intent. I like to consider myself anything but nationalistic. My sincere intent was that, since more international conglomerates had been added to the article, I truly felt that resolved the "Globalize/US" tag (as in that the article was focusing mostly on American conglomerates) by including more international counterparts, so that the article was not soo heavily leaning mostly towards the US. And, it would seem that, over time, multiple users helped out that resolve by adding more international conglomerates, not only in the "Notable examples" table, but also in the "Country examples" section above the table as well. Honestly, I never meant for my opinion to come off/across as narrow-minded, but if it did, then again, I apologize. I try to be anything but narrow-minded. I honestly consider myself more globalistic than nationalistic, and so when I saw in the article that more & more international conglomerates were being added, I honestly felt that the article was less & less tilting towards an American point-of-view, hence why I voiced my opinion that the narrow-mindedness you claimed the article had was becoming less & less that way.

So, in the end, I'm glad this situation was finally resolved & in a civil way. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:D5A1:4AFC:E461:1C32 (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Chennai Metro ridership on the list of metro systems

I truly don't understend the reason behind your reverting my last edit: in your comment, you yourself admit that the way the figure at issue is calculated clearly constitute an example of WP:OR, which would be enough to justyfy my action of deleting it, and yet you restored it; moreover, even putting aside the whole OR matter, the way that figure was been extrapolated is devoid of any scientific basis. I'm still firmly convinced it deserve to be cancelled ASAP (and without any need of discuss it on the talk page). 93.57.255.93 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll copy and paste the summary from my most recent edit there: "I explained why this edit should be kept as I reverted it. I think I'll step away from the computer for a bit". That was a pretty dumb mistake on my part. I reverted myself and restored your work. Sorry about that. CityOfSilver 20:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's fine! Best regards 93.57.255.93 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

About the Dinosaur Planet page

Im not the type of person to argue, but my edit was not unsourced. Carchar lived in Africa and as such did not encounter Aucasaurus. Giganotosaurus DID live in Argentina and so would have met them, as such it is probably what the "carcharadontosaurs" in the episode were supposed to be.TroodonsRule75Mya (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@TroodonsRule75Mya: I'd like to point out a word you yourself used: "probably". If your explanation for an edit contains that word, you really shouldn't be surprised when your edits are considered unsourced. See WP:RS because you still haven't produced a source. CityOfSilver 20:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Time to source then, How ironic, using wikipedia to source wikipedia. To quote ol' Carchies wikipedia page:C.saharicus. SAHARICUS. Is that the scientific name of an argentinian dinosaur? Now for giga. Giganotosaurus is a genus of theropod dinosaur that lived in what is now ARGENTINA. Well. here's my sourcing. King of the Troodons. 18:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TroodonsRule75Mya (talk • contribs)

From Heiress.

I see you left me a message saying "Did you read WP:PROMO? Until I went through it just now, the whole thing was extremely promotional." Like i said it is my first time on Wikipedia and i'm honestly doing my utmost to fix the issue. I don't see how my page is different from the Rag'n'Bone Man page or the band called "Heiress" Heiress (band). Your claiming that my page is "Extremely promotional" how is it extremely promotional? all i'm doing is trying to edit my bio that i placed on there and i'm getting 7 message about my page getting deleted. I'm new to this whole thing and i'd like if you could guide me through on how i can fix the page and get it back because i don't see it in the search bar anymore and i don't know why it would be deleted instantly when it said i have specifically 7 days to fix it.

Regards.

Heiress. — Preceding comment added by 33Heiress33 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@33Heiress33: There's not really a lot I can say that hasn't already been said. I mean, you keep mentioning other performers' articles as if you based your article off theirs. One difference between yours and Rag'n'Bone Man is sourcing: your article doesn't have a single reliable source while his has thirteen. (And the band Heiress has fifteen.) Rag'n'Bone Man has two tiny quotes about a politician he supports; yours contained a giant, unsourced self-quote about your childhood and a massive quote from Tod Deeley was so over the top that I don't honestly know that he actually said it. (A Google search for "Tod Deeley" "Heiress", with the quotation marks included, brings up one page and its use of "heiress" refers to Patty Hearst.)

As for the writing, there were dozens of instances of common words that, even though they weren't at the beginning of sentences, were capitalized. It was all one big paragraph, from your childhood to your travels to your current situation. There were no sections. Song titles weren't italicized. I honestly think Rag'n'Bone Man is a great article to use as an example: without even comparing the words themselves, just look at his article and look at yours. I don't understand your comparison since the two articles just look completely different.

I have no idea how to respond to questions like yours without coming off like this. I know it's mean and I apologize. My usual response is to direct you to the various policies I don't think you're abiding by but I tend to think it won't help you since the article will probably get deleted as soon as an administrator happens upon its speedy deletion request. For what it's worth, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTABILITY (since you're not signed to a record label), and the conflict of interest policy are huge concerns. But if I were you, I'd start at the Your First Article page and ask questions at WP:TEAHOUSE. CityOfSilver 04:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Well.. i've red your reply and i'll try to fix some of the issues on the Article. but you mentioning what Tod Deeley wrote and implying that its fake is honestly uncalled for and disrespectful. I have a signed contract from him and i don't think its worth disclosing it with you to be honest. Also saying thats its over the top? i clearly state its my first time here and your attitude towards this is off the top. Also you can be direct and honest i have no issues with that. Anyhow... like i said i'm going to try and fix this. It would be great if you could inform Reddogsix and Matrix about this.

Heiress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33Heiress33 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@33Heiress33: And now, rather than discuss, you're edit-warring on that page, which could get you blocked if you do it too many times. See WP:3RR. I'll flag down those users. @Reddogsix and Theinstantmatrix:, if either of you two has a better way of handling this, feel free. If I haven't gotten across that this is a totally inappropriate way to use this site, I don't know what else I can say. CityOfSilver 04:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

MySuperBelt85

See you on the 21 of February 2018 ;) We already know you are a dorky without a life, who passes his days playing videogames and watching P**O**R**N**S . Try to find a girlfriend XD.

AND YOU KNOW I WILL KEEP EDITING MAFIA III, ONCE PROTECTION EXPIRES. I will do it forever, Mr DorkyCityOfSilver

-MySuperBelt85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.149.145 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That page's protection doesn't expire in February. What's the plan at that point? CityOfSilver 17:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

So I will do after it expires. Oh, I forgot BANS & BLOCKS WON'T STOP ME (and try to have a life) XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.149.145 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

When? When will you do it? Give me the date you're aiming for, please. CityOfSilver 17:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You will see it, Mr Dorky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.149.145 (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You know, stealing identities isn't nice. You're obviously not the MySuperBelt85 I know. He's a troll and a vandal but at least he's got the guts to boldly speak out about his plans, like a James Bond villain. This "You will see it" stuff is far too cowardly. Who are you? Can you please let the real MySuperBelt85 answer my question? CityOfSilver 18:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Heiress (singer)

Hello City of Silver,

I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF A NAME LIKE YOURS ON A PROFESSIONAL SIGHT!!!(I FEEL YOU HAVE TAKEN THIS PERSONAL!!)I WILL leave this with my manager and promoter.My son went out of his way to be polite with you! he is a young teenager who tried to impress his mother for his effort in doing this alone!!l do give him credit for that!!but,i also disagree the way he approached this on his own.But to speak with people in the manner that you do is JUST RUDE AND UNPROFESSIONAL.l will deal with this and you in short order!!

Regards

Heiress

@33Heiress33: Can I ask? "l will deal with this and you in short order!!" Would you mind being clear about the consequences I'm about to face? Give me the specifics so I can prepare myself. CityOfSilver 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver - </sigh> The threat of anonymous retaliation always sends shivers up my spine...NOT. When will people understand just because they can't get an article on Wikipedia does not diminish them or indicate a personal slight. @33Heiress33-an FYI, as an experienced editor, I saw nothing in CityOfSilver's interaction with anyone associated with this article that could be considered as rude or outside Wikipedia community standards; however, making threats, as you did, is not only frowned upon, it is something that can get you banned from Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:AGF and WPCIVIL before you or anyone else associated with this article continue editing Wikipedia. I would also read the welcome message on your talk page. It outlines what makes an acceptable article, including why promoting subjects are not allowed. Again, before you respond to my comments or CityOfSilver's - I suggest you think about the Wikipedia community standards and remember we are all volunteers. reddogsix (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@33Heiress33 and Reddogsix: Believe it or not, I kind of disagree. I think I was mean but I tried and couldn't think of a gentler way of explaining the issues, particularly regarding the Tod Deeley quote. I don't know that the question is whether or not I was mean, but whether or not I was too mean. Only one person seems to think I was. And no matter what, we're really not at an impasse. CityOfSilver 16:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: Sometimes reflection is the best teacher or the hardest critic. My best to you...reddogsix (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

</ref> is apparently visible on this page

@CityOfSilver — The </ref> tag is visible to non-editing viewers, because it is paired to a self-closing <ref name="Core" /> tag. Please verify yourself: [[1]] Abd1771 (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Abd1771: That's the mobile version of that page. It didn't appear for me (using Firefox Quantum on a PC) earlier today but it did appear now. So I deleted it. Thank you for catching this; please take a look to see if there are still any issues. CityOfSilver 23:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: It looks good to me on mobile and Safari on Mac. Thanks! Abd1771 (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

The new style markup tends to use more characters, and I came up with a string without going over the 255-character limit that give identical results to your old signature string, except the underlining of wikilinks is not as thick. If this is acceptable, you are encouraged to change

'''''[[User talk:CityOfSilver|<font color="#EDDA74" face="Bradley Hand ITC">City</font>]]<font color="Green" face="Bradley Hand ITC">O</font><font color="Red" face="Bradley Hand ITC">f</font>[[Special:Contribs/CityOfSilver|<font color="#708090" face="Bradley Hand ITC">Silver</font>]]''''' : CityOfSilver

to:

<b style="font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;>''[[User talk:CityOfSilver|<font color="#EDDA74">City</font>]]<font color="Green">O</font><font color="Red">f</font>[[Special:Contribs/CityOfSilver|<font color="#708090">Silver</font>]]''</b>  : CityOfSilver

If this is not acceptable, please reply here and I will think some more. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Thank you for taking the time to do this. I'm enough of a markup amateur that when I created my signature years ago, getting it right was a pretty unpleasant chore. Accordingly, I've never tried to make really major changes to it even though I've suspected for a while that it was getting outdated. So I just kind of deferred to you since you seem smart and even if you did something wrong, it's not like I would know how to find it. I just overwrote my thing here. Can you tell if there are any issues? CityOfSilver 23:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

There are no issues I know of. Thank you! —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Paula Denyer

I did not introduce incorrect information. "She" was male at the time of her crimes, conviction, sentencing and imprisonment, so she does not fall into the category of Female Serial Killers. Just because an egg hatches to be a chicken, doesn't mean that an egg falls under the category of chicken wings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.115.98 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you literally ever in your entire life convinced anyone of anything? Do people reflexively disagree with whatever you say because, since they know your arguments are on the intellectual level of comparing the gender transition process to the steps starting from an egg and ending with cooked food, they know everything you say is completely awful? Go read a book. CityOfSilver 23:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Rectify 54

I wish to edit correctly after asking permission.—Preceding comment added by Rectify 54 (Rectify 54 • contribs) 18:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rectify 54: So far, you've removed accurate, useful text from Kurt Russell three times. Why? CityOfSilver 05:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tiffany Trump

I saw that you undid my edits to the Tiffany Trump page- could you elaborate more on what was wrong?

I visited the page after hearing about the song she released, did some research, and saw that the Wiki page was inaccurate and relatively light on detail. I can't say I'm a Wikipedia veteran, but I looked up Wikipedia editing guidelines and thought my edits were in line with Wiki's three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research).

I also understand that there are specific standards for pages about living people- I tried to maintain a neutral tone and write only things that were explicitly supported by the sources I cited. I will concede that it was difficult to maintain "Balance" when discussing Trump's music single, as available sources were almost universally critical (and sarcastic, as I mentioned...I invite you to try a Google search for yourself). Does the "Balance" policy apply if there is seemingly no "other side" to source? I think all the sources I cited fit within the sourcing policies for biographies of living persons as well.

In the version you activated, the first sentence of the "Career" section is factually incorrect. The song was released in 2011. I'm confused why you would reactivate this.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts-- thanks for the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.129.66.117 (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

My primary issue? She's done nothing as a public-facing person to deserve the sheer amount of weird scrutiny and ironic criticism she's gotten over the past two years. It's always weird when people emphasize anything about her because she does almost nothing to deserve attention, especially compared to her older half-siblings.

"the Wiki page was inaccurate and relatively light on detail" These are both true. I just corrected my 2011/2014 error. But I think there's a good reason there isn't a lot of detail on this.

"Does the 'Balance' policy apply if there is seemingly no 'other side' to source?"I think it does, and it's because adding this criticism disregards why it happened. Let's be honest: if Tiffany Trump had released the sort of godawful pop song that would've been a hit for an established artist, it would've gotten torn to shreds. If she'd released an absolute masterpiece, it still would've bombed. And most importantly, if she weren't a member of a famous family, got a record deal on the merits, and released this song in the midst of an enduring music career, there would be a criticism section but it would be two sentences' worth of critics just calling the song harmless and forgettable. I just listened to "Like a Bird", not for the first time. Were it not for who Donald Trump is, I'd have forgotten it the instant it ended. That's the essential problem of adding this per that balance concern: this song, which is neither good nor bad, got hammered in a way that wouldn't have happened had it been performed by Selena Gomez (or, uh, Nelly Furtado, who would have lost a lawsuit but still should have sued anyway).

This song's endurance in the discussion of Trump's kids goes back to many digital media members' gross obsession with Tiffany: it's her only deliberate attempt to become famous during a life of otherwise deliberately avoiding the spotlight. (Of Trump's four adult kids, her Wikipedia article is by far the shortest. Eric's is next and it's over twice as long.) If she was as ostentatiously public as her older half-siblings, the song would just be the latest in a long line of stuff to write about. But she's an enigma, so there's this tendency to add reams of information about anything at all, even a one-song music career that she's obviously given up. CityOfSilver 17:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree on a personal level with what you're saying—nobody inherently "deserves" to be criticised—but I disagree with your editorial assertion that this is grounds to exclude "her only deliberate attempt to become famous" (to use your words) from an encyclopedic account of her life. I would argue that her song, one of the few times she intentionally made herself available to the public (others would be her nationally-televised RNC speech and social media pages with ~1M followers, both of which have their own sections on her page) is precisely what should be included on a Wikipedia page. This wasn't something Trump intended to keep private or has since tried to cover up; she publicized the song on The Oprah Winfrey Show and continues to collect revenue from her self-published music on multiple sites (iTunes; Amazon).

As a side note, that was another correction I made that you reverted. Tiffany did not "tell Oprah Winfrey" anything; she was featured in a pre-recorded segment that Oprah aired on her show.

I don't think the quality of Tiffany Trump's song is really at issue here. As you have demonstrated, what may be "godawful" to some people may be Grammy-worthy to others. She released a song to the public (and continues to collect revenues from it), so I think it should be treated as any other professionally-released music would be on Wikipedia. I don't see why it should get special consideration based on how much she "deserved" to have her publicly-available song reviewed by media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.184.102.134 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed Oprah Winfrey to The Oprah Winfrey Show. Maybe it's a good thing that I've been here a while and keep making mistakes like this: "the site anyone, even this idiot, can edit."

I don't think we should remove the song entirely although I wonder if there's anything to be said about the fact that it was a complete non-issue for years. (Wasn't it? Did it actually get any radio play in 2011?) And while I think the negative criticism is gross and unfair, it's still a reality. Is there anything else we can add about the song? Any chance of just, I don't know, a link to a reliable source (Metacritic?) that compiled opinions and saying it was "widely panned" or something like that? CityOfSilver 21:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It didn't get any radio play that I'm aware of—mostly just a blip on the pop culture radar, it seems. The song was far less interesting to people when she was just the daughter of the guy who starred on "The Apprentice." I think you're right that it makes sense to explicitly mention that the song was relatively unknown before 2016.

But again, as you said, the criticism is a reality, and probably represents one of the most publicized parts of her career/life thus far. Unfortunately, most of the media coverage of her song is either sarcastic (as I mentioned in my original edit), uninformative, or downright mean. The most objectively conducted review I can find is from a company called Audiokite Research, which uses Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform to compile random consumer reviews. The conclusion is pretty much the same, though: people generally do not think “Like a Bird” is a good song. Billboard also has a pretty straightforward article about the track, explaining that Trump’s music career was “fleeting” and that her “heavily autotuned” song was not likely to be mistaken for Nelly Furtado’s song of the same name.

I would revise the section currently titled "Media Career" to be:

In February 2011, while attending high school, Trump released her first and only music single, "Like a Bird".[cite iTunes] She told The Oprah Winfrey Show later that month that she was evaluating whether to take her music career "to the next level as a professional".[cite Oprah show clip]

"Like a Bird" received little media attention following its release, but gained notoriety in July 2016 after Tiffany’s speech at the Republican National Convention. The song was widely criticized for its heavy use of Auto-Tune-based pitch correction and received generally negative reviews.[cite Billboard link & Audiokite]

Trump also worked as an intern at Vogue and modeled for a 2016 Andrew Warren fashion show during New York Fashion Week.[16]

Trump’s social media presence gained attention in 2016, when she was frequently pictured on Instagram with Kyra Kennedy (granddaughter of Robert F. Kennedy), Gaïa Jacquet-Matisse (great-great-granddaughter of Henri Matisse), and E.J. Johnson (son of Magic Johnson)—a group dubbed the “Snap Pack” by the New York Times.NYT link Most of the pictures featuring the group were removed from her profile during her father’s political campaign. NYT link

Trump remains an active and popular Instagram user. As of 2017, her page has more than 900,000 followers.[cite her page]38.84.140.75 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you CityOfSilver for your help updating the Lemaire page today! I think this page is way too positively biased and has lots of problemns, but I will get there without bothering you once it becomes unprotected. All the best Giorgio69 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgio69: It's semi-protected until December 27, but that kind of protection is limited. If a user account is four days old and has ten edits, it becomes autoconfirmed and the user can edit semi-protected pages. You created this account over a year ago and your second edit here was your tenth overall, so if you can't edit Lemaire's page, you should be able to once the site gets caught up. Thanks for your contributions here. CityOfSilver 18:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

sus

So the changes you made were immediately undone (inclunding this ridiculous sentence about Justin Bieber). I suspect this page to be watchdoged by Benjamin Lemaire himself (no / poor references, very positive formulation etc) and the edit history also shows edits by SocialTube, that is its business. I am going to write to "Mangozona" to ask him/her to stop undoing genuine edits. If they continue their misbehaviour who / how should I flag the page to? Thank you in advance for the info Giorgio69 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Giorgio69: I reverted to your most recent edit and left a note on that user's talk about a possible conflict of interest; I agree that they're pretty obviously either Lemaire or someone working with him. That said, please be careful about how many times you undo that user's edits, either in full or partially, because we have a policy that says you can get blocked for doing that too much, even if your edits were right and the other person's were wrong. I'm not accusing you of violating this rule or even being close to trouble. It's just worth knowing about so you can be cautious. CityOfSilver 17:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you are very helpful, and thanks for reminding me this rule. Giorgio69 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Vincent

hi - just saw your revert - have you a link to support Vincent? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: I don't have the context but I assume this is regarding Vince Vaughn's full name. Here's CBS News, TV Guide and Playboy all saying his full name is Vincent Anthony Vaughn. But it seems like you might be concerned about my behavior, and that's fair. I can explain myself. Unless a pending edit at a BLP is obviously harmless, it has to be either sourced or summarized or I revert it. Period. I know this is an unusually harsh standard but it's in accordance with policy and if the pending backlog is ever looking too long, you'll have a much easier time clearing it if you compel new and/or anonymous users to cite or explain their edits. CityOfSilver 17:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If necessary, I'd rather continue the discussion at the thread you started at Vaughn's talk page. It's more of a content thing and I probably could have just been pinged there. CityOfSilver 17:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Chuckle. I didn't consider that my use of "fluff" as a verb would be mistaken as an adjective. Sorry about that, should have said fluff up cite to explain my actions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

COI

Hi, just got your message and it's a real joke. Did you talk with that Giorgio69 guy who created an account to bought illegal information on that page that have been deleted 5 times (that's why page is protected), and THIS guy has no COI and I am ? Seriously lol MangoZona (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mangozona, I answered to your allegations on my talk page, where you already complained. I did not create this content, and as far as I remember, I reinstated (once) what someone had added, which, as I wrote, was probably a mistake. We are not speaking of any "illegal" information I would have bought (from whom?), it was just not compliant to the BLP policy enough. What you state here is borderline defamatory. Things should not get personal like this on Wikipedia nor this page. This is an encyclopaedia, not a social media. I believe you could also let CityOfSilver out of this, he is a grown up, veteran editor, and plainly able to assess a situation as well as make his own decisions. Not wasting our time on this would also be welcomed. Please note I am looking forward talking and working with you on the best ways to improve this page - you can refer to the talk page where I left several comments already. CityOfSilver, I am sorry you have been dragged into this. Thanks to both of you for your inputs. Giorgio69 (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@MangoZona: I struck out the parts of your message that violate our policy against personal attacks. In an edit summary at Lemaire's article, you said "Of course he has something to do with/against that page. I don't." So to be clear: you're saying you aren't Lemaire or associated with him in any way? CityOfSilver 18:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

For your information @CityOfSilver: we were damn right: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IamAGecko. Thanks again for your support.

response to vandalism warning

Apparently someone vandalized the Spiderman: Homecoming page using the free wifi (this IP) at the schertz public library - perhaps a moderator should block anonymous edits from the IP unless it was made from a logged-in user. 67.78.73.114 (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think a block can happen unless the vandalism becomes a pattern. It's not a major thing; that vandalism and this message are two of the four edits ever made from this IP. CityOfSilver 17:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Gary Oldman

Thanks for tweaking the Golden Globes section. Could I trouble you to make one more edit? Oldman has described his Globes nomination as "frosting on the cake",[2] which would indicate that he now views receiving a nod in a positive light. Also, the "vocal critic" sentence is opinion and unsupported - I think it's best to just report what happened. Thanks a lot. 82.132.187.120 (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not specifically sourced but it's definitely a fair summary of the three sentences that follow it. However, I removed the sentence, made a few other tweaks, and previewed; the result was prose that was a little more concise, a little less meandering, so either way, it's gone. I think we should hold off just a little bit longer with regards to the compliment from his statement. It stands to reason that, at some point over the next few weeks, some interviewer will ask how he came to terms with his good feelings from of the nomination versus the negativity he's repeatedly expressed. Hopefully he gives a more definitive answer as to whether or not he still has these concerns, and if he doesn't, that would mean the "frosting on the cake" thing is his final word on it. CityOfSilver 19:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. I will maintain my request on the grounds of this new quote from Oldman: "I am amazed, flattered and very proud of my first Golden Globe nomination."[3] Could you please add this, as his position on the Globes has clearly softened. Thanks. 82.132.187.120 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia in decline

your site is in decline this is the end of wikipedia https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.104.232.132 (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I took a bunch of time to work with you on your edit. I bet you didn't mean to respond to my effort with something this dismissive. Also, that article is four years old and here Wikipedia still is. CityOfSilver 20:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

why are you removing what others edit?, we are trying to construct a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Noellesch9: My edit was most clearly explained here. I also left explanations here, here, and here. You and that other user need to edit in accordance with rules and guidelines, which I've linked over and over and over. CityOfSilver 20:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

as you want. do not care, I am not paid for this, so ... good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noellesch9 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Noellesch9: I have no idea what you're talking about. CityOfSilver 20:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

These things happen. I am editor of several journals and anthropologist. I worked for Oxford University Press and met Korstanje. I am familiar with his theory. I can help, but of course, always if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellscholar9 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wellscholar9: Are you the same person as User:Noellesch9 and User talk:190.104.232.132? CityOfSilver 20:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly I am a lecturer of the university and Noelle is my student. Hope this does not violate any rule of Wikipedia. we use, well in fact, many persons use the same IP address. She asked me help to edit Korstanje biographies and others as well. There are some serious mistakes in the biographies of Bauman, Zizek, Baudrillard, Altheide, which need further discussion. I worked theories of mobilities in the past and this is the reason why I am cognizant ... but ok if you do not want believing I am Noelle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellscholar9 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wellscholar9: This won't be the first time an educator attempted to use editing Wikipedia as an educational tool. There are quite a few things worth learning before you send students to edit, and while much of it is about the facts, there's also a ton you need to understand about collaborating with other editors on here, particularly on pages as sensitive as Slavoj Žižek. Your students have a lot to learn; the first post in this thread, by someone you have in your classroom, was a mocking effort to get me to worry that Wikipedia is going to die out soon.

Anything related to teachers and students using Wikipedia for assignments is far out of my purview so I recommend this page. CityOfSilver 20:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for closing this. I was a bit distracted and somehow didn't notice that it was a formal edit request. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Not a problem. I had that thing where I got stuck clearing the edit requests backlog because that was a situation I'd never encountered before. I figured adding {{not done}} to the beginning of your post could be considered refactoring so I just butted in afterward. CityOfSilver 23:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrestling

[12/13/17] From: Wierderandwierder To: CityOfSilver Re: edit of "Wrestling" page

Thanks for your response and comments.

With all due respect sir: All I am attempting to do is make the page more complete with minimal wasted time, in the case other users would be interested to have slightly more well-rounded information on the history of wrestling. I came across the information by accident while doing other research, looked up Wrestling on Wiki, and noticed the article did not include it, so interrupted myself and attempted to add it. If you do not wish to add it only for protocol reasons, your choice. Since when it is ever a good choice to exclude relevant and verifiable information? I am completely uninterested in getting credit for my Wiki contributions, and do not have time to get involved in collaborating with other wiki editors, same as nearly none of them are interested in collaborating with me. I am only interested in making as sure as possible future users of the page are aware of the data point I found in the case it would be useful to them as it was to me. Isn't THAT the point & purpose? If you feel the edit should be inserted differently or worded differently, be my guest. Take credit for the edit yourself; be my guest. Who gets credit is not important, at least not to me; the point is to improve the page. I do not attempt to edit Wiki often, because usually the Wiki pages are already more complete than my own knowledge base is, thus the point of using it. If I am required to wait to do seven more edits to unprotected pages before a completely verifiable edit to this or any other protected page is allowed, then it would never occur for many years; then I am sure there would be some OTHER protocol reason to deny that one, too, am I right? Obviously there are reasons for the page to be protected from editing if people have been subtracting sense or adding nonsense or otherwise vandalizing the page. My condolences. However, this attempted edit is not an act of vandalism, nor is the data unsourced. My inexperience editing Wiki pages is as far as I can tell completely irrelevant. Most editors of Wiki are not experts. My research involves having written over 60,000 pages over the last 30 years. This is by comparison an extremely minuscule edit. Your criticism is about protocol, not about the verifiability and correctness of the data. I am sure Wiki develops its edit policies for reasons its staff feel are justified, but surely their purpose is not to thwart the very reason for Wiki's existence, which is to allow people to contribute what they know in an efficient effective manner, so that others can make use of it when upon reading it, they realize it is relevant for their particular purpose. If not, I should stop contributing and time for someone to start a new Wiki. With a different name and trademark, of course.

Nothing personal. I eagerly await your well-reasoned response. Thanks William E Russell Jurupa Valley, Ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wierderandwierder (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

My FB edit request

Hello,

Sorry if I should be replying to your edit reply on the edit page. I cannot seem to find it quickly enough. I'm a new wikipedia user and don't know the site very well.

Thank you for replying to my edit request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdorsett3 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick question.

Could you please help me with something? I have made an edit request here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Pilgrim_vs._the_World#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_17_December_2017 But no one has responded to it. Do you think you could help me? 81.156.136.188 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I could try. CityOfSilver 17:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers m8 :) 81.156.136.188 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Broken English

Hello CityofSilver, i think the wording in the infobox of this page has some semantic problems. I think such wording would be more approptiate in English: "mainly X peoples but also Y, Z, W" instead of "X (to a lesser extent Y, Z, W)". "To a lesser extent" is mainly used for materials, substances, etc. rather than peoples. I am not sure though, therefore decided to ask you (besides, the page is semi-protected). 50.47.138.198 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done. You seem to be saying that the phrasing "lesser extent" is insensitive, which is a fair thing for you to think. The section in the infobox only says "Related ethnic groups" and I'm not seeing a requirement that we point out which groups are more related and which ones are less related. So I just changed it to read "Turkic peoples, Lurs, Kurds, Arabs". CityOfSilver 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, only now I noticed this. I see your point, but by that logic you would have to do that with practically all ethnic groups, since no one is "pure". I would suggest putting it like "mostly X (but also Y and Z)", for instance. If that is OK, I will do that. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Akocsg: And I replied below without even noticing this. Sorry. I don't have a huge problem with "mostly X (but also Y and Z)" but to me, the problem is entirely cleared by just removing any differentiation. It's not required we do that and listing without differentiating is still in accordance with the source. But this is a fair enough compromise, so let's go with this. CityOfSilver 15:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay,  Done. Akocsg (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Qashqai people

Hello, I see you cleared the case in the article Qashqai people. I just inserted that info in the infobox because in the source it is clearly stated that they are mostly Turkic. So I didn't see the problem with that. That IP user though is pretty persistent, and is even manipulating in the noticeboard section, here. You seem to already have a blocked sockpuppet user in mind. I would advise investigating that one. He clearly is quite experienced and even tries to manipulate in the noticeboard section. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Akocsg: As far as the content goes, the IP editor expressed concerns and they made sense to me. To be clear: I believe the terminology "to a lesser extent" is pretty dehumanizing, I don't think the source explicitly says this (although it comes close), and I don't see how removing it while just using the list makes it any less sourced or accurate.

As far as PavelStaykov, I asked because I really don't know for sure. Whenever an anonymous user contentiously edits an article that has anything to do with the part of the world that stretches from the Adriatic Sea to Iran, I just assume it's this guy. CityOfSilver 15:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not intentional. English is not my native language. It's fine now since it is concluded anyway. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Tag

Hello. I tagged this ip[4] as it seems that admin has blocked them based on your edit summary. So fyi. 121.167.32.190 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Although I'll say again that I'm not completely sure they're the same person. CityOfSilver 19:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to inform you about the reason of block. The ips seems physical and if this PavelStaykov person is also from Iran and active in Iran topics, they may be the same person. Regards. 121.167.32.190 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag, as you stated that you are not sure. I took a look at PavelStaykov case and his blocked ips and accounts. Staykov's edits seem to limited certain articles on ancient Bulgars and a few other related articles and he often attacks particular editors in Bulgarian. Probably they are not the same person. If other editors provide diffs demonstrating that they are related, the tag may be re-added. I was stalking your contributions and when i realised that the issue evolved into a block and that apparently the ip was not aware of the main reason of the block, i wanted to inform them as well as you. 121.167.32.190 (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Typically, I think administrators should explain blocks at talk pages. But if it's Staykov, he knows why this new identity was blocked. I don't know everything about his locations, habits, and so on; I just know he's a vandal and a harasser who's kind of obsessed the part of the world from Bulgaria to Iran. CityOfSilver 19:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

A collective relief, I'm sure! :D Just had a giggle at your edit summary and wanted to send something in return.

Not sure why EPH didn't mark it as "yes", but thanks for catching that!

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Thank you for the goat. It can be both good and bad that I guessed you were an admin. I saw your ORCP discussion from January so I understand why you might not want to go for it even though at least one person would support. CityOfSilver 20:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your reply re edit of Narcissistic Personality Disorder Page

Jeez, talk about insulting my intelligence. Seriously dude, shut the f**k up, just shut the f**k up. 1diot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwansenAcc (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@SwansenAcc:  Not done. CityOfSilver 16:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your incredible work at Special:PendingChanges. EMachine03 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@EMachine03: Thank you so much! CityOfSilver 13:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Coffee

@Coffee:The problem with removing that message is that it contains a request you ignore at your own peril. I know admins hate the leeway we get from WP:NOBAN but I have currency, I'll use it.

Claiming that this approach is some kind of rarely-used, last-ditch tactic is so apart from reality I wonder why you said it because you can't believe it. You're a race car in the red. You always have been. If you'd like proof, find the last time you kept a decent, civil tone in an attempt to correct what you perceived to be bad behavior from a non-admin/non-friend. Such a message, of course, doesn't exist. You've been here for ages and the entire time, you've maintained this prison-guard-who's-counting-down-the-days-to-retirement persona where you reluctantly administer the site while toting a microscopically short fuse. No snark, no cynicism, no sarcasm, dead serious: I feel bad because Wikipedia causes you damage. You cannot stand logging in and doing what needs to be done but you do it. Doing measurable harm isn't enough to get you to take a step back and self-assess. You've lost the output of one of its highest-output PC1 patrollers but hey, at least you didn't have to, for once, calm the eff down and admit you might have made a mistake. (You're rolling your eyes. That's okay. I'm not so delusional that I think I've convinced you of anything.)

Your reply here (at 19:57, not 19:56) is a violation of WP:NPA that would have gotten me blocked had I used a similar level of nastiness to address you or anybody else. Given this, it stands to reason the thread at RFPP is similarly full of vitriol so if you haven't already, decline that request because I'm not reading it. Further, I only want my talk page to be used by people who adhere to NPA, which, unlike anything I ran afoul of, is a policy, one you violate constantly. So even if you're bound by policy to message me at my talk, per WP:IAR, you're absolved. I will revert anything you do there on sight without reading a word. If you've got it watchlisted, please remove it. I have no means of enforcing any of this except the mostly (but not entirely) toothless WP:NOBAN but I hope I'm making it clear how pointless any further attempts at interaction would be. CityOfSilver 03:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hi CityOfSilver. Could you please either enable email or email me using Special:EmailUser? Thanks. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• CityOfSilver, Rob has serious business, apparently. I, on the other hand, have some great news I can't talk about in public, but if I say "my Nigerian cousin" and "4.5 million pounds" I think you know it's for real. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Happy holidays to you, thanks for your contributions here and congrats on the replacement of your wp:reviewer rights. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

new length for Edit summaries…

I once had a conversation with you about how wonderful edit summaries, and how 200 characters is too short. If you haven't already discovered, (temporarily) we can now write 1000 character ESs!( because the WMF has reasons). There is a survey at VPR or the VPP about changing this, so if you want a longer edit summary box, you can chime in there. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Xi Jinping

I have no idea what you are talking about. I may have rephrased but not deleted. (Mind you, given Wikipedia's political correctness, even the simplest rephrasing for clarity can fall foul of it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.48.80 (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Doubt

I don't understand why my contribution to the Diabetes Wikipedia page is wrong. I have to edit Wikipedia entries as part of a college assignment, could you please explain what the error is? Thank you very much, best regards. Anabealo (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Anabealo: Wikipedia usually prefers not to be used for school assignments. For more specifics, I'm going to flag down User:Certes, User:MrOllie, and User:Zefr, who have been active at that article recently and have more in-depth knowledge of the relevant policy than I do. CityOfSilver 17:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is not a place for students to be motivated to edit mainly for completion of course material - there needs to be more instructor supervision at this level. On the Diabetes talk page, there is no notification of the course, instructor or students assigned to the topic. The edit by Anabealo was reverted with this edit summary, indicating that the sources were preliminary research rather than a WP:MEDRS review. The Diabetes article is a major clinical topic which should not be edited by students outside of the competence needed, WP:CIR. Zefr (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Anabealo See WP:Student assignments for more information about school projects in Wikipedia, and please bring it to your instructor's attention. Thanks. PamD 23:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

welcome back!

It is very nice to see you are back :-)
—usernamekiran (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thank you!! CityOfSilver 17:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

as of now, the first, and last threads on your talkpage were created by me :D
—usernamekiran (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Your signature and linter errors

Just a reminder that your signature contains obsolete font tags. They create Linter errors, and it is advised that you change your signature to <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;">''[[User talk:CityOfSilver|<span style="color:#EDDA74">City</span>]]<span style="color:Green">O</span><span style="color:Red">f</span>[[Special:Contribs/CityOfSilver|<span style="color:#708090">Silver</span>]]''</b> ASAP.

The purpose of this message is because Linter errors affect the way the page looks, and with a lot of errors, the page may render badly. To reduce Linter errors, please change your signature. See WP:SIGFONT for more info.

If the software doesn't accept my replacement signature, let me know, and if that's the case, unfortunately you may have to change it to something else. Sheep (talk • he/him) 16:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sheep8144402: I made the change and hopefully it works. Thank you for taking the time to do this. CityOfSilver 17:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Chris LeDoux

Was I changing his birth from 1948 to 1943 because I think he looks too old to be born in 1948? Uhhh yeah, he looks like he’s in his early 60s to me and to several other people I know. Jaxbarina (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jaxbarina: Thank you for confirming. Don't do that, please. CityOfSilver 00:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Neon

I've just nuked that entire recently added "Precautions" section. Any gas other than oxygen will cause asphyxiation, and it certainly does not require extreme pressures. Maybe the intent was to say that it is an an asphyxiant, and at pressures greater than 110 bar it it an anesthetic, but the whole section was just terrible. No mention of frostbite dangers from liquid neon, the vague "presumably in the same manner as xenon at ambient pressures", no mention of actual precautions in a section called "Precautions", etc. If we want this section let's write it properly and understandably. Meters (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Meters: It's frustrating because a section like that would be a nice improvement but I'm taking another look at the status quo version I restored and you're right: it's so far from ideal it's a net negative. The editor who added it is no newbie and no slouch either but now I'm wondering how much more of their work has flown under the radar despite being problematic like this. CityOfSilver 04:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for digging out the original edit. I see that it made no mention of any anesthetic qualities, just "Neon is an asphyxiant at pressures greater than 110 bar." Such a bizarre edit... Maybe the intent was to say that the neon in air (18 parts per million by volume, I believe) becomes an asphyxiant when air is at more than 110 bar, but if you are breathing air at 110 bar the neon is the least of your worries. Air at a small fraction of that pressure will cause oxygen toxicity and nitrogen narcosis. So, user:Nucleus hydro elemon, what was your edit [5] trying to say? Meters (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I want to add the precautiom section that the article doesn’t have. Then I found this book and it lists gases and say when they’ll become anesthetic and asphyxiating. After that I add things that the book states. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand why I am questioning this edit? Any gas (other than oxygen) on its own is an aspirant. Pressure doesn't matter. And if it's not on its own (i.e., it's a normal air mixture) then why are you mentioning incredible pressures of 110 bar? Anyone breathing air at extremely high pressures would be dead long before reaching that pressure. The normal percentage of oxygen would kill you at pressures far below 110 bar. So which is it? Do you mean pure neon at 110 bar, or air at 110 bar? If you can't answer that simply question then you should not be making these edits, because it is apparent that you do not understand the book you sourcing. Meters (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your revert at Anna Chapman

You reverted an edit with the explanation” Reverted 1 pending edit by 174.208.228.239 to revision 1134396107 by EdgarCabreraFariña: Removed unexplained, context-free trivia)” That’s confusing. We don’t append a discussion to each edit addition with an explanation. And when it is properly sourced as here - and there are more sources if that is the issue for you - when we have two notable people and friends and the media reports on it is not trivia. It’s the coverage in the media that is the test. Same as we use that as our notability test. That way we avoid subjective reasoning. Of a single editor. Please self-revert. 174.208.227.220 (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. A lot of people would just automatically revert me and I really appreciate your approach here.

You aren't required to use edit summaries but if you do, it's less likely your work will get undone. But I don't believe in removing edits solely because they weren't explained and I didn't do that here.

I stand by what I said. You didn't explain how your addition improves that article. (Paragraphs are supposed to be about the same thing, or at least similar things. What does your edit have to do with what was already in that paragraph where you added it?) I also believe it's unnecessary trivia. If someone is reading our article about Anna Chapman, they want a comprehensive understanding of what's publicly known about her. Do you sincerely believe readers' knowledge of her is lacking because we didn't mention that she was Facebook friends with Nouriel Roubini? How? I actually think the addition would leave readers less informed because it doesn't say a word about who he is nor does it explain why this social media connection matters.

You're really driving home the point that your work was sourced even though I never said any different. Your sourcing was fine. I'm just having a hard time coming to terms with "It’s the coverage in the media that is the test" because to my reading, that directly contradicts the policy spelled out at WP:ONUS. CityOfSilver 21:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to be unblocked

I am dropping my appeal.

After viewing User:Feoffer's history, I conclude that there is no point in asking to be unblocked from editing Keith Raniere if they're just going to keep acting this way.

As well, as a matter of constructive criticism: I nhave found the tone of Wikipedia bureaucratic writing so incredibly smug and off-putting that I don't want to be around it.

I will be taking time off from the platform in contemplation of having my account vanished.

Thanks! Evackost (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Evackost: This message is on my talk page but it doesn't read like any of it is meant for me so, you're welcome? I guess? CityOfSilver 03:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You specifically left a bunch of stuff related to a ban on my page that I couldn't respond to for whatever reason, it's posted here because of that, but whatever.

Evackost (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Evackost: You replied to me on your talk page but you followed that up with another rampage where you wiped the entire thing, throwing a fit in the edit summaries as you went along. I could track down what you said but is it worth my time? Because my guess is, it's just more personal attacks, more refusals to acknowledge a single error on your part, and more doubling down on your refusal to accept that you can't make changes like yours without doing the necessary work. Please let me know if I guessed wrong and I'll check it out.

I'm genuinely not sure if I've given the wrong impression so let me be clear that I'm neither a bureaucrat nor an administrator. I have no power to sanction you in any way. CityOfSilver 03:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn't "go on a rampage" I deleted my pages because I want to leave Wikipedia, but apparently they still haven't figured that one out. Whatever, none of you are going to ever going to be happy with anything I do. Evackost (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Evackost: Aaaand you've been blocked from everywhere, even your own talk page. That took a lot of work! I'm probably not allowed to explain that it would have been a lot easier if you'd just threatened to sue somebody so I won't tell you that.

Sooner or later, you'll violate WP:SOCK by returning under a new identity. I guarantee it. Word to the wise: when you come back, do your best to create a completely different personality. This one is really distinct, so much so that a lot of people will easily recognize you even if you have a distinct username. CityOfSilver 06:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 5

I don't appreciate your edit summary "On this matter, people are being really prickly with me for absolutely no reason". That was clearly aimed at me. How about a little AFD and civility? When I copied WarriorPlate's comments over to RFD I commented about WarriorPlate's DEADNAME concern with "This appears to be a valid concern." Looking at it more closely I found that DEADNAME did not apply, so I clarified the situation. My edit conflicted with your post and was not in response to you. As for your new comments that thinking the essay GID does not apply to the deceased is unsound, well, that's how it is worded. It transcludes the wording from the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, which explicitly, and more than once, says "living". If you want to change that then raise it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Meters (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Meters: I'm not interested in having this discussion. CityOfSilver 04:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

And another snarky summary... I'm sone wasting my tine with you. Meters (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Meters: I'm still not interested in having this discussion. CityOfSilver 04:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. Meters (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Meters: Just go, please. CityOfSilver 04:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Indian elections

I think cpm is not suitable to add in infobox. Techdevegan (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Techdevegan: I know that already. You removed that information which meant you thought it was not suitable. You still haven't explained your edits. Why does that information need to be removed? Why do you think it's not suitable? CityOfSilver 21:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Sir. PLEASE UNDERSTAND ME.  COMMUNIST PARTIES ARE NOT BEEN THE PART OF INDIAN CENTRAL MINISTRIES EXCEPT 1996 AND 2004. SO I REMOVED IT. YOU NOW UNDERSTAND IT. Techdevegan (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Techdevegan: Your edit at 2009 Indian general election removed information about the candidate/party that finished in third place with over 22 million votes. Readers of that article should know about that. CityOfSilver 14:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

That is unnecessary. Techdevegan (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Techdevegan: I disagree with you and I explained why. You disagree with me and you haven't bothered to explain anything. If you're not going to add anything to this discussion we should just stop having it but if you're going to keep making contentious, suspicious changes without any sort of explanation, don't be surprised to see me reverting you. CityOfSilver 02:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nordic Resistance Movement: Azov Regiment

> Arguable that Russia's classification means we can say they're terrorists.

I find that very questionable based on them being at war with them, and designating them terrorists after attacking their country. If unaligned countries had that same designation for them, I could see it, maybe even if they had that designation before going to war. But as is, that seems to be more about spreading Russian war propaganda. I’m no fan of neo-nazi groups, but also not of stuff like this.

> Inarguable that this is a really suspicious, overbroad removal of content based on a lack of sourcing (what "further research")

I removed it, because none of the sources given say anything about it, I’m not quite sure why some random assertion needs no proof, but aligning with the main page for them does. The further research was googling and going to the main Wikipedia page for the Azov Brigade CWagner1 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@CWagner1: I'm trying to get clarity on what you're saying and not saying. Was any of the text you removed sourced? CityOfSilver 18:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It was not, none of the given sources mentioned anything about them being a terrorist organization. At least, nothing I could find by translating the whole page bit by bit with deepl.com. The part with only Russia designating them terrorist was from the Azov Brigade page, the sources don’t even mention that part. CWagner1 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@CWagner1: Does the phrase "proscribed terrorist" describe the Russian Imperial Movement or National Action? CityOfSilver 19:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but it seems to me less information is better than false information. CWagner1 (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@CWagner1: The right approach was to retain sourced information while removing anything unsourced and/or contentious and you didn't do that. I had a strong suspicion that you weren't careful and I reverted you accordingly.

I'm still extremely skeptical of the idea that Azov, which is unquestionably neo-Nazi, can't be described as "terrorist" because the only source we have is the Russian government. So I'm again trying for clarity here. What do you mean when you say "false information?" Do you mean that the claim that Azov is a terrorist organization isn't properly sourced? Or do you mean that Azov isn't a terrorist organization? CityOfSilver 03:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

> The right approach was to retain sourced information while removing anything unsourced and/or contentious and you didn't do that. I had a strong suspicion that you weren't careful and I reverted you accordingly.

My goal was to correct misinformation with the knowledge I had. As the sources already did not cover one part they were supposed to, I didn’t want to make assumptions about the other. So the correct way would be to remove Azov from the list and just leave the other two?

> I'm still extremely skeptical of the idea that Azov, which is unquestionably neo-Nazi, can't be described as "terrorist" because the only source we have is the Russian government.

Azov was integrated into the national guard of Ukraine (this is also why the main-article, unlike this one, calls them Azov Brigade and not Battalion), and is heavily involved in fighting against Russia since they invade, a few months later, Russia decides to call them a terrorist group.

I’m really confused by what you are trying to say here. But luckily, other editors see it differently and there is no more misinformation in the article, so I’m done.

> Do you mean that the claim that Azov is a terrorist organization isn't properly sourced? Or do you mean that Azov isn't a terrorist organization?

Both. CWagner1 (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@CWagner1: If I review the current version and find it lacking, I'm going to reinsert the claim that Azov is a terrorist organization and reliably source it, something that should take me about ten seconds. Then what? CityOfSilver 04:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11