User talk:Save me, Barry!

Welcome!

Hello, SilverSoul91911, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Green bower, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 17:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Places

Welcome!

Hello, SilverSoul91911, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi. As you are new I'll go easy on you. Any populated settlement, providing it is verifiable is acceptable on wikipedia and will never be speedy deleted. We have thousands of poor geography stubs but they need expanding not deleting. So please don't place speedy deletion tags on geography articles again. Happy editing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I already knew about the four tildes and such, but a those links will probably help me, and I never knew about not placing a speedy deletion tag on a Geography article. Thanks. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator but I have the most article writing experience on here. As long as you provide reliable sources, preferably book sources from a google book search then they should be kept. What topics are you interested in? Do you speak any languages? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No no, what I meant was that I nominated a few pages to be speedily deleted, could you check them out and see if I correctly tagged them, (can you even check which ones I have tagged?), and I generally like editing living people but I actually edit almost anywhere. As for the languages really just English. Also how did you change the font of your name, and add a diamond before it, looks cool. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that the vast majority of articles are not speedy deletable. In fact it is rare that long existing articles are speedied, given that there are some standards in new page patrol that mostly route out the ones which are obviously non notable/adverts/self promotions etc or childish/offensive content. It most cases article lacking sources probably meet requirements and can be expanded using WP:RS (reliable sources). What I'd suggest is you read Wikipedia:Notability and view Template:Proposed deletion (PROD) and use that template on articles who think don't meet content requirement, so long as you notify the person who created the article. You would be more helpful to wikipedia though if you tried to expand poor articles yourself... Other than that you can take lacking articles to Wikipedia:AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I only put speedy tag on articles I cannot improve and deem necessary. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books search is very useful for assessing article notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing??? Why have you placed a speedy tag on Ransom Dunn. PLEASE do a google book search beforehand.., here. Tons of sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any others you placed speedy tags on?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of source which indicates notability..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, those were the only two articles I put that tag on, and I can assure you that will probably be the last time I do. I learnt that you should rarely use speedy tags. Thank you. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've added some sources to Ransom Dunn. It could of course be much improved as with most wiki articles but it at least is a start now..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah you'll to avoid WP:3RR. Report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if you are sure its vandalism. I am clueless about same- sex marriages but as far as I can see he is removing some unsourced statements so they could be contoversial I don't know. Maybe you could try to find sources to support those statements or request advice at the WP:LGBT project? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of filling stations in Martha's Vineyard. That is the sort of content you want to speedy!! Feel free to speedy tag it.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deary me. A year or two ago List of filling stations in Martha's Vineyard would have been speediable... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean a year or two ago? SilverSoul91911 (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a more cautious approach to new articles these days. The speedy deletion tag is used less and less I think. I think it has something to do with new editors being "scared off" and never contributing to wikipedia again, even if their article utterly unencyclopedic...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the quality of Ransom Dunn now.. Now do you see why speedy tagging such articles is damaging to potential content?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realised long ago it is wrong. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me stuff I already know, I always do sign my talk posts, but thank you for saying it anyway. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Save me, Barry!. You have new messages at Pepper's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:PERM/R

To answer your question about how I knew you wanted to use Igloo, I checked your contributions and saw this edit. Sorry to disappoint, but no, I'm not psychic! ;) How are you finding Twinkle? If you get a few days' experience with it, I'll be happy to recinsider my decision about rollback. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok :)! Well I've been using twinkle so I'll re apply soon. Thanks SilverSoul91911 (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure you report vandals to AIV once they've gone past their final warning. There should be a button somewhere with "arv" on it that allows you to report them quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Hi there SilverSoul91911. Sadly, I can't approve your request on my talk page for autopatrolled because at present, you've created (as far as I can tell) only two articles, and one was speedy deleted. While the requirements of autopatrolled are often down to individual admin judgment, the "average" requirement is between 15-25 pages created (preferably with as few deleted as possible). In addition to quantity of articles, quality is also important: the created articles do need to be decently-sourced, and creating unsourced articles on living people will definitely lead to autopatroller being denied. I hope this helps. Best. Acalamari 10:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't know if it's just an auto-message to tell me that I'm vandalizing, but that's unacceptable. Ok I may be new for the rule but not for editing wikipedia. I just want to show my doubt about the details particularly in Thai-Cambodian standoff. I really doubt about the details such as casualties and what you called'reliable source'. My I didn't intended vandalizing. See, almost all Cambodian casualties that was sourced has been deleted while Thai casualties with 'somewhat unreliable' Cambodian source isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.207.210 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC) --124.120.207.210 (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hj! SilverSoul91911 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SS91911, about your edit to Spam, here - I'm guessing you hit Rollback at the same time that ClueBot reverted the vandalism on the page, because your edit did in fact restore the vandal edit. Sometimes Rollback can play tricks like that, so it can be a good idea to check the result of the edit, just in case. Cheers, and happy editing! --bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guessed correctly, that damn ClueBot is fast! I undid my edit though. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Sadie j episodes

Hello SilverSoul91911. I am just letting you know that I deleted Sadie j episodes, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. nancy 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed to fit just fine. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've only been on wiki for a couple of weeks, so welcome & thank you for helping with new page patrol. I do however have to take issue with your reply - you tagged the page as "insufficient context to identify the subject of the article" when the article name pretty much gave the game away and the content was a reasonably extensive list of episode names, numbers and plot summaries. It was in fact a copyvio of a TV Guide which a quick google would have confirmed, indeed at the time you tagged the page it already had a bot notification identifying the possible copyvio. WP:COPYVIO (WP:CSD#G12) pretty much trumps all speedy deletion criteria save for attack pages and should be removed as quickly as possible so if you do come across similarly tagged articles when you are on NPP please check the source page of the copyvio and if the bot is right then tag as a g12. It is also important that copyvios don't get deleted under other criteria to prevent them being inadvertently restored or userfied. Kind regards, nancy 19:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I tagged it as having lack of content etc. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it had plenty of content and plenty of context. But this is missing the point that I want you to take on board, i.e. regarding the importance of identifying copyright violations and ensuring they are removed as quickly as possible. Best, nancy 19:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Users are permitted to remove warning from their talk pages; it does them no service to remove the warnings as they remain in the talk page's history. Tiderolls 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd rule. Thanks anyway... SilverSoul91911 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may appear odd at a glance, but one of the benefits is that it prevents well-intentioned editors from edit warring on user talk pages. Edit warring is counter-productive in the article mainspace, but it's just downright silly on user talk pages. You can read more on the subject at WP:REMOVED. Regards Tiderolls 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Hi SilverSoul91911,

My edit was not an attempt at vandalism. Mestinel has been adding non-NPOV content to the article about his organization, against Wikipedia rules on conflict of interest – I was undoing the edit.

I was also removing the section "Reception", having already moved the section to a more appropriate article – the press quotes mentioned were about the "Queen's English Society", and were written before it diverged from the non-notable "Academy of Contemporary English", which has not been mentioned in the media since then (since September 2010).

I hope you'll consider reverting to my edited version of the page, or an NPOV version not written by Mestinel.

Best wishes, Responsible? (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible?, after looking at it properly I saw what you were doing. Thank you. The article has been reverted to your edit. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SilverSoul, no problem. Happy editing! – Responsible? (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have incorrectly reported my edits as vandalism when they are more accurate than yours so I will not refrain from correctly editing his page94.11.232.23 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Save me, Barry!. You have new messages at EWikist's talk page.
Message added 19:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your RFA

Good morning. In order for your Request for Adminship to be an official one, you'll need to actually accept it. Since you've nominated yourself, this is done by providing a statement of who you are and why you believe you're fit to be an administrator. That said, honestly? You might want to wait a while before seeking adminship. While there is no hard and fast rule, editors with fewer than a few thousand edits are generally unsuccessful, and I note that your edit count is currently 394. Other factors come under review as well, including the fact that this RFA is the first thing you've edited since February, apart from four edits in March. That doesn't bother me a lick, as I've taken wikibreaks too - but editors like for a new admin to have more recent and consistent activity before granting the tools. So, you may wish to withdraw your nomination and wait a while. The essay at WP:NOTNOW may also be helpful, as it offers advice for how to proceed. The choice, at this point, is yours - good luck either way. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request for Adminship

Hello SilverSoul91911, I just wanted to tell you I closed you Request for adminship early. We do appreciate your efforts, but at present the community feels that you need more experience before running again. If you continue editing and working in administrative areas without any major conflicts, then in six months to a year you can run again, and there shouldn't be any issues with you passing in the future. Best wishes, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 13:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

(Removed mistaken vandalism warning)

How is that not constructive? I was reverting vandalism. Unless you made a mistake? SilverSoul91911 (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the warning, I meant to revert and warn the edit before. 100% my mistake. Sorry about that. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I understand. Using igloo I assume? SilverSoul91911 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle actually, usually it is good at warning me in situations like this, but again, it is no excuse. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never heard of Huggle before. Happens a lot on Igloo too.SilverSoul91911 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

90210

Thanks for your help on the 90210 page. The characters the user keeps adding to recurring do not belong there. I've reverted the edits again, but I forgot to sign in. It shows up as my IP. If the user continues, I'll send a warning. Jayy008 (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I just didn't want to start an edit war. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Save me, Barry!. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]