User talk:Silver seren

Silverseren



Well...here's my talk page. If anyone has questions about an edit I did, please put it here. --Silver seren 14:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issue

[edit]

As a fellow veteran Wikipedian, I understand that it can get very frustrating to deal with new users who are canvassed off-wiki during Yasuke/AC Shadows controversies, but I feel that sometimes your cynicism like this and this were a bit too aggressive and not helpful in convincing them to back off peacefully. Just my 2 cents and in no attempt to stop you from your contributions. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kehler

[edit]

Hi Silver, Randy Kehler, who has recently died, was just nominated for deletion. Not sure why, as a search shows press going back decades. Any help would really be appreciated! Best, Thriley (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuke was not a samurai.

[edit]

Yasuke was not a samurai, so then why do you keep changing it to he was a samurai. Yasuke was a sword bearer. The whole he was samurai was created by Thomas Lockley who wrote a fiction book. Lockley has deleted all his social media accounts and is on the run since he was caught. He wrote two books one in english where Yasuke is stated to be a samurai and one in Japanese where Yasuke is not a samurai. Lockley was hoping that the Japanese never find out about this Ronten5 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronten5, if you are just here to push your WP:POV, then you should not be an editor on Wikipedia. We go by what reliable sources say and there are a bunch of sources other than Lockley who describe Yasuke as a samurai and whom did so before and after Lockley ever made any claims. SilverserenC 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here for the tuth that's why I edit on Wikipedia. And name them so called sources that say Yasuke was a samurai. Every western sources use Lockley's book as their source. Ronten5 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did not change pronouns

[edit]

Please do not misrepresent my edits and accuse me of misgendering the article subject. I changed exactly zero pronouns. Lemmaille (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You removed all of the usages of "she" in the article, Lemmaille. Can you explain why you did that? Formatting a biographical article using only the subject's name and no pronouns is only appropriate when the subject is non-binary and specifies they don't use pronouns. Otherwise, we should be using the pronouns that the subject indicates they use. SilverserenC 15:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that policy written?
Regardless, using the subject’s name is the most respectful and dignified compromise given the circumstances. The subject indicates a preference for she/her; however, these are inaccurate. Using the subject’s name avoids using he/him and they/them, which we can assume the subject does not prefer. Lemmaille (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be MOS:GENDERID.
The subject indicates a preference for she/her; however, these are inaccurate.
Can you elaborate on this, Lemmaille? Why would the subject's preference for she/her be inaccurate? SilverserenC 16:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not saying that the subject’s preference is inaccurate; the subject of course is free to prefer any pronouns the subject wishes. I’m saying that she/her is inaccurate since the subject is not female. Lemmaille (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Silverseren on this. I don't understand how using pronouns she/her would be inaccurate. CycoMa2 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lemaille, there really is nothing respectful about your edits. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, do you think the above response is enough to go to ANI for a WP:NOTHERE determination? SilverserenC 16:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m afraid I don’t understand how my edits are disrespectful and I’m hoping someone can explain so I can understand? It’s just that she/her are feminine pronouns used in reference to female subjects. This particular subject is not female. I’m not making a value judgment here. Is there something I’m missing? I’d like this to be explained to me? Lemmaille (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These just seem like leading, trolling questions. Do you really not see how claiming that a trans woman "is not female" is a bigoted anti-trans statement, Lemmaille? If you were unaware, as shown by MOS:GENDERID that I already linked, the Wikipedia community supports LGBT subjects and agrees that trans women are women and trans men are men and should be represented as such in biographical articles and other references. SilverserenC 16:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Silver seren I’m not bigoted or anti-trans, and no, I don’t see how the statements I’ve made are in any way “anti-trans”. In regards to “claiming that a trans woman is not female”, I don’t think it’s necessarily a claim at all (please see the lead section of the Wikipedia article female). Lemmaille (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're not getting into a discussion here on sex and gender. That is not what Wikipedia is for. I am just informing you about what the rules on Wikipedia are as they stand and how articles are to be formatted. Please do not remove any further pronouns on that article or any other, or I (or likely someone else if you try to do so on a different article) will end up reporting you to WP:ANI. SilverserenC 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Silver seren I’m a little confused because you said “we’re not getting into a discussion here on sex and gender here”, yet above you said that I made a bigoted anti-trans statement without explaining why you found that statement to be bigoted and anti-trans. Since you didn’t address the Wikipedia article I linked to (female) (also the first sentence of woman, although I didn’t link that article), does that mean that the Wikipedia pronoun policy is not grounded on the actual definition of male/female or man/woman but is instead dictated exclusively by how the subject wants to be called, irrespective of any factual basis? All the best, Lemmaille (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and the trolling becomes more blatant. Sorry, but I'm here to work on improving articles, not to argue with someone who came here to troll about trans topics with the usual tendentious nonsense. Thankfully, I don't have to bother talking with you at all. I've already explained how Wikipedia works. Whether you follow it or not is up to you. Please don't reply further on my talk page. SilverserenC 17:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone seeing this. Forgive my wording.
At first I was trying to assume good faith. But now It’s obvious that Lemmaille is a troll.CycoMa2 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, you really have done an excellent job on that article: so many of those academic biographies just read like tenure applications or resumes. As for this editor, let's see how it goes. I wouldn't go to ANI yet with it. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Silver_seren&oldid=1239669320"