User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 1

Previous: User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 51

Hi! This is part of SilkTork's archives of past talkpage discussions.

Feel free to wander around and browse at will. Old archives from 2006 to 2012 are here. More recent archives are indexed here.

Tea and biscuits are available on request at my talkpage.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

User:Fortheloveofbacon

Need your help on this one. Apparently, User:Fortheloveofbacon is an ArbCom case that the user isn't talking about, somehow involves Risker (if that helps). The user claims that the account User:RelevantUsername (blocked indef by User:MuZemike) is one of his. That is clear sockpuppetry. The Fortheloveofbacon was previously blocked as a sock of User:ChildofMidnight per this SPI. User:Hersfold said that it wasn't CoM but the behaviors (as show on Risker's talk page and mine) are definitely fitting. So, to put this to bed (before I put myself there), who is this guy? RTV person come back? CoM? Someone else? Guy in WitSec? Need to know before I take this to ANI (which I told him to do). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied this over to User:Casliber's page since you two are the only ArbCom members online at the moment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't help you. I know I've seen the name Fortheloveofbacon recently, but I am not involved in any case involving that user. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie, thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move and merge history

hello,

can you move User:GreatOrangePumpkin/Sandbox13 to List of churches in Moscow, then merge the history from that sandbox to the original article, but if possible don't remove the very first edits on the latter article? Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Web Sheriff". Thank you. --VQuakr (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover \| Feature \| News and announcements \| Humor \| Want ads
To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixty Minute War

Would you mind redirecting that to Mortal Engines Quartet in lieu of deletion, per WP:ATD? I know no one brought up that possibility in the AfD, yet it remains the best policy-compliant outcome... Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that's appropriate, please go ahead. Out of interest, when looking at the AfD, I came upon this - I wonder if there are other such real world events which share the name? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babes in the Wood murders

I accept that when I started systematically sorting out the split tag issue that I may have been over enthusiasic and some items perhaps need to be re-visited. I have noticed that removing split tags has caused much less difficulty than splitting as requested. I noticed for instance that you reverted my split of Allers, as an example, and now I am of the view that such articles I would probably just de-tag. At the end of the day, I don't mind being reverted as long as an alternative solution is found. Regarding Babes in the wood murders, I think perhaps we should move the discussion to the talk page of that article. Op47 (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with over enthusiasm at all! I have more of a problem with the apathy and inertia that results in split tags being ignored for years and years. And the nature of the split request is that there isn't an easy solution - some people may (and do) disagree, and sometime mistakes are made. The nature of life is that mistakes are made - I would rather people were bold and made a decision, than do nothing for fear of making a mistake. Mistakes can be undone. The key is being willing to discuss, and to learn from all experiences. Having worked through several hundred split requests I have found that most requests are inappropriate. It seems that the nature of asking for a split in itself shows that people are unsure. And if a request has been lying around for more than 12 months with no action and no support, then it is likely to be inappropriate. However, each request needs to be studied - and some are really quite complex. The solution may not always be a new article - but may be a merge of the contentious material in a more appropriate parent article. Sometimes it is a case of removing or reducing the material. Sometimes a new article is warranted - and that sometimes means finding reliable sources. However, as you are finding, mostly it's a case of removing the tag, and leaving a reason. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have joined in the discussion on Talk:Babes_in_the_Wood_murders#Needs_splitting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus

I think a restriction for Malleus on using the words "cunt" and "fuck" (and any variations thereof) could be beneficial - that should be policeable, and it should reduce the drama. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought. I'm comfortable with such language; however, I am aware that it can be significantly offensive for some people, and such language use has been a cause for concern in relation to Malleus, particularly in this case. I wondered, however, if the restriction should just be on such language, or if a restriction should be broader. I am coming back to the thought that, regardless of any broader restrictions, a restriction on certain language use, and certain terms of abuse (calling people stupid for example), might be worthwhile. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear SilkTork,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You run a class where you teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators, yet you know little about our community, and you want your students to interview admins? You may need to rethink your class. The first thing you need to teach your students is what Wikipedia is about, and how the community works. From that will come your and their understanding of the admin role. You are putting your focus in the wrong place. It's like trying to understand trade unions by asking questions of the police who are instructed to monitor picket lines. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I wish you would give us a little more credit. I can tell you that we have done our homework (through review of the academic literature, review of Wikipedia policy and by speaking with a number of admins), and I'm actually quite pleased with how the class is going so far. If you change your mind and would like to be interviewed, please let us know. Best, --Jaobar (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you teach students to become administrators at Wikipedia? In order to become an administrator what someone has to do is demonstrate they have good judgement, a calm disposition, an understanding of Wikipedia consensus, a commitment to the project, and some basic competence. Some stuff can be learned from experience (learned not taught!), but most of the criteria used by the community to assess if a person is appropriate is the evidence of the person's edits on Wikipedia. You say - "Not a lot is known about your community and our students .... want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it." The starting point for learning about the community is to study the community, not one small aspect of it. If you said you wanted to teach your students to become members of a WikiProject like WikiProject Video games or Wikiproject Beer, I would be more supportive as that is a more viable aim and more instructive of what goes into building the encyclopaedia, though would also be somewhat limited. The admin group is not a group that is part of building the encyclopedia - the admin group have access to certain maintenance tools which not everyone needs. Some admins may rarely add encyclopaedic content. Other admins may rarely perform an admin action. At least a WikiProject member is likely to be working toward adding content and building consensus.

It may be helpful to an understanding of how the Wikipedia community works and how to teach that to your students to ask the community how best to do that - the community understand Wikipedia well, is knowledgeable, creative, helpful, and contains teachers and students. A starting point may be to get in touch with Wikipedia:Ambassadors - a project already in place for teachers and students to learn about Wikipedia.

You may also find Wikipedia:Research, and the links there, of some use. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee

Ah, sorry about this: I should have noticed that you'd commented at the end of that. Must read user warnings more carefully next time... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that you had removed my comment intentionally - I had assumed it was an accident otherwise I'd have left you a little note explaining the situation. It's OK to disagree with someone's comment, though it's worth checking WP:TPO to see the circumstances when it is acceptable to edit or remove the comments of others. I think you were objecting to the blanket wording of the level one notice that says "please specify a reason in the edit summary", because the IP had left a reason. I understand that, though I wanted to leave a level one warning so that if the IP account again removes appropriate content from an article, the warning level can go to two. It is worth noting that the removed content had been previously disputed by an account that stopped editing shortly before the IP account started editing. Of course we assume good faith, though we also gently and quietly prepare for potential trouble. Anyway - no harm done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't noticed that the content had been disputed before, and it looks like I was under a misapprehension about removing templated user warnings. (Not that I would have done that if I'd have read as far as the personalized part.) You win some, you lose some, I suppose. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee #2

You are wrong. I might inform you that a) The language spoken in Brazil is Portuguese, not Spanish or English and 2) Conillon is not a Portuguese word. If YOU were to do a quick google you could have easily realized the utter absence of Portuguese language references for this word. It is better for Wikipedia and our millions of readers if you ditch that annoying condescension and edit based on fact, not passion.

Also, please stop "welcoming" me to Wikipedia. I have probably been here longer than most people who ever told me that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.171.223 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources spell it as conillon, so that is how we present it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake when closing AfD?

It appears that you accidentally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of banned items in China with the consensus to merge the article into itself. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, it should have been Censorship in the People's Republic of China. I've amended the records. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inre this close

Thanks. I find my proactively working to improve something before offering an opinion at AFD goes far toward convincing others that my opinion has merit. I fully expect continued improvements as release draws near and coverage increases. Gonna be a good film to watch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]