Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 →

Commons file

Hello SilkTork - I uploaded the picture and renamed it. Then I realized I made a mistake. (I brought up a map of PA and saw where Mount Morris was and realized I was never there and then remembered it was NY. DOH!) The name is saying it is Mount Morris PA and s/b Mount Morris NY. Is there no way to delete or fix anything? I would think that "unless used" any image s/b able to be deleted or even renamed. Anyways, not sure what to say at this point. Any help would be appreciated. Also is this how one posts a message to another Wiki member? Regards, jeff JHolicky (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jholicky, I happen to have SilkTork's talk page on my watch list and I noticed the inquiry about an upload at Commons. I'm afraid that we have another problem in this case as your photograph is a derived work of a painted welcome sign which is eligible for copyright. In other words: We cannot keep it on Commons as we have no freedom of panorama in the United States for artwork and this signpost does not appear to be old enough (i.e. 1977 or older and without copyright notice). For this reason, I've filed it for deletion. Please let me know if you need any further assistance in regard to uploads at Commons. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AFBorchert. I hope the matter is now settled. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A1 road (London)

Hello again,
Do you think that the A41 should be added to this sentence?
The A1 is one of London's main northern routes, along with the A10 and A5 roads, linking London to the M1 motorway
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 13:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it. It would be useful to have a source to indicate those are the main northerly routes out of London. When looking I found an informative New Scientist article which gave traffic flow figures for the A1, but which didn't mention the A5 or A41. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is odd bearing in mind that traffic to and from the West End must compare closely with the City traffic flow.
Thank you for renaming the article theA40 road in London – much better. I should be much obliged if you would point me in the direction of how to do that action. Cheers!
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 05:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of each page is a tab that says Move. Click on that and follow the instructions. There is advice and information at Wikipedia:Moving a page. As a tip, if you want to find out some information about doing things on Wikipedia, you can use the search function, but putting "WP:" in front of your search term. So WP:Rename page will take you to the right place. If you are unable to move the page because your target page already exists, then you need to get an admin to delete the target page, or ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If you feel the move might be questioned, then it's best to go via Wikipedia:Requested moves anyway. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes – where I go to use auto ed & Purge. Thank you very much for that! I appreciate your help. I shall copy your post for future reference. Cheers!  – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 13:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A traffic figure report from TfL would be the holy grail of sources, but if you look at most maps, the A5 isn't a primary route inside, apart from a very small section around Maida Vale until northwest of St Albans, and even then I wouldn't describe it as a "northern route" as it generally heads northwest along Thomas Telford's route to Holyhead. The A41 is a primary route, so that is more appropriate to mention. Another major northern route is the M11, which in combination with the A14 between Cambridge and Huntington, provides a means of bypassing the more substandard sections of A1 through Biggleswade and Sandy. So I would put "The A1 is one of London's main northern routes, along with the M1, A10 and M11." All are major roads, and all head unambiguously north when viewed on a 1:250,000 OS Map. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and the A41 – which was where I came in.  – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The A41 was proposed for detrunking in 2001, so I would dispute its status as "the main northern routes". --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting link; presumably Buckinghamshire did not proceed. Of course the M40 being extended from Oxford brought about the main demotion of the A41 as a primary route in that region. I was thinking more in terms of this article being about the A1 in London, and it being the main connection from the West End to the M1.
Cheers!  – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 20:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This document gives traffic flow on the A5 at 3600 an hour, and calls it a main arterial route, but is mainly concerned with the short section leading to the A40. I think that the A5 as a route to the M1 is downplayed these days, with traffic routed to the A41 - especially since the M1 was extended southward to meet the North Circular. The old days of seeing signs for The North on Edgware Road (the source for the band name Kilburn and the High Roads) has long gone! SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a couple of references no longer exist in the Haringey section for Archway Road. On a separate but related note, once I get my act together I will write an article on Hornsey Lane Bridge as I have numerous sources, although I must appreciate help by DavidCane. Once I do, would you be interested in it? Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 15:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While editing, I also thought that there may be enough material for a Hornsey Lane Bridge article. Indeed, the Archway Road is also quite interesting - and especially so when coupled with Hornsey Lane Bridge and the previous Archway (Bridge). Perhaps an article on the Archway Cutting which incorporates information on Archway Road, the Archway (Bridge), and Hornsey Lane Bridge, as they are all related. I say Archway (Bridge), as I'm not sure from sources if it was called Archway or Archway Bridge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have multiple names with official names being Archway Bridge, Hornsey Lane Bridge and Highgate Archway. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Archway was an earlier bridge. Is that name also applied to the Hornsey Lane Bridge? Has it sort of transferred over in common usage? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. I don't suppose you could do me a favour? I know this is only a fun trivial piece but do you know where I can find a reliable source that references this or even the play itself? Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 00:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2], [3], [4], - I love this one: "as performed at the Theatre-royal Lyceum with unbounded applause", [5], [6], - very helpful - do look at this one, [7], - another useful one, with a copy of a poster advertising the play, a modern production. There's probably enough there for a standalone article on the play! SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always feel wary about using Google booksearch as a source. But they are still worth a look. I do have a book on Archway "Gateway to the City: the Archway Story" that I was intending to use. Thanks for all the sources on that one. My intended workspace will be User:Simply south/Archway. Cheers. Difficultly north (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source is the book itself. What Google does is to allow you to find the source, and sometimes to read it if they have scanned the pages. It's just like using a library where you are not using the library as the source, but as the means to find and read the source. I advocate strongly that editors should endeavour to discover if a source they have used has been scanned and is available to be read online, and then to provide a link to the scanned page(s), as that is an invaluable resource for future editors and for readers. There are other resources for scanned texts other than Google; I tend to mostly use Google as it is quick and easy. See Wikipedia:Book sources, Google Books, Internet Archive, and Project Gutenberg. I find the times we are living in quite amazing for the amount of knowledge that is at our fingertips. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Being a bit slow on the uptake I've only just realized that you got it to GA. Well done! best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm considering doing a bit more work and taking it to FA. Any help would be appreciated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's kind of you to ask but I don't think my fiddlings and rantings here would be a great adornment to any article heading for FA! I will attempt to keep eyes and ears open, though. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
On this I was happy to see your vote. Not because you voted for Elen (in the sense that you supported her CU rights staying for the time being) but because, IMO, you voted for what the motion was about. I realize some people may disagree with my opinion, but even so, I think that what you did was the right thing to do. Kangaroopowah 02:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I always appreciate a barnstar. The issue was a tricky one, and in a sense there were no right or wrong answers or actions. I didn't personally agree with all that was said or done, but it always has to be remembered that the Committee members are not special people - we are just individuals from the community who have volunteered for this particular task. We are as liable to make mistakes and have moments of poor judgement as anyone else. The only difference between the Committee and the rest of the community is that when acting as a body, our decisions and actions are binding. That doesn't mean that all the decisions are the right ones, merely that they are the ones that the majority of the Committee decided upon, and so - in order to put an end to the dispute - are final. The individuals who are members of the Committee will make decisions to the best of their ability, but are as subject to being influenced by emotion as anyone else. Having a Committee composed of a cross-section of users mitigates away from bias on group decisions, but individual members will have their own inappropriate moments which become public. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LBI etc

Thanks for your interesting note about Islington - sorry I missed it first time round. Excellent stuff! Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

I've started an editor review on myself at Wikipedia:Editor review/Ritchie333. As I've mentioned you by name in the review, your feedback would be appreciated. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nazareth GA review page

G'day, could you delete it? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 20:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Wikipedia guidance essays

I have a question for you at Category talk:Wikipedia guidance essays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I have responded. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For your amazing restructuring and copy-editing of the A1 road in London. An example to all, demonstrating how to get the job done properly.‎‎  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 08:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do like a barnstar. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci motions

I see you've put your votes in the Abstain section. Did you mean to do this as each opposes the respective motion?  Roger Davies talk 10:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am abstaining. I am neither opposing nor supporting the motions, but neither am I recusing myself from having a view, nor am I standing back. My abstain vote will bring the end of the motions a little closer by reducing the numbers needed to reach a conclusion. I hope that's clear. And thanks for checking with me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, in this instance it does't affect the pass threshold at all, as a majority of 13 is 7, and therefore brings nothing closer. The problem, I suppose, is that with enough abstentions, stuff ends up passing or failing on low vote counts, which lack legitimacy because they are not represent of the committee. This became a serious issue last year and we voted on various solutions. Incidentally, if you think a third way forward would be best, which is clearly what you do think, surely the appropriate route is to propose a third motion and oppose those you disagree with, no?  Roger Davies talk 11:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm abstaining because I don't feel I want to support or oppose the motions, nor do I wish to simply leave it at my comment, nor do I wish to propose another variation on what we have, nor do I want to propose opening a case. However, I want it to be seen that I have considered the situation, and that I have made my decision so nobody is waiting on me. That it doesn't actually bring the vote count down is interesting, and thanks for pointing that out. I could, I suppose, just make a comment that I am abstaining in the comment section, and strike my abstain vote, but as the result would be the same, I wonder if it's worth it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request for Fashiondesigners template

Hi there, sorry for being rude at defending the fashiondesigners-template, but I just wanted to explain to you that once you have been working within the fashion industries, you appreciate database that does not disappear and keep a long track of fashion history. If you go through the profiles on FMD, you will notice that from a professional aspect they are of higher value (if you know which brands are connected to the designer and which editorials are associated to the brand and then again which models etc etc). I hope you understand my point of view regarding this matter :-) Have a great weekend. ► robomod 16:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read what you have said, but thank you for apologising, that was thoughtful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Hall

The fight over Annie Hall has been over and disputes have ended for the past few days, so I think it's good to start back up the review for it. -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look in the next few days. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dicdef

I mostly reverted this change you made to {{dicdef}}; I kept the "include sections" change you mentioned in the edit summary, but I reverted the changes to the color, language, and categories applied. If you want to reapply them, feel free, but note:

  • |issue= should contain just the issue. All the hidden text should go in |fix=.
  • If you add dating, add the template to WP:AWB/DT so AnomieBOT won't complain at me about hundreds of pages that it doesn't know how to date.
  • Consider whether you really intend for the template to no longer populate Category:Flagged dictionary definitions. If so, you may need to update the header text on that category.
  • Note that Category:Articles with sections that need attention that you tried to add to the template doesn't actually exist. You probably also didn't intend to add that category when |section wasn't given to the template.

HTH. Anomie⚔ 13:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that's good. I wanted it to include sections, so I did a copy paste of a template that included sections, and then amended it to fit. Thanks for checking with me - while not required, it can be helpful and shows the true collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Science Museum (London)

I don't agree with your logic in moving this. It is not a "natural" alternative title as described in WP:NCDAB, nor is the base name an ambiguous geographic term. My reading is that the title "Science Museum" should thus be disambiguated using a bracketed term. In the extensive discussion in Feb 2012 as to whether the article should be moved from "Science Museum (London)" to "Science Museum" (it wasn't moved), no-one suggested moving it to a comma-separated disambiguation. I could make a formal RM to have it moved back again, but thought I would discuss it here first. To my mind the comma form makes it look as if "Science Museum, London" is actually its official name - and it isn't; the bracketed form makes it much clearer that this is a label we have stuck onto it to distinguish it from other similarly-named entities. PamD 22:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Natural indicates that if a title can be naturally written, and is used as such in sources, (as in Science Museum, London) then that is to be preferred over the use of brackets. "Science Museum, London" is used by sources - [8], [9], [10], [11], and the usage of Science Museum, London, is one that editors will naturally write - as used in Watt steam engine, Sputnik 1, Transport during the British Industrial Revolution, etc. If you're still unsure, or you think my move was against consensus or not in line with policy, then please do go via RM. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

too early Retirement

Hi Silktork, Considering coming out of retirement though I still have 3 months left of my sanctions where by I can not revert an edit even it is vandalism . What does annoy me is that in my retirement my name is still being dragged through the mud. I have found a few instances where again I have been linked to yet another account without any actual evidence. Guess who? Mo_Aimn[12] and Mabuska[13]. Obviously the previous warning you gave to Mo went in one ear and out the other. This user needs to be blocked or topic banned or something on a par with the same treatment I have faced otherwise they will continue to do it. Its not fair. Another SPI esque case was raised against me [14]. Thankfully common sense was applied. I thought maybe this user was Carnival Fred but havent a clue really. The sanctions placed on me are all well and good and though my hands are tied to a certain extent would like to still work on wiki but only if the constant harrassment stops.Factocop (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, SilkTork/Archive2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

It should be dated Thurs 13 Dec 2012 @ 12:23:45 UTC-0500 -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was the subject heading? SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was on functionaries-en, with direct messages sent to you, the thead was "_____ _______ socking again?" (first two words removed as it's a private list) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I direct functionaries emails to a special folder so I wouldn't automatically see them. With your information I was able to find it and respond. I'm a little slow at the moment as I've been travelling through France for the past three days - visiting friends and relatives. We are now in an apartment overlooking the Palais Longchamp, so I have some time to catch up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Newyorkbrad's closure of Beatles RfC

Hello. This is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#RfC closure questions about Newyorkbrad's closure of the RfC about whether to use upper-case "The" or lowercase "the" in mid-sentence in articles about (t/T)he Beatles. You are receiving this message because you were involved in the mediation case that led up to the RfC. Some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the caveat in Newyorkbrad's close that "[t]he suggestion that editors should try to structure sentences to avoid unnecessary mid-sentence use of "the Beatles" remains a valid one", and the discussion is focused on how that caveat is affecting the editing decisions in Beatles-related articles. There is also the opportunity to discuss other aspects of the close should the need arise. Please see the points at the top of the discussion thread and leave a comment if you think it is appropriate. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "unnecessary" has been well used, so I don't have an objection to the caveat. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings!

Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Thank you. We're spending Christmas in the south of France where the Sun is shining! SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the interaction between WP:Common name and WP:ENGVAR at talk:isomerization

Comment left. Why do people prefer to leave a template rather than type a simple sentence? Surely it's the same effort, and one would expect people interested in an encyclopedia to be both reasonably literate and interested in clear communication? I don't wish to put up any rules regarding how people contact me, and if people find it easier to type out a template code rather than a few polite words, then so be it, but it does seem both odd and a little impolite to me. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. It was not my intention to be either odd or impolite. I simply assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that your watchlist was likely to be busy and that you might not notice a comment that was relevant to you on a talk page you would not routinely edit. I am unsure in what way you found the template message unclear - I thought it was an efficient means of communication without my rehashing the content of my article talk page post - but I will note for the future your feelings on WP:DTTR. EdChem (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. I have spent the last few days driving through France, and am rather tired and irritable - not helped by spending the afternoon drinking rather more alcohol than is reasonable. I spent a few moments on Wikipedia when I would have been better resting, and made more than one inappropriate comment not in line with my usual self. I logged back on to amend some of my previous comments and find I am too late! SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly empathise with feeling tired and irritable, everyone feels like that at times. I do appreciate that you sought to rectify an inappropriate comment, it shows character to recognise and seek to amend comments when one posts without due consideration. I hope you feel refreshed once you get the rest you need.  :) EdChem (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nadolig hapus

Martinevans123Santas Grotto wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

Thanks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Thanks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Kraków

Category:People associated with Kraków, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Template:Section OR

Per this discussion, {{Unreferenced section}} was moved back to the wide ambox standard. Imho the same should be done with {{Section OR}}, particularly because otherwise, it leads to this. Would you mind unbureaucratically formatting {{Section OR}}? Imho this is entirely uncontroversial and doesn't warrant a separate discussion. --87.79.128.82 (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. As it's a protected template I can only make changes by consensus, so I have left a note at Template_talk:Original_research#Restore_to_long_version. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch! --87.78.0.235 (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Binding arbitration for Jerusalem

You suggest "binding RFC" as a solution to the dispute over Jerusalem, rather than Arbcom. But our latest request for arbitration, about a month ago, was turned down because some of the parties refused to take part. Are you suggesting that there is some way to force recalcitrant editors to abide by an arbitration to which they refused to be a party? Otherwise, you are just passing the buck. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation does for some reason require consent of all parties before it can be started. A RfC, on the other hand, only requires the consensus of the parties. Consensus does not need to be 100%, and rarely is. See Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You can set up the RfC under terms to be agreed by consensus (which does not need to be 100% of the parties), and then have it closed by an independent admin. When an action has consensus then the community is obliged to follow it. The agreed way to challenge consensus is by discussion rather than direct action. If someone is going against consensus by direct action rather than discussion then they can be considered to be disruptive, and after warnings may be blocked if they continue to be disruptive. I hope this helps - if not, let me know. And if you want someone to close the RfC, I'll be prepared to do that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a possibility. Perhaps you could raise the idea explicitly on the talk page. Thanks for the explanation. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at RFAR

Hi there. I noticed in the Jerusalem request, in arbitrator comments, somewhere you said "The Committee could have allowed the community the opportunity to resolve this - so far there have been talkpage discussions, and two failed attempt at mediation (which requires all parties to agree - something that is not always possible)". This is partly why I am confused as to why MedCom rejected the request, because earlier this year, MedCom ratified a new policy removing the unanimous acceptance required. It doesn't change what's happening at RFAR of course, but I thought I should just point it out. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean the case should have been heard at mediation? That's interesting. Though changes do take a while before everyone is aware. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should have been, hence my comments urging that mediation is attempted first. I'll mediate it anyways regardless of what ArbCom decides. The motion is to ask the community to set up an RFC. I'm not sure if that will be done in a hurry by anyone (due to the nature of the subject area) and this dispute can't be left to fester. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I'm not in favour of the motion for an ArbCom RfC; however, now that it is here, we'll have to let it happen and give it our support. If you set up an alternative mediation, there may be a problem with those participants who are not in agreement with the outcome who then say they want the ArbCom RfC instead. It would help if you offered to close the RfC - I believe the clerks are wanting to close the motion, but are waiting on the Committee to name the three admins. With your experience in dispute resolution, it may even be helpful if you offered to set up the RfC. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to be a closer of the RFC - if the solutions that I suggest aren't taken on, I'm not one to storm off in a huff. I'd rather be a part of the solution. That said, if one of the requirements was to be an admin, then I am obviously ineligible. I do think I'm a decent judge of consensus and policy, fwiw. As for setting up the RFC, that I could do in theory, but it would need to be clearly defined, which at present it is not, which brings me back to my point about doing some mediation first. So, I'd be happy to be a closer, but I think with all my fellowship duties and ongoing dispute resolution work, setting up the process is something I may have to pass on. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you're not an admin? I'm not aware of any (recent) issues or problems regarding you, so I'd be quite happy to nominate you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Novmber 2011 RFA explains it (And you opposed (I'm not judging) - so I thought you'd be aware). Lack of heavy content contributions and I had only been editing for six months. Plus the whole being banned in 2008 thing. While I've done a lot of DR stuff since then, I don't think it'd be enough,and that's why I haven't put my hat in the ring. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 15:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You think I could still be an RFC closer anyways? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 20:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a very bad memory for user names - I tend to research if I need to know something about a user's character and conduct. Most of the time I respond to what a user says or does rather than who the user is - though there are exceptions to this, as some users are more notable than others, and come with their own baggage - negative or positive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you forgot my background? Does that mean you've changed your mind (and is that a no about the RFC.) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 21:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that RfA was over a year ago, and my awareness of your recent work is that it is solid, and you are showing an impressive dedication to the project. My main objection in that RfA was in regards to your lack of experience which is no longer true. I did say I would support if you put in six months of good work - my understanding is that you have done this. I'll take a look over your contributions, and if you are comfortable with the idea, nominate you at RfA. It can be helpful in dispute resolution to have some of the admin tools - such as being able to protect a page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that while the work I've done in dispute resolution has been solid, it won't be enough to pass an RFA. I've done some content since the last RFA, but you know what RFA is like. I agree that having the tools would come in useful for me, definitely. It would also give me more flexibility to close discussions, which I think I am good at due to my understanding of policy. (On that note, is that a no about the Jerusalem RFC? I know i mentioned it a few times but i thought you might have missed it.) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the motion does not specify admins, I've put your name forward on the Committee email list. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okey doke. For what it's worth, some time ago I decided that I'd only run again if a functionary nominated me out of the blue, and, well, you do fit that criteria. I did also decide though that I wouldn't run while I am a fellow (but that only has a few weeks to go). Could you have a look over my contrive and let me know when you think is a suitable time to run for RfA (and if there are things I should work on before then?) Thanks again, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look and give you my honest opinion of your contributions, and bring up any issues I see. I will probably do this when I get back to the UK early in January. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As regards helping out on the RfC, the consensus of the Committee is that you are too involved to be a closer as you have already expressed opinions on the motion page and to individual Committee members. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I disagree - expressing an opinion on the method to use to resolve a dispute is different to expressing an opinion on the topic area and I am still uninvolved in that regard, but whatever I guess. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles

See the pointed questions about petrified wood and other things that show zero growth at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#lough neagh. Uncle G (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The revert you mention is a clear violation of the unblock conditions. I shall impose a 24 hour block. Please refer any other violations you become aware of to AE for discussion and sanction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

Hi SilkTork,

Just wanted to let you know that the shortcut wp: Brands now redirects to the WikiProject Brands. Hope this does not cause a problem. For more see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Brands#BRANDS_or_Brands.3F Happy new year. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My conduct

So where shall we start? Might be good to start with "Other people" - I have an idea what you mean what you think of my conduct. Presumably, specifically, what you think is bad about my conduct. If you would care to enumerate these items we can discuss them. Maybe you can enlighten me on what you think and why? I'm sure that if you can identify the problems we can speedily resolve them Rich Farmbrough, 16:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_12&oldid=1136141595"