Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →


Courtesy notification

Your name's been mentioned on SandyGeorgia's talk in connection with MatthewTownsend. --Rschen7754 01:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and I don't think that is something I want to get involved in. I suspected MatthewTownsend was Mattisse, went to do a CU, but thought to see if one had been done already. There had been CU checks done, so I asked the people who had done the checks if they felt it was Mattise, the responses were not helpful. I was not a CU when Mattisse was active, so I had no technical background information by which to compare, and several experienced CheckUsers had already run checks on the account which were not conclusive at the time I looked into the matter. When MatthewTownsend's name was raised recently on the Committee email list, I passed on my suspicions that the user was Mattisse and gave the same information that I gave above - the matter was looked into by NW who blocked the account. I understand that Sandy is angry - she had an intense interaction with Mattisse, and was irritated by her more than most (and Mattisse could be VERY irritating at times!); so, though some of her comments and tone regarding me and the Committee are inappropriate - especially given that we blocked the account, I'd rather not go there while she is still in the flush of her emotion. That she is suggesting that I am somehow an enabler of Mattisse shows that she is not thinking clearly: I was one of the two mentors who was blocking Mattisse and attempting to stop her inappropriate behaviour, and then resigned when I didn't get sufficient backing from other mentors (indeed, one of my blocks was undone by another mentor - [1]), and in this MatthewTownsend instance I put forward my suspicions to the Committee which resulted in the account block. When she has calmed down, she might consider doing some proper research into the matter, and if she or anyone else wants to ask me questions in a temperate manner, I will happily provide more information. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This helps. --Rschen7754 22:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also, although I don't believe I've said you were an enabler, or didn't intend to say that ... I said you were "being circumspect", which I believe is a good thing and was indicated considering the circumstances. It's unfortunate that those of us who knew her pattern well were not asked, as the evidence is now so abundantly clear that I don't see how it was missed for so long. Those of us who coulda/would known (laser, karanacs, moni, myself) were all absent, but had someone asked, this could have ended much sooner. Certainly there were others who could have spoken up, and didn't. Again, the FA process pays the price for sock attacks, and no one seems to do anything about it-- that is what had me angry, and it wasn't directed at you. Yes, I was pretty mad about another prolonged assault on FA writers and processes yesterday; today, it's just the same ole same ole ... nobody cares. And it's not necessary for you to reinform me of your history with Mattisse, as I believe we/you covered that with aplomb on your arbcom election answer to my question. I'm concerned that you took my frustration at the prolonged and sustained issues that socks have been allowed to visit upon FAC as aimed at you, when in fact a good deal of that doesn't involve you at all (to my knowledge). I hope you can understand how frustrating it is that a good Wikiprocess is allowed to be denigrated by a mere handful of editors, who always turn out to be socks or users returning with a grudge. It would be nice if we could get a break, including from admins and arbs (and the arb issue refers to Merridew, not Mattisse). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Inquiring minds want to know: User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Back SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Redding

Hello, do you want to be a co-nominator at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otis Redding/archive4? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's tempting, but I have a number of other projects which are progressing slowly, or are on hold, which I'd like to deal with first. I have it in mind to work further on A1 road in London in order to take that to FA, and I want to finish off preparing several other articles for GA, such as Savile Row and Brewing. I also have a long list of requests from people to help out on articles, which I hope to get around to at some point. Unfortunately Real Life and the Arbitration Committee manage to intrude on the periods of calm and concentration needed to research, develop and copy edit at a level required for audited articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting

Hello SilkTork,

I have not forgotten your suggestion about a project for splitting. Unfortunately, sensible ideas did not come to mind. In the interim I was using the talk pages on the categories to keep track of progress. I had been tagging the pages as G8 exempt so that if the category became empty temporarily, the notes would not be lost if any articles came back later. I notice that you are now deleting the pages as the category becomes empty. The following is a list of all the currently orphaned pages. I think they can go now. If you agree, would you be kind enough to delete them?

Op47 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Annie Hall edit warring

I'm not warring, I'm editing. I've added sources to support my claim and started a discussion. GothicFilm's contribution has been inaccurate at best and dishonest at worst. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3], [4]. This comes very close to WP:3RR. You should be aware of this, as your block log shows that you have been blocked seven times for edit warring - the most recent in November. It is possible to edit Wikipedia to a very high level without ever resorting to the revert button. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you see, I added sources to support my claim. That is editing and you should be able to recognize it. It's true that other admins have done a very poor job in the past and they have no excuse for their bad behavior. Hopefully you are better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting the same good faith edit by another user within 48 hours is unacceptable. You have been warned and blocked for this in the past. It appears you are not learning how to adapt to Wikipedia, and your response is not encouraging. I suspect that unless you change your attitude you will eventually face an indefinite block. I'm not sure my saying this to you will have any impact, given that you ignored warnings and blocks in the past, but I hope you will seriously consider not using the revert button in future. Given that it is leading you into trouble, you would be better not reverting at all. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Larkin's women

Remember this discussion from back in August 2012 at Talk:Patsy Strang? Shall we go ahead? GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'll take a look into that, though I may not have the time to do anything until I get back home. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, happy Holidays. GiantSnowman 09:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the basic merge. More work is now needed to expand it, and tidy it up. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, many thanks! GiantSnowman 10:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation for you!

Hello, SilkTork. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 01:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Hall

What do you recommend we add to the Lead and Plot to make it passable for GA? -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicate in the GA Review: "the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead." Currently the lead's explanation of the film consists of: "Alvy Singer, who tries to figure out the reasons for the failure of his relationship with the film's eponymous female lead, played by Diane Keaton"; which is clearly inadequate as it provides little information, and is questionable as a summary of the film. I think a casual reader could learn more about the film from glancing at the categories than from reading the lead! I notice that a cast list has returned to the article. Given the problems with stability in the article, I am unwilling at this stage to do any editing myself. I feel it might be better for me to fail the review, and for the significant contributors to resolve disputes, then resubmit for review when stable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed as not passed as GA due to instability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect

Hi, Silktork. I didn't redirect the Returning citizens pages -- after I declined the Speedy Deletion request -- because I couldn't find the same information in the Taxation in Israel article. From what I see, the text at Returning Citizens (a definition and explanation of the term "returning resident") doesn't appear at Taxation in Israel#New immigrants and returning citizens (which only delineates the tax benefits for the "returning residents"). Either the Returning Resident page should exist on its own -- or the text and refs should be merged first before you redirect it. Although I don't have much knowledge about the subject, the information seems significant enough to appear in one place or the other. Either way is fine with me. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Returning citizens is entirely a term for tax purposes. I felt that the article had enough information for someone to make sense of it, but you're right, there was some additional useful material which I have now merged in. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Thank you. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including/Bolding the title of the 2011 Tucson shooting article

Hey, SilkTork. You might be interested in weighing in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for the head's up regarding the ban appeal. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey SilkTork/Archive2 - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Hi SilkTork, I recall that you did the GA review for Clitoris a few months back. I thought I'd mention that Circumcision is up for review now, if you're interested/have time. I just finished up a peer review, and it should be in Ok shape. No problem if you're busy though, of course. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does look interesting. It would take me a while to do though, as that is a big and controversial subject, and would require appropriate background reading to ensure the topic is dealt with in a balanced and reasonably broad manner. I'll consider it, and if I think I have the spare time to do it justice, and if nobody else picks it up meantime, I'll do it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Silk. I've done most of the major content development there over the past few months. If you want any copies of any sources let me know and I'll get them to you. Zad68 18:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looks like the review got picked up already, but thanks for saying you'd step up. Zad68 22:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the right person is doing it. Enjoy! SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_13&oldid=1088321653"