User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 21

← Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22 →

So ...

The identifying info is still there, has not been oversighted, and I get a standard email from Oversight redirecting me to Arbcom. Sheesh ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can still see it you may need to clear your cache. It has been oversighted. Personally, I am in the camp that sees oversighting of C's name as being rather pointless given that pretty much everyone on that page will be aware of who we are talking about, but am in the camp that feel that the blog is unpleasant, and that we need to remove from the community any person who feels that they can be vindictive and petty over content disputes. As you know, I do have this lost cause faith in human nature, and I do hope that one day Sandifer will wake up and realise that he has overstepped reasonable behaviour while angry. When he does that, whoever is serving on the Committee (it won't be me!), will let him back into the editing community. I do think this is all rather overblown. Meanwhile we have an encyclopedia to build! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not my cache .. it was just oversighted, finally, after more than an hour. I may have mangled the whole thing, but you all need to get your act together. I agree it doesn't matter much in terms of C, so I hope you all will use this instance to improve processes ... I suppose it's not the first time that someone (like me) reacts in a hurry and does everything wrong, but the info was clearly visible for more than an hour. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Richard Watts / RW's charities

I've moved over the relevant citations and made an entry for the notes. Are you going to pare down the original article now? As well as the moved text, some of the citations may be redundant in a reduced page. If you have any problems with template:efn, drop me a line or add a comment here and I'll try to help. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is more work to be done. (There is always more work to be done! ;-) ) Please do feel free to do whatever you wish. Or not as the case may be! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding Six Poor Travellers House, and will merge it into Richard_Watts_Charities#Six_Poor_Travellers_House. We don't need that information in two places, and it makes more sense to have it in context with an article on the charity as a whole. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A strange one

Hi SilkTork, I hope you're well. I wonder if I could impose … If you're not too busy, would you be able to look in at User talk:Quadell#mirror images? It's regarding a new Harrison biography, which – well, it basically rips off Wikipedia's George Harrison album and song articles. Strange, but no less true. (Or perhaps it's naive of me to think that such a practice might be "strange".)

What I'm hoping is, you could follow the link from Quadell's page and hit "helpful" on my Amazon review for this book – which I've signed as "HariG". In the interests of drawing attention to the issue of an author quite obviously lifting material from Wikipedia, I'd simply like to ensure that the review is helpful/popular enough to register in the listing's main space (rather than be buried away off to the side or worse). Quite what that will achieve bar giving Amazon customers a heads-up, I'm not sure … I understand if you'd rather not (but I hope you do!). Many thanks. Best, JG66 (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's quite common, and it's for that reason that we stress that all material, including images and music clips, have a license which permits commercial re-use. The author has done no legal wrong. Most people who use Wikipedia in that way, don't acknowledge that they have used Wikipedia as a source, or that they have copied entire passages. This can at times make it awkward for us when checking if our article is the one doing the copying. I think there is a template to use in situations like this to ensure that our article is not locked down for copyright theft. I'll take a look for it later. Or perhaps someone reading this will point us in the wright direction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Silk Tork. Yes, someone else had mentioned adding a template – {{Backwardscopy}} perhaps? JG66 (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

About Ahnoneemoos...

He's at it again at Alejandro García Padilla... I am here because you seem to have reviewed the entire affair at Mayoralty in Puerto Rico, while my only interaction in the matter was a (rather unfortunate) exchange where he lashed at me for discussing the standards of a WikiProject. I am not interested in pursuing a block for him or anything like that, but something must be done about the way that he is (IMO) gaming the system in his favor. From what I have seen, when Ahnoneemoos enters into a discussion over a topic related to Puerto Rican politics, he either ends up attempting to game the system so that his "opponent" is blocked or "punished" (at AGP, he preferred to open a WP:DRN asking for a "warning", despite the fact that the other half is attempting to discuss the issue, than talk) or goes around filibustering in an attempt to keep his revision. Of particular concern is his lawyer-like mentality, notable by his apparent predisposition to avoid pursuing a consensus, instead constantly opting to argue a laundry list of guidelines and policies in dispute resolution boards while avoiding direct discussion with his "opponent". This is troublesome, especially when he goes into border-line article ownership to the point of reacting abrasively (as was the case against me) when his posture is "threatened". I believe that a topic ban (anything involving politics in PR) may be prudent, but would like your opinion before moving on. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. What is occurring on that article is inappropriate, and he is not listening to reason. A community discussion to decide the best course of action would be the next step. If there are other examples of where he is inserting inappropriate material against guidelines and talkpage consensus, it would be useful to list those as well. The recommended forum for such a discussion is WP:RFC/U; however, given that this incident involves a BLP, it would be appropriate to take it to WP:AN to get the matter resolved quickly. A topic ban on Puerto Rico articles and BLPs seems an appropriate solution. And then any articles on which he has been inserting a negative POV by selective use of primary sources can be cleaned up without edit warring and tendentious argument. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

I really appreciate it.CFredkin (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sean Patrick Maloney

I have locked down the Sean Patrick Maloney article as there is an unresolved edit war occurring there. You have violated 3RR with this, this, and this edit. Be aware that if another editor is making edits you disagree with, you are advised and encouraged to discuss the issue with that editor rather than engaging in an edit war. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A discussion has started: Talk:Sean_Patrick_Maloney#Moderate?. If you could put forward your view of the matter as soon as possible, that will assist in getting the article unlocked for editing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe you have made a terrible decision in this case. I am working to make this a Good Article and it will be near impossible with this. I did not violate 3RR, as my first edit I was simply tying to improve the article, something the other editor had an personal issue with. By locking down this article you are saying that because one disruptive editor won't quiet down with their unpopular edits, and whom was blocked by an admin, all must be punished. I centinally hope you'll roll back the protection, for the article's sake. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a clear 3RR. Please don't do it again. If you disagree with an edit, engage the other person in a discussion, and explain what you feel they are doing wrong. Through discussion comes improvement. Edit wars are never helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 04:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Hi SilkTork. I've just noticed that you have put yourself forward for higher duties within WP. I'm a fan, so I would really like to endorse your candidacy. Point me in the right direction if it will aid your attempt. Yours FruitMonkey (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I really enjoyed the match earlier today! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive

Thanks for the tip. I've found that most of what editors post on my Talk page isn't constructive. In the past, I've removed it to keep other editors from piling on. But I'll plan to archive as much as possible moving forward.CFredkin (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite well aware of how some people behave badly towards new users. See the first few days comments when I started on Wikipedia: User talk:SilkTork/Start. The dreadful treatment that some new users get is a known issue on Wikipedia, and something that is being looked into by the Foundation. You were sensible to put something on your user page in order to avoid the prejudice that some users have toward new users. Most members of the Wikipedia community are intelligent, friendly, polite, encouraging and helpful, but there are some whose behaviour and attitude leave a lot to be desired. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again. It's definitely helpful to hear your perspective, as well as your experience.CFredkin (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fruit cake move discussion

Hi there. You moved the article presently titled Fruit cake from its previous location at Fruitcake in early 2012. I've just started a move discussion with the aim of returning the article to the title Fruitcake. Please feel free to comment at that discussion, or not, as you wish. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I'd just like to thank you for your service on ArbCom. I know it's been a pain in the behind most of the time, and while I don't always agree with your stances on issues, I appreciate the service. Enjoy your break. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I really do like getting stars - I think we should all give stars more often. I'd rather give someone a star than a ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rose_(Doctor_Who)/GA1

I have had an attempt to bring it to GA standard, if it doesn't pass by tomorrow; I shall keep going with it, and probably still take it to DYK. Thanks for the review, Matty.007 20:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK? It wouldn't qualify for DYK. You would need to expand it five times its size to qualify for DYK, and even then you couldn't get it on the front page tomorrow as the process takes a while. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that new GAs can be nominated for DYK; I'll check tomorrow because I am mobile editing at present. Thanks, Matty.007 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I can give you a link tomorrow if you want; but in short, new GAs can be DYKed. Thanks, Matty.007 22:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I know there had been a couple of discussions, but hadn't realised that it had been done. I haven't looked at the amendments yet, but even if the article does get listed today, you'll need to pull some strings to get it listed tomorrow. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to keep pestering you... But I have tried to fix the issues. Thanks, Matty.007 11:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not pestering. I understand that you were keen to get the article to GA status before the 50th anniversary. Unfortunately, as I said, I was away in France yesterday. I'll be taking a look at some of the other GA reviews I've got open, and then take another look at Rose. Not sure how much time I'll be able to spare today though as I have a number of things to do off-Wiki. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding a wiki deletion

Hi, I need help with an issue I simply don't understand regarding a wiki deletion. I am turning to you as part of the editor assistance page. I hope your experience as an editor on wikipedia can help me out here. I added a complete new article about the term: "888poker" about two weeks ago. I saw that a few editors seemed to have gone over it changing minor issues which seemed completely normal. I even received the brands' approval for uploading unique content like brand logo, in game photo, etc. Items that I believe can improve wiki users experience. Two days ago I found that a user called "2005" deleted my entire Wiki article, simply taking off the page and redirecting it to 888 holdings. I explained the basic difference between a well known brand (over 10M users) and it's corporate term and even gave the example of pepsico (corporate) having a wiki as well as pepsi, 7up and all its other brands, which is the exact same situation here. The answer I received was unclear (and even rude). You can see the conversation here at the end of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2005

As all content uploaded was 100% new, informational & non spam, I just don't get the accusations of duplicated content and the immediate removal. It can't be duplicated as I wrote it, and if there was s shred of a problem with the content itself, the right move, I believe, would be to comment on content change, instead of removing a completely new informational article that actually gives value to users. Because of the swift removal and false duplication accusations, I wonder if the editor actually read the wiki at all. I have no idea why we wouldn't want to actually enhance wikipedia and improve it to users (isn't that the idea of wikipedia in the first place!?).

Regarding the second argument of writing it in the 888 holdings wiki, I believe that a brand this size merits its own wiki article. If more text is needed, then there is no problem to add and enhance it - it just needs to be published first (and not removed). As other editors who went over this did not find a reason to completely remove the article, I feel this is poor judgement by an editor and I request your experience as an editor to see if this is an actual breach of wiki guidelines and give an editor's second opinion. I would like to settle this dispute as I feel there was hard work, effort and time invested in this (by me) and I don't think the reaction here was justified. Appreciate any help on this issue. The original article can be found on the term "888poker" (view history, and then restore it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalkn (talk • contribs) 09:14, 24 November 2013‎

I have left a comment on 2005's talkpage. I see 888poker as being better sourced and containing more information than 888_Holdings#888poker; however, I suspect that 2005's redirect was that they felt 888poker was not notable enough for a standalone article. My suggestion has been that they undo their redirect and nominate the article for discussion at AfD in order to settle the matter one way or the other. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:SPLIT. Duplicate articles about this company have been deleted before, and similar companies have tried to create duplicate articles about their various holdings. An article about 888poker could be once sentence: "888poker is the poker product of 888 Holdings." Everything that can be said about the poker product can be said on the existing article. If the unique aspects of the poker product take up enough space, then the articles can be split, but thus far you have simply refused to follow normal Wikipedia process and common sense and add more content to the existing article, then advocate a split on the talk page of that article. A reason a split might occur is because there is plenty of content merit one; a reason a split might not occur is because you just describe 888 and its poker product in different words, which is unnecessary. The 888poker URL redirects to the 888 Holdings article so no one is getting lost looking for info. The problem now is only that you have not added your content to the 888 Holdings article, where it can be checked for redundancies and contradictions with the info that is already there. This isn't a terribly complicated process. Just add your new information to the old article, make unique/interesting/non-promotional/extensive/non-redundant, then if there is enough good content there that just doesn't repeat the 888 corporate stuff, it could be split off. Please respect the work that other editors have done over the years, which includes making the existing article, cleaning up spam from this company, and so on. 2005 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's sometimes worth looking at the main contributors to advice and guideline pages before suggesting that a person reads them! ;-) I am not, however, a main contributor to WP:Content forking, though it's worth quoting from that guideline: "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

It's clear that you disagree with Eyalkn (not with me - I have nothing to do with the article!); in order to resolve this matter I have suggested you revert your redirect and instead take the matter to AfD. I have no opinion, or interest, in the nobility of the brand, so I would not be taking part in the AfD. However, as you're unwilling to revert your redirect I will do that part for you, and you can then do the second part yourself if you're still interested. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Given you have no interest in the brand, and also have not looked at the conflicts in the article, for instance an infobox in the poker article that is completely inappropriate as the info is about the parent company, then it would be good for you not to make edits that conflict both with prior practice and previous afds. What you suggested about taking it to afd makes no sense as similar articles already have been afd'ed, and the solution was the current article. As for your comment about Eyalkn somehow contributing the WP:SPLIT under some other sockpuppet identity, I don't know what to say about that. Eyalkan has now said he/she will add new content to the existing article, and so we can just go from there. 2005 (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced content from the encyclopedia without getting consensus. I have again undone your revert. Your actions have now been undone by two editors, as such you are in the minority, and it would be inappropriate for you to continue reverting in order to simply assert your view. When people have a disagreement they are unable to resolve themselves, they seek the opinions of others. Simply repeating your action is not helping to resolve the matter. At the very least you could have moved the content into the article yourself, but you did not, you simply removed it from Wikipedia, leaving readers looking at inferior, poorly sourced material. I see no links to previous AfD discussions, and there is no log of 888poker having been previously deleted, so getting consensus on this particular topic would make sense. I think you have gotten me and Eyalkan mixed up somewhere. You tell me, above, to refer to WP:SPLIT, a page I am a significant contributor to. I have not said that Eyalkan was using socks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:The Rolling Stones albums

Hey SilkTork, what do you think (i.e. my edit)? Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Yes. Those early releases are complicated aren't they? I've taken your idea and expanded it. See what you think. I'm not sure about the groups being collapsed, but I don't know how else to do it. Anyway, as the template is quite big, that might be the more appropriate way to deal with it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We probably should change the dates from 1964-1967 to 1964-1970, and 1967-present to 1971-present, because of the two compilation albums Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass) (1966) and Through the Past, Darkly (Big Hits Vol. 2) (1969). They both should be transferred to the UK & US releases template (don't you think?). If that's okay? Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I saw those after I had done the work on the template and wondered what to do with them, and then had to get on with other matters. My understanding is that Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967) was the first international release, so it would make sense to start with 1967 as the date of the International releases section, but to move the two US & UK only compilation releases into the UK & US releases section. But I wasn't sure this morning, nor now, how to do that neatly..... SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea SilkTork! See for yourself, and let know, please. Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ooops. I think we've both edited it. I was just about to comment here when I had an edit conflict! I'll go have a look! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict... the 1960s (and 1970) albums as you know are the Decca/London release, and the 1970s (minus 1970) are The Rolling Stones Records releases. Hmmm? Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I think your last edit has made the template lose some clarity as now US/UK releases are mixed up with International releases, and there is no clear reason for the 1971 distinction. Previously the distinction was on the manner of release. Up till 1967 the output had been separate releases in the UK and US, with and after Satanic Majesties all releases were International. Now, it may be the case that some releases prior to Satanic Majesties were also released in other territories, but at this point I'm not aware of that - and if that information comes to light, then we can look into dealing with that. Anyway - take a look at my last edit before yours, and see if you agree that it is clearer for the reader. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Just read your last comment. So there is another way of organising the albums - by record label. If so, we should state that clearly, so readers can see why the template is being organised that way. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the compilations were released on other record labels, such as Atlantic and ABKCO. Hmmmm. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I restored it to your edit. Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)