User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 22

← Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23 →

Infobox Sourcing Help

For Full Throttle (roller coaster) - I'm trying to place a reference at the end of the trains section, however I can't find a way to place it. I also seen your comments and adding more sources and trying to synchronize the main text and infobox information together. ///EuroCarGT 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Put the information about the train configuration into the article and cite the statement there. As long as the information is sourced somewhere in the article there's no need to cite it in both the infobox and the article - unless the information is contentious (such as being a world record). It's similar to citing the lead. Information in the lead should also be in the article, so - on the whole - there is no need to cite uncontentious information in the lead. I have the review watchlisted, so you can leave messages there for me, and I'll pick them up. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Regulation and licensure in engineering

Hello SilkTork. Hope you are doing well (I enjoy that picture of the rabbit in the snow on your user page, by the way). There is again a series of changes persistently being made to capitalization in the Indian section of the Regulation and licensure in engineering article. I have put links to WP guidelines in the edit summary, but the anonymous person(s) are not reading them, or not interested. Would you please action to end this, at least for a while? Regards, Desertroad (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected again. This time making it indefinite as it appears the IP-hopping account is determined to return and be a nuisance. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked IPs

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.

The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.

Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian infobox dispute

Hi SilkTork and thanks for your thoughts on my proposed case for arbitration. I've just read your latest comment and totally agree with you on how a consensus is reached and what the overvoted party has to do, but the problem here is that there were no signs from these users to participate on building a consensus. All the time they were supporting their attitudes with no sources, demonstrated an extraordinary incivility and disregard to relevant sources presented by the other party, avoided to accept a peaceful solution to the problem by introducing mediation and, even worse, were trying to wave a non-existing consensus that the proposed changes were previously discussed anywhere on Wikipedia. We all know that Wikipedia is not perfect, but there must be a better remedy than doing nothing against any acceptance of democratic solutions to similar disputes. I wonder if Wikipedia has regressed to the level that the majority is always right even if its members try to introduce some vandalism, POV or disputed facts in the articles. Sorry for writing this in a personal message to you because my intent is not to agitate on something or put pressure to make any decision but only request on getting some advice as to how this could be processed further to eliminate these problems. I believe that the ArbCom will come up with any suggestion rather than simply declining the case as a pure content dispute. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

Thank you, I did get the original message, but when I went to the linked page, I didn't see my name. I'm not sure why. Had the discussion begun by the time that first message had been left on my page? When I didn't see my name there, I figured that the initial message was one informing me of the intention to begin a discussion there, and that I would be notified once it had been. Sorry that I missed it. I'll look over the material now. Thanks for contacting me. Nightscream (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Hi Silk Tork, Could you please review a rather questionable admin close on Talk:Peter Sellers#Infobox? The admin summarised the closure as "The discussion is basically between "I don't like it" on the con side, and "It helps and it's in line with common practise" on the pro", which I am afraid is just not reflected by the preceding discussion. As there is no consensus in the discussion, I think it should be that the status quo of no infobox should remain? Given User talk:SchroCat/Archive 10#Idiotboxes Nyttend's uninvited comments on my talk page on the matter, I'm not entirely sure that there has been a and neutral balanced close here. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Before the Identibox discussion I count 7 in favour of the infobox and 6 against. At the end of the Identibox discussion there are two !votes which clearly identify they are in favour of the infobox, which brings the tally up to 9 against 6. The discussion on both sides includes a certain degree of like/don'tlike, as well as pertinent arguments: redundant/unaesthetic against useful/standard. If I was closing the discussion, even though I don't like infoboxes, I would find it difficult to close as consensus not to have the infobox. A deciding argument for me would be the timeline indicating that the article has had the infobox for a long time, and reached FA status with the box. I think the current solution of having a collapsed infobox might work, and I hope that continues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for running your eye over it. It's a shame the "identibox" didn't gain a little more traction, but fingers crossed the collapsed box doesn't get "uncollapsed" anytime soon. All the best. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hi, do you think you can finish the GA reviews on Blink-182 and Moby any time soon? The list is loaded and it would be better to close some nominations that were opened a month ago.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I just logged in an incident on ANI. Check this [1]. I feel that the action by the admin in discussion was harsh, sudden and one sided. Whilst I wait for the discussion on ANI to progress, I am placing a request to you if you can review this independently and give me your feedback. Cheers AKS

Someone at ANI will respond. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thank you for your service on the Arbitration Committee. Your good faith attempt at mediation on a recent arbitration case, regardless of outcome, was particularly impressive. The best interests of this project are served by your contributions. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I always do appreciate a barnstar. We should all support each other for what we do around here. It is the support and encouragement of our peers that helps make the project work. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Cold?

	Best wishes
	for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	At the end of his committee term, to SilkTork, for taking on a role that he didn't really enjoy and persevering in it for two full years. Your contributions to the committee made a significant, positive difference to Wikipedia. Thank you, and see you around the wiki :-). AGK [•] 07:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AGK. I always do like getting a barnstar. They are random - which makes getting one all the more pleasing! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding to the above, I'd also like to say that while I'm empathetic, you'll still be missed. - jc37 16:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

BLPProd

Just deleted one but the template said "All biographies of living people created after March 2010 must have at least one reference to a reliable source. If no reliable references are found and added within a seven-day grace period, this article may be deleted." But further down: "This template was added Thursday, 19 December; This article may be deleted on or after Sunday, 29 December." I don't know why, since Template:ProdwarningBLP didn't give me a clue (of course I probably missed something). Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I amended the project page, but I didn't amend the template because I didn't know how to. I'll take a look at the template contribution history later today to see who has edited it, and ask them to bring it up to date. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be OK now - though there are still other areas to tidy up; the delete edit summary for BLPProd still has ten days, for example. It sometimes takes time for changes to filter through. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For your work on the arbitration committee. NE Ent 00:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)