Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 →


Re: Ad hominem

Sorry to post on your talk page on a topic already open on both Catflap's and my own, but while you're at it could you also request that he strike from this comment the portion "In the course of events ... and Czech"? After you telling both of us to focus on article content and not other users, he has continued his prior accusation of "xenophobic racism" against Germans because I said his English on another talk page was so poor I couldn't understand him. I will admit that I have not been on my best behaviour in the last few weeks of this dispute, but constant assumptions of bad faith and bringing up unrelated disputes like this certainly have not been helping. The closest I have ever come to repeatedly accusing him of racism/xenophobia was when I, after a long hard day of tour-guiding ISO representatives around Iwate's tsunami-devastated coastal region, accused him of belittling/attacking one of Iwate Prefecture's great heroes on the anniversary of 3/11. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in what occurred in the past between you two, only in what is happening now in the thread I am involved in. I will deal with incidents I see as and when I see them, and will do so fairly and equally. I am asking both of you to stop sniping at each other, and that includes on my talkpage.
I understand the frustrations of editing on Wikipedia and getting into disputes with another editor. I know exactly how you feel. My advice is to drop it completely. Let me deal with any incidents, and you stay out of it. If you get particularly enraged, then stop editing articles where the other editor is involved. There is much to do, and millions of articles to work on. Sucking in other editors via RfC on minor editing details is not good for you, the articles, Wikipedia, or the other editors. You could be putting your time and effort to good and enjoyable use elsewhere. Put it all into context and look at these backlogs. There are articles that have been tagged with problems since 2006. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I noted your comment on Catflap08's talk page, and left a follow-up note agreeing with it, but also indicating that I think Catflap08 might not be the most active day-to-day editor around here and that I hoped you would ensure that he has in fact edited before issuing a warning. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:John Carter: Catflap and I were both asked to strike our ad hominem remarks. My immediate response was to strike my ad hominem remark, and I didn't post a direct reply to SilkTork until some time later. Catflap's response was to indicate that he had read SilkTork's request, but to request that I also go back and strike the word "jerk" from an ANI thread that was archived weeks ago. A little under an hour later he posted another comment on the Kenji talk page, which included another ad hominem remark about me, which is the subject of my current request on this thread.
@SilkTork: I understand, and I will try to do that next time I feel the urge to say something I shouldn't. But you are aware that the comment in question was posted yesterday and you were pinged in it, right? I'm not asking for his earlier comments to be stricken. I only gave you the background for clarity.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content discussion appears to be resolved so I have removed the RfC tag. I will keep the talkpage on my watchlist for a little while longer, and will step in if it appears that incivility is continuing. The aim being to prevent ongoing incivility rather than to punish for past incivility. OK? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Any chance you could do the same for Talk:Daisaku Ikeda? I've been putting up with a fair bit over there too. Apparently Japanese religious figures are too far outside my normal area of editing, even though I've been editing the area since 2005, that it counts as WP:HARASSMENT to even post on that page. I'm sure John Carter and Catflap feel the opposite way, but I doubt anyone would claim more eyes on the problem is a bad thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catflap's still at it

He's now admitted that he's more interested in holding grudges and fighting with me than in behaving constructively. As soon as someone told me to strike my ad hominem remarks I complied, but he has only stepped up his accusations of "racism" and "xenophobia". Even John Carter is now telling him he's going too far. He also appears to be keeping a "list" of my supposed attacks against him, even though everyone agrees that it was a hypothetical analogy of Kenji to a hypothetical non-homophobe who happened to be associated with the Westborough Baptist Church for a few months, and not an attack on his sexuality, of which I neither know nor care anything. Could you please tell him to drop it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Sorry. Just noticed that you already did so before I asked. I need a new phone. No harm no foul. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But this edit summary seems to be a continuation of personal insults, which might itself be worthy of concern. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal insults? Can you actually read the comment to which I was responding and tell me how it would have been anything approaching a "personal insult" to say "lie"? I anticipated some push-back on the word "lie" and so I used the lighter word "fabrication", but could someone please tell me how Catflap08 has continued to get away with that kind of behaviour? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, I can. Hijiri, I realize that you seem to have a remarkably and sometimes rather unsupportably high opinion of yourself and your opinions, and you almost instantly make some sort of snarky and offensive remark whenever anyone disagrees with you, or try to engage in misdirection, as per your last clause above, but it is I think just as reasonable a concern how it is that you have continued to get away with your own behaviour. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JC, what are you talking about? Where have I in either my above post or the diff you linked to indicated that I have a high opinion of either myself or my opinions? I didn't mention my opinions anywhere. I said that Catflap was making up offenses I had supposedly committed against him, something you can't possibly deny given the evidence. Seriously, look at my talk page history: I have only once deleted a message from Catflap, and that had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the Miyazawa Kenji article. You are now doing exactly what you did on the initial ANI thread, pointing to ridiculous red herrings and making completely bogus accusations that I have no feasible way to counter since I can't even figure out what you are talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, I did say that I would keep an eye on it and deal with it, and that what I did not want is either of you sniping at each other on my talkpage. Indeed, I don't want you sniping at each other anywhere on Wikipedia. The rest of us don't need it. We understand you are in a personal conflict, but you have the option not to escalate it, and not to drag the rest of us into it. As far as I am aware, and I'm not interested in wasting my volunteer time researching into your petty personal squabble to see the history of it, this issue is 50/50. You can either stop it yourself, or you can be forced into stopping it by serving a time out for incivility. If I come upon any more of your incivility toward Catflap08 I will start issuing formal warnings leading up to a block. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the opportunity to forward to you an e-mail with any material which might specifically give the identification of the person who sent it to me omitted or paraphrased, which I think might be useful and informative. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:SilkTork: Hijiri88 here. Logged out and posting from a shifting IP for obvious reasons. If the email you were forwarded looked anything like this, it means User:John Carter has joined the long list of users who has received email contact from my long-term stalker. This banned user has been emailing everyone he sees getting in conflicts with me over the past two years, giving them a list of all my past "abuses". That John Carter would call such an email "useful and informative" is disturbing. That John Carter's email address does not appear to be public means the banned user has a currently active sock account with email access. If you have any suspicion about this at all I urge you to contact User:Cuchullain or User:Yunshui, both of whom are highly experienced in this matter. 182.249.9.56 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might be wrong in the above guess, hence the capitalized "IF" in my edit summary. If I am wrong and it's just an innocent email from an uninvolved party related to this problem, I apologize to John Carter for my incorrect assumption. I will trust SilkTork's judgement on this matter. But I would ask not to be sanctioned if I am wrong. I have been putting up with abuse from JoshuSasori's sockpuppets for over two years, and one of these abuses is emailing other users about me. So when a suspicious message like the above shows up mysteriously, extrapolating that the same thing has happened again is not a violation of AGF. If there is even the slightest concern I might be right, I'd ask SilkTork to forward the message to Yunshui (he's an arbitrator now, right?). 182.249.9.56 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John provided information he was given on previous incidents involving yourself, and asked for my feedback. It is difficult sometimes when a body of evidence is provided which paints someone in a bad light to know what to make of it, so getting other opinions is always recommended. In my response I said I felt you were a brittle and hostile user who makes things difficult for themself and others, but that I wasn't seeing sufficient evidence to open an investigation against you. My strong recommendation to you is that you focus on building the encyclopedia, and don't respond so aggressively to others. I'd like to look at your contributions history in a week's time and see some positive work on building the encyclopedia or in helping out the project, and not to see you trawling through talkpages talking about personal conflicts. That simply stirs up trouble and wastes people's time as you and they and others then have to deal with the consequences. And I'd like to see you speak with more patience to and about other users - this will help reduce conflict, and make your own time here more pleasant and productive. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the allegation that my e-mail address is not public is amusing. I have several e-mail addresses, one for wikipedia alone, but to go further and to allege any sort of dubious, perhaps paranoic, motivation for that is both grossly unfounded and, in fact, a rather obvious violation of WP:AGF. Also, although I did not include the name of the individual who sent the e-mail, if SilkTork so requests, I guess I could forward it to him, and it would be obvious from the information I redacted that, in fact, the individual is anything but blocked, and is still active in wikipedia under that name. And the frankly incredible assumption of Hijiri88 that only one person could possibly object to his behavior, and that anyone else who agrees with it must be a sock of a banned editor, is frankly even more ridiculous. I realize from his history that Hijiri might be seen to snarl first and apologize later, but I can assert that the individual who sent me the e-mail is not banned, at least under the name he is using now, and that the account has been active for a number of years. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But how many uncontroversial article edits do I need to make over the next week to have my OR-reverting privileges reinstated? Are the 20 or so over the last few days not enough? I was under the impression that when one user inserts OR into an article, and another user reverts it, and the original editor starts an epic ANI pissing contest in which the reverter shows considerably more restraint but when met with constant personal attacks and non-sequiturs eventually loses his cool and uses the word "jackass", the standard operating procedure was not to rebuke both users equally. The personal attacks against me that you requested be stricken are still there, the user openly refusing twice and making further ad hominem remarks along the way. I have complied with all your requests so far, including to go and edit unrelated articles peaceably, while that user has complied with none. And yet when I tried to refute his latest (still-unstricken) ad hominem remark you issued me with a final informal warning. While editing unrelated articles peaceably, I noticed another user openly admitting to engaging in behaviour that has gotten other users blocked, and when I point this out you rebuke not the user engaged in off-wiki contact with a user who has been site-banned for off-wiki harassment, but the victim of said harassment.
Just tell me exactly how many articles I need to edit to get a fair hearing and to be allowed revert OR.
182.249.17.249 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
End of it. This so called project is a waste of time. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Catflap's final retirement seems to have been a direct response to my doing this. It's one of several articless I've created from scratch or completely rewritten in the past several days, in response to several requests from SilkTork and others that I make proportionally more article edits. The previous edition had poor English prose and even worse sourcing. Take away from this incident what you will. I'm done with this issue now. Catflap no longer posting fringe theories and OR on numerous articles including at least one BLP is a boon for Wikipedia; it does not directly benefit me at all, now that the Kenji and Kokuchukai articles are fixed. 182.249.16.196 (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Needed

There's a couple editors im having issues with. Can you take a look at my summary [1] to see if it has any merit. Zekenyan (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This is the fourth request you have made thus far. See here for the rest: Admin IJBall's Talk Page, No original research/Noticeboard, and an ANI report. AcidSnow (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop incorrectly using wikipedia policies and also stop following me around. BTW IJBALL is not an admin. Zekenyan (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even bother to read any of the policies before you claimed that I was using them incorrectly? So far its clear you haven't. AcidSnow (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look at the situation. Ethnicity issues do tend to arise on Wikipedia; they are probably our biggest cause for conflict. Added to which, they tend to be the hardest to sort out as the varying claims rely on difficult, old or obscure texts, and varying interpretations of such texts. From what I can see you wish to insert an ethnicity claim into an article, and another editor disagrees. The issue is being discussed on the talkpage, and has been referred to an appropriate noticeboard. Discussion is ongoing, and while tense, it is a helpful discussion as people are listening to your views and providing counter arguments. I see no reason for an admin to step in. I am not going to make a pronouncement on any of the claims, and while there is open, healthy discussion going on, there is nothing for me to do. Disagreements are part and parcel of academic endeavour. It is through open dialogue and the sharing and analysis of information that we reach agreements. If you have a different view to others, it is up to you to convince by proof that your point of view holds merit. While it can be difficult, because editing on Wikipedia somehow inflames most of us when our edits are reverted, if you can speak politely and pleasantly to others, they will respond in the same way. If you become aggressive and hostile, so will they. If others become hostile, try as much as possible to ignore their tone of voice, and concentrate only on the content under discussion. See Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. I hope that helps, and that you do manage to resolve your difference of opinion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Zekenyan (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zekenyan

I honestly do not like reporting other members, hell I had a member insult me once and didn't even report or even contemplate doing so until an admin noticed our little tussle (I may have been a bit insulting myself; mostly acting sarcastic in a rude manner) and warned us both. At any rate, I'm really growing tired of this member's antics. He frequently wars on the Walashma Dynasty page; trying very hard to share a source every other editor in the talk page has repeatedly told him is a fringe source (the man who originally made that claim about their ethnicity really had no proof and was theorizing at best) and then he frequently attacks the rest of us by going over to administrators and claiming we're breaking some form of a rule like accusing Acidsnow of warring with him (when all he did was remove the fringe source he was sharing/ revert the page to its original condition) or I of conducting "original research". He's even been banned a few times if you check out his page...

Anyway, if you're remotely curious about that dynasty's origins. It's simple... They have clearly Arabian genealogies as you may have noticed that point to a Hashemite/ Qurayshitic origin. But the first one which is semi-legendary only does so via a Somali patriarchal figure/ an old saint named Yusuf bin-Ahmad Al-Kawneyn. He is the one with the Hashemite lineage and it's only through him that the dynasty in this genealogy claims Hashemite origins. Sources for him being claimed as their ancestor: [-] , [-] , [the genealogy from Harari records] | a source for the Hasani genealogy they essentially get from him : [-] . But this is a semi-legendary genealogy. The more accepted one is their Aqeeli lineage which they basically get from the Somali Darod clan's ancestor Isma'il Al-Jaberti (as their own page states, with sources), so once again they're claiming Arabian origins only really through a Somali patriarch. All Somalis claim such lineages, the Darod and Isaaq tribes for example; both claim Hashemite lineages. This is what prompted historians like I.M Lewis or Enrico Cerulli to view them as Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis: [-]. He keeps accusing me of conducting "original research" when everything I've shared has been on the Walashma's page for years/ all I'm doing is showing what historians know of their genealogies. These two genealogies are well-known and quite solid and the fact that they tie to Somali patriarchal figures who may or may not have been Arabs (not relevant) is solid too and well-sourced as I just showed you. That's it... Does this seem like original research or just me sharing information on their two genealogies? Apparently I'm breaking wikipedia's rules by giving him very basic information about their genealogies...

But somehow I don't even get what Zekenyan's goals are? Does he want these sources removed? Does he want to deny that they tie to Somali patriarchs or figures or delete the sources that show that they do like with the old Saint? We tell him he's posting a fringe source and come to an agreement with other members who consider them purely 'Arab' and merely dub the dynasty a "Muslim dynasty" and then simply mention the dual Somali and Arab nature of their genealogies in passing within their page's "Genealogical traditions" section yet he still seems to have issues with all this and wants to keep warring on about his belief that they were Argobbas.

Sir, I really don't want to take up anytime from your day (too late, eh? :-) ) and I think being terribly in-concise about making a point here but I'm getting very tired of receiving notifications about something he's done on the page or having him war with everyone and basically pull petty attacks left and right where he accuses people of bogus rule breaking just so he can idk-> get them banned or something so he can be free to post a source everyone is telling him is fringe? Please, all I ask is that you ask him to leave the page as it is now. There is really no further information that can be added at this juncture except for maybe some extra citations just for the heck of it and that he not vandalize it with his claims that they were of the Argobba people for which there is no proof; genealogical or otherwise. All I ask is that he leaves the page as it is right now and stops harassing me and preferably other members as well. Take care, Awale-Abdi (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch.
You can read my reply to Zekenyan in the section above this one. It is quite common, indeed some may say desirable, for people to have discussions about the best way to develop an article. Questions such as: do we include this information, do we use these sources, how much weight do we give to this opinion compared to that one, which source is more accurate, etc, etc, are valuable, as through such discussions we arrive at the clearest, fairest, and most balanced articles. The more people involved in editing an article, especially when the subject is contentious or the sources are unclear, the better. As long as people are in discussion, there is no problem. You are doing the right thing. And that is what I said to Zekenyan. Important things to remember when having these discussions/debates is to comment on the content not the contributor, to assume good faith, and not to indulge in ad hominem personal comments such as "I don't even get what editor's goals are". Try to assume their goals are the same as yours: to improve the Walashma dynasty article; to make it as clear, fair, balanced, and accurate as possible. If someone has found a source that they feel adds useful information, they should add that information to the article along with details of where they got the information from. This is exactly what we encourage people to do. If there is some doubt about the reliability of that source, a discussion starts up about the source, and the claims made. This is a normal Wikipedia editing process. Sometimes a person can edit an article for years with no questions asked and no disagreements. But sometimes there are questions and disagreements. As long as everyone assumes we are all here for the same reasons, and we all remain polite with each other, this can be a positive process.
The sources regarding the claims of Somali origins of the Walashma dynasty are interesting, informative and useful, and should be used in the article. Remember to stay within what the sources say - that these are claims based on a source which is felt to be problematic ("legendary"). When the sources themselves are hesitant regarding claims, then so should we be. And always cite sources when adding material to an article. Always. Any information you can add to an article has come from some source somewhere. So mention which source it is. This helps everyone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so understanding, sir. I really don't want anything more than for the page to maintain its current state and of course all claims about the genealogies are sourced on the page and so is the statement about them being either "Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis". Also, I agree that I can get a bit hot headed (I'm naturally aggressive to be honest) and I will do more to improve on that. Thank you for your time, Awale-Abdi (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Malayalam cinema

Hi SilkTork, sorry to bother you. Looks like the moderated content is again getting changed and leading to edit war in the "Malayalam Cinema" page. Older discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam_cinema&oldid=550639736 Will you be able to help putting the finalized content we did last time. Thanks for the help 111.92.59.154 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, though not sure when I'll be able to give a response. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TheRedPenOfDoom is messing with editors on other pages too. [2] 80.201.60.73 (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TheRedPenOfDoom is an experienced editor , You may go through his edits instead of blindly trusting these IPs. I am not taking any sides here . And I won't support anybody in articles I have little interest.Cosmic Emperor (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your input. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dosa

can you format the table properly here ? There is one extra line I am not able to removeCosmic Emperor (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a table, the marks " || " create a new column. To remove the column those marks need to be removed from each line as I did here. However, I don't think a table is appropriate for the usage - see WP:WHENTABLE. A simple list, or better still some prose explaining the points being made, and putting it into context would be preferable. Currently it is unclear what point is being made. It appears to me that the article is about a pancake made from rice and lentils. Pancakes and crepes (and also breads of all sorts) can be eaten topped (or filled) with various ingredients, and can also be made in various ways with slightly different ingredients. If that is what the table is saying, it would be better to say that (with reference to reliable sources). Currently it is simply a list of names with ingredients, but the reader doesn't know if the ingredients are the toppings/fillings, or if they are variations on the prime ingredients of rice and lentils. If the prime ingredients do vary, then perhaps the definition of doas as being a crepe made with those prime ingredients needs to be adjusted. For example, the "Mini soya dosa" is made from soy milk and wheat flour. That's a long way from rice and lentils, and is much nearer to a crepe or pancake. Should the definition be more along the lines of "Dosa is an Indian crepe or pancake usually made from rice and lentils, though other ingredients may be used, such as wheat flour or semolina." And then the question would arise as to is dosa distinct enough to have a separate entry from crepe or pancake, and should it be merged? Anyway, I'll leave that in your hands. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I liked eating Dosa , still love eating. I never thought of defining it in English in my childhood. If you can find good South Indian Restaurants in your locality you can order a "Masala Dosa" or "Önion Masala Dosa" or "Paneer Masala Dosa" . C E (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look. It's defined as a lentil pancake, and there are essentially three variations ranging in thickness: adai, dosa, and appalaam. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].
There is also oothapam - another lentil pancake: [11]. Here the oothapam is also called uthappam: [12]
There is also pesarattu [13], [14], [15]
There's enough info and sources there to build an article which explains what dosa is, and how it differs from Western pancakes. I suspect those items currently in the article which are made from wheat should not be in the article as they are more related to Western pancakes, but use the local, "dosa", name for pancake. Same as Western folks don't say dosa, they say lentil pancake. I hope this helps. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sean Fagan

Hi SilkTork,

So, I've been mustering up the energy to revamp the Sean Fagan draft to bring it up to mainspace quality. While I do write content for articles from time to time, it's not my favorite thing to do, but I do want to bring this article up to speed as I feel it improves the encyclopedia. That being said, I hope to get at least a majority of this done before the end of this week. Per the close at the deletion review I will need to have you approve it before moving it back to the mainspace. Is there anything in particular you would like to see, or any references that I pointed out in the deletion review that you feel are important to establishing notability? Let me know if you have any input so I can ensure those areas are covered before I ask you to review it again. Thanks for your time. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for slow reply, I have been a little busy recently. I have, though, looked into the article over the past few days, and I'm not seeing sufficient notability asserted in the article for me to be comfortable to support it going into mainspace at this time. If there were reliable independent sources writing significantly about Fagan, then would be the time to consider moving the article into mainspace. While I understand why JohnCD said to check with me before moving into namespace, you may find it more helpful to consult with someone who may take an interest in the topic and support you in finding appropriate sources. Currently I don't have the time, and the topic does not interest me enough to make the time. I don't wish you to feel that my saying no is the end of the matter. If you can find another admin to assist you, they can make the judgement themself as to if the article can be moved into mainspace. As a rough guideline, you would need more information and more sources than were in the article at the time of deletion otherwise the article could be summarily deleted without the need to go through an AfD per WP:G4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from AN

But I'm interested in hearing which of the other user's edits you thought were superior to mine, seen as in all the time you have interacted with either of us the other user has only edited six articles, three of which were to make very minor edits, the other three of which were blatant edit-warring. Seriously, this is not a criticism/attack on him, or an attempt to rebut you. I have spent the last two weeks trying to improve my own editing patterns (more article edits/creations) on your advice, but apparently I was misinterpreting you. I want to improve my edits. I recognize that you have praised my initially taking your advice but that I have since "lost the plot". I assume this is a reference to my not creating so much article content over the last week as in the previous week or so, but please understand that it's difficult to create content when I have to also defend myself from personal attacks. That's why I now support an IBAN. But it still hurts when the person who gave me and the other user the same advice says to me that my initially creating a large amount of article content in an unrelated area was good, but that the other user's efforts were "better", when the other user did nothing but post thinly-veiled personal attacks against me from day one and my "losing the plot" was simply a reaction to this.

Note that I've removed the other user's name from this comment on the off-chance that this discussion runs on after the AN discussion closes and an IBAN is put in place. I'd appreciate it if your response keeps mention of the other user to a minimum and focuses on what you felt was problematic about my edits.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WaiWai Logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WaiWai Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. It must have got dropped during a merge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Catflap08 and Hijiri88 discussion at AN

This edit by Hijiri88, his first in so far as I can tell his history (given his multiple accounts and IPs) to the article about Catflap08's home town, strikes me as being extremely dubious. I have commented at AN that this seems to me to be crossing the line as being some sort of harassment, and suggested that a block or other administrative action might be appropriate. I would appreciate any input you might have. This really does strike me as being petty vindictiveness and rather juvenile conduct, and, unfortunately, it seems to me based on this edit rather possible that Hijiri88 might be thinking about getting around the i-ban in this way. Actually, in all honesty, this sort of behavior doesn't strike me as even being particular, well, sane. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that edit as being problematic so much as the response to it. As far as I can see, the challenged statement had not been edited by Catflap. Anyway, I have now edited the article to make the statement clearer. The sooner someone closes the AN discussion and an i-ban can be put in place the better it will be for all concerned. I am somewhat surprised that the i-ban has not yet been put in place. I can't do it because I'm involved. In the meantime the advice I would offer to both of them is to stop stoking the flames by responding to incidents, and to simply get on with editing the encyclopedia. If either of them feels a little stressed at the moment, then now would be a good time to take a Wiki-break. If things carry on and tempers get frayed, then either one or both of them could end up with more than an i-ban. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, would it be inappropriate for me as one of the proposed IBAN-subjects to post a request for closure of the thread? That an IBAN is a good thing appears to be universally agreed upon.
On an unrelated note: I liked this edit. My concern was appropriately addressed.
On an even less related note: Why did you not caution the above user for this sort of behavior doesn't strike me as even being particular, well, sane? Can I get an IBAN with this user as well, if PAs like the above continue?
On an even less related note: The user with whom I am soon to be subject to an IBAN doesn't appear to have ever stated on-wiki that Karlsruhe is his hometown: he said a little under an hour earlier that he "currently resides" there. The edit in question was was made five days earlier, and during this time both users were fairly active in editing, so if they noticed and were offended by my edit immediately they took their sweet time to complain about it, and if they didn't notice immediately they would have had to look pretty hard at my contribs to find it when they did, given that I had made 33 edits in the meantime. That last night it suddenly became a big deal is suspicious. Were these two exchanging emails about me, in order to arrange for the one to complain about me to you while the other abides by the not-yet-in-place IBAN? Do they plan to continue this kind of off-wiki collusion once the IBAN prevents me from directly responding? Is John Carter going to continue to fight Catflap's battles for him when Catflap is technically not allowed? And I'm not allowed point it out?
This is very disturbing...
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do ask someone to close the i-ban discussion. In the meantime, ignore any supplementary discussion and simply focus on your editing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Sophomore to a dab page

Hi SilkTork, why did you change Sophomore to a dab page? I believe that sophomore should have remained as it was before your edits, as a student in their second year of study is the primary topic for this term. I came upon this as I noticed that hundreds of pages linking there are now linking to a dab page. Also notifying User:BD2412, who tagged the dab page with {{dabconcept}}. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which second year do you feel is primary? The previous article page mentioned two possible years, and that is what the current dab page also indicates, along with other possible search results. The essential information hasn't changed. If you feel that one use of sophomore is more primary than the other, then we could direct sophomore to that article, and place a hatnote to direct to the dab page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I agree that neither of them would be considered primary, but what was wrong with the article as it existed before your edits? Is there a reason that you converted the page into a dab page? Natg 19 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The previous page was doing a dictionary definition of the term, and then trying to write an article on the two main terms. We prefer articles on one topic. Where there are two or more possible topics we create a dab page. Second year at high school is different to second year at university - this is not the same topic, nor part of a broad concept (there isn't one unified concept there are two: "stages in education" and "second" - we could do a broad concept article on sophomore as meaning second (such as second album for a musician or second film for a director), or on stages in education in America) - but it would be difficult to do a broad concept album on all the possible meanings of sophomore (in the UK education system it can mean third year at university, and sometimes - though rarely - the fourth year), but it seemed more appropriate to create a dab, especially as the article also engaged in some original research regarding the etymology and unsourced (and apparently incorrect) assertion of the use in other countries. I started to clean it up, but realised it made more sense to dab it: that would make the term clearer for readers, and allow them to go quickly to which topic they were looking for. So, as it now stands, readers get a quick definition of the term - it may mean second year in High School or second year in university in America, and a link to the nearest available article on those topics. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#Dubious "close" of an RFC that was actually closed weeks earlier?

Hi SilkTork. Would you take a look at Talk:Kenji Miyazawa#Dubious "close" of an RFC that was actually closed weeks earlier?? Do you consider this close to be overturning your edit here? Cunard (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left comment. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

I mentioned your name at WP:ANI#Ongoing gross incivility of Hijiri88, and would appreciate any comments you might wish to make regarding the nature of the e-mail I sent you and the quotes from you I included in my opening statement. John Carter (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left a comment. I have very little Wiki-time at the moment, and I have some cleaning up to do regarding a category name change and creating a dab page for sophomore, and a GA review to finish, so I will not be responding any more to Hijiri88 related issues. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing a article

Please review this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_Kadhi --C E (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really do reviews of new articles. You could try asking someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Carpenters Arms and List of pubs named Carpenter Arms in the United Kingdom for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carpenters Arms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpenters Arms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Talk header?

This edit intrigues me. Has it ever been in doubt that the page is "for discussing improvements to the Korean influence on Japanese culture article"? Or were you subtly critiquing those posts by me, Nishidani and Sturmgewehr88 to the effect that a certain user was misreading sources because of CIR issues that have been a recurring problem with that user in particular? Or my comments that a certain other user may have been a sockpuppet given their own extremely suspicious behaviour and the indisputable history of sock-/meat-puppetry?

It's kind of unnerving when you suddenly show up on a page I have been editing and post what could be taken as an accusation of talk-page abuse. I think it would probably be better for the harmony of the community, if not for the encyclopedia, if you'd comment on the recent obvious IBAN violations that have taken place in the area in which you and I have directly interacted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to look into that article on a matter unrelated to you. When I visit articles I tend to make some edit while I am there, adding the talkheader template is a very common edit of mine - it has nothing to do with you. My time on Wikipedia is limited at the moment, and I don't want to enter a pointless time sink reading through personal attacks on minor issues, so currently I am not looking at disputes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_31&oldid=1141021745"