Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 →


Nomination of Miss Globe International for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miss Globe International 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/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination) 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. The Banner talk 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Green Party

I notice you have closed the discussion about the Welsh Greens deletion. My reasons for contacting you are not to re-open the debate or "appeal" the findings, but just to raise a couple of points.

1. There is UK-wide coverage available. Unfortunately no one in the history of this article had cited any, and I hadn't had time to add all the citations I wanted to, or indeed to conduct a "thorough" search for other citations as advised in the deletion policy. It's a shame that given I had made the point in the discussion that I still had more work to do on the WGP page the discussion was closed so soon.
2. The user who nominated the article for deletion had also nominated another (even smaller) Welsh party for deletion, yet has been attempting to create a page for the Pirate Party Wales (even smaller still). I fear that the deletion was motivated by a political bias. I didn't raise this in the discussion as I don't like making these things personal, and had I done so the whole debate would likely have descended into a slanging match.

As I say I accept the decision, and I hope that the Welsh Assembly section that I spent time on will be kept in the GPEW article, though I'll now be leaving it to others to improve that page. Frinton100 (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. As I indicated in my closing comments, it would be acceptable and appropriate to split out the Wales Green Party from Green Party of England and Wales when you or anyone else has sufficient reliable sources to establish independent notability. You can do that whenever you're ready. You may even do it before Wales Green Party is merged into Green Party of England and Wales. I would suggest, though, that you let someone independent check over the sources to confirm that they do establish independent notability. I can do that for you if you wish.
Promises in an AfD to find sources rarely carry much weight. Far better to actually find the sources. If you note, I did check out claims regarding sources, and based my close on what I found. There may well be sources I didn't see; if you are aware of such sources, but are too busy to work them into the article, it would be acceptable to list them on the talkpage: Talk:Wales Green Party.
What the nominator is doing elsewhere is a separate issue. I rarely get into dispute resolution at the moment as it tends to be fairly time-consuming and can spread out over months, and I have limited availability for Wikipedia at the moment. If you have genuine concerns about that user, please follow the advice in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand that you're keeping out of dispute resolution, and of course, the motivations for nominating an article for deletion may be different to the reasons for the deletion, which may be perfectly correct.

A few of the most helpful links I was going to add are below. I've not included all the election results which are fairly easy to find from a variety of RS. Some of them are Welsh publications, some are UK-wide, but then a political party is always going to have more coverage in the area it actually campaigns in (the provincial branches of the Canadian federal parties are a good example of this).

2010 General Election http://www.theguardian.com/cardiff/2010/apr/30/green-party-candidate-cardiff-bus-system

2014 European Election http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-green-party-leader-pippa-7093559 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-greens-leader-why-party-7019024 http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-1b3e-Welsh-Green-Party-leader-claims-elderly-are-racist http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-27325019

2015 General Election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32417548 http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/general-election-2015-wales-should-9075007

Policies/Positions http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/newport-businesses-police-protesters-nato-summit

Leadership http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/11669116.Newport_s_Bartolotti_re_elected_as_Wales_Green_Party_leader/

What is missing (and is also missing from the Green Party of England & Wales page) is any RS outlining the party structure, its leadership, and its relationship with the GPEW. I have also been unable to find much (other than what is already in the article) about the early history or elections pre-2010, aside from the results. Frinton100 (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

southwalesargus and walesonline in this context are local sources, and so do not speak for general notability. In the others I saw uses of the the term Wales Green Party or variants (Green Party of Wales), but I didn't see details about the party itself. For example, this Guardian article is about a Nato summit in Wales - as part of the article various things are mentioned, such as The Fudge Fairy's sweet shop in Caldicot, Jon Powell, who runs the newsagents in the city's bustling covered market, Darren Carnegie, from Glasgow, who was camping with his father, Andrew, and dog Grace, and The leader of the Green party in Wales, Pippa Bartolotti. The article tells us little about the Wales Green Party, except, in passing, that Pippa Bartolotti is the leader. Mere mentions such as in that article, even if they occur in multiple sources, are not regarded as establishing nobility. See WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The foot note: [1], explains: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton ... ("In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial. And in WP:ORGDEPTH: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: .... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization. The sources you have provided are examples of what that guideline gives as what are not acceptable. It can help when working on Wikipedia to read guidelines as they are useful, and will save you and others a lot of time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, I accept that the Nato summit article is not great, but I didn't think the rest were too bad. I'm aware of WP:BRANCH but it still seems strange to me that coverage from outside Wales is required to establish notability for a Welsh party. Still, rules are rules, so I'm not going to lose sleep over it, and as I said I'll now leave it to others to get on with the merger. Frinton100 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify an edit?

Can you clarify this edit? Specifically changing "substantiated through reliable sources" to "evidenced by citing reliable sources which write significant commentary about the periodical in relation to the specific criteria". Your edit introducing the requirement for "significant commentary" makes sense to me for the first two criteria, but not so much for the second two. It seems to have significantly changed the meaning of criteria #3 and #4 and appears to be at odds with the note explaining the rationale for criterion #4. As it reads now it seems it will be extremely rare to find sources with significant commentary about the periodical in relation to the periodical having had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works. Contrast that with the previous wording: "...substantiated through reliable sources" where "(t)he periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works", and contrasting also with the note for criterion #4: "A periodical that is considered reliable enough to be used regularly as a reliable source by a large number of other works (especially scholarly and other academic works) is considered notable enough to have an article, just the same as an academic who is highly regarded and widely cited is considered notable per WP:PROF." I'm not sure if that was your intention, but it seems to me there's a disconnect somewhere. Thanks in advance. Mojoworker (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you can improve upon the wording please do so. It's possible there was some discussion somewhere regarding the change of wording, though I can't recall as it was some years ago. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, it's been a long time. I'll see if I can come up with something. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mützig

Stop icon This is a warning. The next time you vandalize a Wikipedia page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Zotezangu (talk) 20:04, June 28, 2015 (EAT)

Stop icon Second warning. Kindly refrain from vandalism of articles. If this continues, you may be blocked from editing. Zotezangu (talk) 01:35, June 29, 2015 (EAT)

Response

I think this is perhaps a little tangential to the RfA, so I am pasting it here:

Perhaps you have not read Catch 22?
And the reason I could not make such a statement as you suggest is that it is fundamentally wrong, and even the bits that are correct would constitute false light.
Where I made mistakes there was no need for other users to "tidy them up". In the workshop I specifically asked:
I even created forms for the named parties to enter their replies. You would imagine, given your depiction above, that there would have been people queueing round the block to present errors. "[T]he community asked that I stop using such tools" no it certainly did not. The arbitration committee insisted - even though, for example, almost everyone in the workshop thought that my bot edits were "generally ... correct.", "substantively correct" (me), "the vast majority of them are problem-free" "tasks are done very cleanly" the worst comment being "I don't think the error rate is spectacular", from Elen of the Roads, who I suspect had absolutely no idea what the error rate was.
I said in my opening statement "If anyone still has doubt that I am responsive, especially to errors, please let me know and I will, I am sure, be able to show copious examples to the contrary." No-one took up on this.
If you signed off on the findings of the case with the impression that "errors" were anything to do with it, then you were following the wrong case. Indeed the word "error" does not appear in any of the principles, findings, remedies or motions of the case.
As for you claims of "surreptitious" usage, I have repeatedly made it clear, including in this very RFA, that (while I follow the obvious intent of the restrictions, not to use custom programs or AWB to edit Wikipedia) that I will use those lesser forms of automation, such as search-and-replace and cut-and-paste, for example I paste in ISBNs, special characters, quotations, move content around articles, fix spellings and so forth. There is simply no choice. Indeed it is common for arbitration pages to say "cut and paste this section header for the next user".
If you want to discuss possible ways forward, I have previously made it clear that my talk page and email are available. Responses from the committee on the principle of discussion have been very mixed, and where I have provided information by email, I have never heard a word back, except, with great prodding, an acknowledgement of receipt.
Please also note that I have never been banned.
The only part of your sample statement that I can say (and I already have) is "I admit that I made mistakes" - I have never had a problem admitting mistakes, wikis are designed to be accommodating to them. I have also fixed those mistakes wherever I can, and a metric tonne of other people's mistakes. As for "promising not to do it again" we are either in nursery territory now, or completely off track. I certainly would love to be able to promise not to ever make another mistake, but that is completely unrealistic. Again, though, I have already remarked, both here and elsewhere, I do believe in, and strive for constant improvement.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, I am not going to respond, because I don't dislike you, and I don't think you are malicious, but you do seem to have an issue with accepting that you have made errors. Even when the errors are pointed out to you, you still don't accept that you were at fault. When you were blocked for a year, that was because you introduced errors into the article you were editing. It was the nature of the errors that indicated you were using automated tools, as they were not the sort of errors to be introduced manually. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your non-repsonse. As you doubtless know I fixed all the errors in that DRAFT the same day I was notified (and made other improvements). As you also know the wording of the restriction is so tight as to be laughable, the assumption which I have to work on is that using standard word-processing features is permitted. No-one seriously expects that, for example I will type out in full "https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=good+manufacturing+practice%2CGood+manufacturing+practice%2CGood+Manufacturing+Practice&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cgood%20manufacturing%20practice%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGood%20manufacturing%20practice%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGood%20Manufacturing%20Practice%3B%2Cc0".
I made the assumption that people would operate with good faith and not be officious. Sad to say I was wrong. Lesson learned.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Elton John Artistry Section

I am contacting you because you had edited the Elton John article. His "Artistry" section is ridiculously short. How would you feel if me and other people on the biggest Elton John forum online(The Crazy Water Forum) were to collectively comprise a decent Artistry section and gave it to you to put it in the article,since I am a new user and I don't think I can edit that. Littlemrsmonkey (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Elton John article has been semi-protected. This means that unregistered users and new users cannot edit it. You will find, however, that if you edit Wikipedia for a while, that you will become autoconfirmed. There a a good number of articles related to Elton John, such as the articles about his songs and albums, that you can edit. Edit those for a while, and then go back to the Elton John article, and try again. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Quoting me as evidence that people are taking the nom at face-value

Would you please stop? You are wrong. I've explained why several times elsewhere. Just stop; please. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have not read your explanation. If you can link me to it I promise I will read it and apologise if appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing to me is that you stop quoting me as evidence here, not that you understand why you were wrong. Regardless of whether you get it or apologize, please acknowledge that you will stop quoting me in this way. If you're curious (although honestly it is difficult to imagine why it was not obvious where to find my previous replies): pretty much everywhere you've pasted my "Desysopping for the smackbot thing was absurd" quote as evidence that folks are taking the nom statement at face value, I've had to reply to straighten the record about your incorrect inference. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 is one of several examples. Just stop, please, so I don't have to keep doing that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now seen your comment in the Bureaucrat discussion; sorry for not noticing earlier, I was looking at Wikipedia from my phone, which doesn't give me watchlist updates. I am sorry that I made the superficial link between the nominator mentioning the unblocking of Smackbot, and you doing the same thing. I should have assumed good faith that you would have done your own research into the matter and reached your own independent view. My entire involvement in that RfA was problematic and unfortunate, and I went too far in my comments. Given that time again I would do things very differently. I would directly and privately approach the nominator to discuss the matter (which is my normal approach to these matters). Instead, I blundered in and said some very strong things. It was wrong of me, and I upset you and others by doing this. I don't fully understand why I acted the way I did, and can only assume something about that RfA irked me in a profound way such that I was no longer acting responsibly or sensibly.
If asked to comment on this incident at any point in the future I will certainly not use you as an example, and I offer you a full apology for the disservice I have done you. Would you like me to strike my comments from the RfA and the Bureaucrat discussion? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; no there's no need to strike the comments, I think I've explained myself there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy I have already struck the comments from the Bureaucrat discussion page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_32&oldid=1077612288"