Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 →


Resurrection of Eastleigh/Hampshire Wikipedia meetup

Hi SilkTork, I noticed from a post at the Eastleigh Wikipedia meetup that you're in Southampton (snap!) - I'm hoping to plan a meet for Hampshire to hopefully draw more people in. Is that something would be interested in? samtar (msg) 09:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be interested in that. Keep me informed. I was unable to go to the last meetup, though I wanted to. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest in peer reviews

Hi SilkTork; Your user page indicates your interest in peer reviews. The GAR at Auden has been open for just over one full month now, and there appear to be no editors coming forward to support the top editor there or the old 2009 assessment. I did list it at all of the WikiProjects listed on its Talk page. Could you close out the GAR for Auden [1] as you see best for the article. MusicAngels (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. It may take a while before I reach a conclusion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Note my entry Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#W. H. Auden when you look at this. Keith D (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll take a look. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I found some time to revise the lead at the Auden page, and will head over there now if you're not working on it. Thanks again. - Macspaunday (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC) - Later: done for the day! - Macspaunday (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm hoping to complete the review today. Just need to check a few sources to make sure statements are used accurately. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: Already thanked you over on the talk page, but thank you again. Could I trouble you to make a one-letter change at [[2]]? The overall pass-fail tick box still shows the equals-sign icon, not the tick, and it would be good to avoid any ambiguity at all, even though the Keep section is entirely clear. Make that ten thousand thanks. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) - And I found a good source for that "Mediterranean" question too. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll tick that box for you, but it's not needed. The check boxes are what I use to keep a record of what I'm doing, and I've never actually bothered to tick the final box (indeed, I am now going to remove it from my personal GA template: Template:GAstart because I never use it). The record of the Keep is in the article history template on the talkpage. And the article is still listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork; My thanks for doing the Auden page so quickly and thoroughly. I shall try to look at the 4 paragraphs in lead section later per MoS statement about the current 5 paragraph overflow. May I request that you do a checkuser on the following new account which was created just recently during the Auden edits under "coincidental timing" circumstances, at any time you might get around to it:

Once again, my thanks for looking at the Auden. MusicAngels (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I surrendered the checkuser tool when my time on the Arbitration Committee was up. I will, however, take a quick look at the edits by those accounts you list to see if there are any concerns that need taking forward. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look. The only IP address I can see that has been editing recently is User talk:192.12.13.14, and that address appears to have appropriately reported you for edit warring. I also note your inappropriate and hostile comments on that IP's talkpage. I'm not aware of your history, so I don't know why you are inclined to hostility in this matter. Editing Wikipedia can frustrate and enrage the most gentle and well meaning of people. It happens to us all at times. There are several ways of dealing with conflict and frustration - often the best way is simply to walk away from the incident. There is so much to do on Wikipedia, that we needn't stress ourselves over what are usually trivial matters. If you genuinely find that you can't let matters alone, and that you continue to get into edit wars or confrontation, perhaps editing Wikipedia is not for you. Many folks have found over time that Wikipedia can be a little too stressful! Keep well. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking that up (to SilkTork), but its only the tip of the iceberg stemming from a WP:Hoax which I reported from 2 months ago on Drv investigating socks. Everyone seemed to recognize that the socks are a problem, though coming up with a way to control the socks is a more difficult task. I have started collecting the information in my sandbox but the full investigation might take some time. Even yesterday another appearance of the sock tried to interrupt my contact with an editor making a GA nomination. Anyway, I wouldn't have bothered you with this if I knew that you no longer had checkuser on your account. Cheers, and that was really something watching how quickly you did the Auden. MusicAngels (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SilkTork! Thanks for your perceptive analysis of the situation. But I'm sorry to see that MusicAngels brought this complaint to you, because MusicAngels had earlier taken this identical list of IPs to EdJohnston's talk page, where it was conclusively proven that the IPs had nothing to to with each other, either chronologically or in articles edited. The fact that MusicAngels didn't accept that conclusive proof, but instead shopped their complaint around to another admin (wasting your time as they wasted EdJohnston's and mine), makes me wonder about this person's competence. It is clear they have no understanding of what socking looks like, but they they keep accusing people of it. To User:MusicAngels: you need to STOP beating this dead horse, stop reporting other users for this or that, and focus on editing. If I ever see you take make this particular complaint again, I will consider asking for a community decision to restrict the kinds of things you can say about other editors - even, and especially, if you think they are IP-hopping trolls. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: The socks were identified by EdJohnston. The trolls were identified by Drmies. That was their use of that language, and the IP-editors you refer to are continuing to interfere with my edits as recently as yesterday. MusicAngels (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There may well have been socks and trolls among the IPs in the 128 range, which is the range that you discussed with Ed (who has indicated he wants nothing more to do with this issue or with you) and with Drmies (who apparently did identify some trolls in that range). I don't know about that and was not part of that discussion. But there has never been any evidence to connect the 128-range IPs with the 192-range IPs, or with the only currently active 192-range editor, whom you are so determined to label as a sock and a troll. The evidence shows no connection between that editor and the other 192-range editors you have listed here. This 192 sequence is NOT a sock farm; it is not even a sequence; and you need to stop shopping it around Wikipedia and claiming that it is. If there are IPs "interfering with your edits as recently as yesterday", please identify those users or the articles you are talking about; better yet, please provide diffs. I doubt if they include any of the "IP-editors (I) refer to", namely, the 192 range list you gave here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I identified some trolling remarks. Someone making a trolling remark, or a couple (it was quite irritating for a few days) doesn't automatically make them a troll, and whoever was behind a few IPs later proved, if I remember correctly, to have some sense. So whatever I said should not be taken to mean that I somehow endorse MusicAngels's reading here or elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I didn't see a "nope" that required an apology; in this case I side with you on the content, even if it may hurt my friendship with MusicAngels. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)" (reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)). This was the comment of Drmies from 23 September two weeks ago. MusicAngels (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the block issued by Drmies when he offered to help against the "IP-hopping" as he identified it: "2015-08-30T01:53:21Z ||block ||Drmies ||Disruptive editing--IP-hopping disruption on Talk:Birdman (film)", (reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • This is the Page Protect issued by Drmies when he was dealing against the "IP-hopping": " 01:57, 30 August 2015‎ Drmies (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (47,938 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected "Talk:Birdman (film)": IP-hopping disruption ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 01:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 01:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)))) (undo | thank)", (reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • This is the summary statement made by Drmies about the IP disruption: "IP, you kinda look like a complete jerk, and this using various IPs makes it only worse. If it is true that you have a registered account here, and you're editing as an IP as well, then you may well be violating policy. Then, see WP:TPA: not everything stays. For instance, I am an administrator and that gives me certain powers. If there's material on a talk page that's disruptive and does nothing to improve the article, such as this entire bullshit conversation, I can remove it--and I think I will. And, IP, you're really testing my patience here: I have no problem semi-protecting this talk page and anything else you touch if you keep up this disruptive, disrespectful, and unhelpful editing behavior. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)" (reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    Funny thing about comments pulled out of context--they're applicable in other places as well. Replace "IP" with "MusicAngels", rinse, repeat. SilkTork, I'm quickly losing my patience this cat and the only reason I'm not blocking right now is that it's dinner time and I don't have the time to write up a good rationale. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've got a full ANI report ready for you if you want it. I haven't quite reached that point myself. I could email it... --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MusicAngels, we are here to build an encyclopaedia, we are not here to fight each other. Folks who are in conflict are granted some leeway because conflict often comes from frustration, and that happens a lot on Wikipedia. But folks who are unable to shake off their frustration, pursuing minor matters for long periods, dragging other volunteers into their affair, are seen as disruptive. If the disruption becomes too large, or there is a pattern of disruption, and the editor's general contributions to the project are not seen as positive enough to compensate for the disruption, they tend to get blocked from editing Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. In particular look at the WP:DONTGETIT section. What I strongly suggest you do is drop this matter, walk away, and get on with doing something productive. I also strongly suggest you modify your editing approach to one that is less confrontational. If you disagree with an edit, don't revert, discuss. The matter gets resolved more quickly, with better understanding all round. It's better for you, better for the other editor, better for the article, better for the Wikipedia community (who then don't get dragged into a dispute), and better for the reader who is not faced with an unstable article. If you have a disagreement with another editor or with the way an article is going, assume good faith, and approach the other editor with respect. Taking matters quickly to AN builds up bad feelings all round, and is not in the spirit of collaborative editing that has made Wikipedia so successful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, Thanks for your message. I have left further editing yesterday at the Auden page to MartinEvans there who wrote a very good version of the edit I introduced there yesterday. I tried to acknowledge his editing there on the Talk page properly, though if you want me to put in added thanks to him for his effort beyond my "gentleman and scholar" comment then let me know and I'll send him a further note. MusicAngels (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors like a Barnstar on their talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some edit-warring at the Auden page?

Hello again, @SilkTork:. I'm sorry to bother you with Auden matters again, but there seems to be something like an edit-war starting up there. I'm not involved, and I think it's best if stay out of it, because I was in a dispute with one of the participants in the past, and I don't think it's appropriate for me to get into another argument. But I'd be grateful if you could look in and offer guidance about the appropriateness of some recent edits. I think an admin's firm hand might be helpful in calming the waters. Again, apologies for coming back to you after all the work you did already. - Macspaunday (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look. It seems a minor issue about how to format quotes. They are discussing the matter on the talkpage. It should blow over, but I'll put the article on my watchlist, and if things don't settle down, I'll protect the article and mediate a solution. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. I expect the issue to flare up again tomorrow when the editor who first added the long quotation comes back to find that another editor has removed it. It's rather dismaying, since that page has been civilized and peaceful for a long time. - By the way, I made some further improvements on the lead when I found a few free minutes earlier. - Macspaunday (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about your edit to repair the lead section to four paragraphs today after I pointed out the MoS five paragraph overflow to SilkTork earlier today on this very Talk page in the section above? @SilkTork; Once again, in two days you have managed to get the entire list of the 10 items which I was trying unsuccessfully to get into the article for over thirty days due to User:Macs various refusals to incorporate them. Many thanks SilkTork since the article looks shiny and new now, rather than weathered and stale in the old version. User:MartinEvans has made a useful edit on the article about Bloom which should be retained as informative and well-formulated. Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comma disambiguation on non-geographical article names

Hi . Re: this (you reverted the move I'd previously made...) - should geographical-style comma-disambiguation be used when the title isn't itself geographical? Looking at The_Olde_Bell it seems to me that the most apt is parenthetical disambiguation as 'The Olde Bell' is not a "lower-level administrative division" of Rye... If I'm incorrect then the rest of the Old Bells should be updated also. Cheers, Nikthestunned 11:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for getting in touch to clarify. Yes, the comma is correct. The name The Olde Bell could refer to a number of places, so disambiguation is needed. With pubs we use the name of the town or area where the pub is located as the disambiguater, this is both more WP:Natural, and fits in with WP:COMMADIS. We tend to only go for parenthetical disambiguation when the preferred methods of natural or comma don't work. If sources use either commna or brackets, we would incline to the comma, unless parenthesise was more commonly or widely used. So, yes, I agree, the rest of the articles should follow the same pattern, and was surprised they didn't, until I looked and noted that name changes to brackets occurred recently: [3] [4] [5]. This does happen as interpretation of guidelines can be a bit fuzzy at times, and there are often disagreements! Would you like to restore the articles, or shall I? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comments on frank lead

I made some comments on the Leo Frank lead that I would appreciate if you could post some comments on them. Keywaveclassic (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reverting my striking and deleting some sockpuppet edits. Hm. SPI? Doug Weller (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look shortly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look, and agree with Doug that it appears you are the person behind the blocked User:GingerBreadHarlot account. I looked at the contributions of that account, and agree with others that the contributions of that account are more distracting than helpful. A blocked account is not the same as a banned user, so the person behind a blocked account may create a new account, and edit productively. However, if they return to making controversial edits, and/or being confrontational, and/or dragging other volunteers into their concerns, they are going to call attention to themself, and their new account will be blocked. I would suggest that if you are the person behind GingerBreadHarlot you should avoid the Leo Frank article, and any other articles related to antisemitism. I have moved on from the Leo Frank article, the query raised is not a major issue, merely an editing question, so will not be responding further on this point. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bestseller

Hi SilkTork,

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I suppose I agree with you, but then there were 20 some pages which linked to the dab page. Do you think that "Bestseller" should instead be a broad concept page that discusses the notion of "bestseller" as media content that has a record number of sales? Or would it be OK to link to the dab page for those pages? Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "bestseller" is well established as meaning a best-selling book, so there is certainly a strong argument for the article Bestseller being primary for "bestseller". There is a hatnote in place on Bestseller directing readers who are looking for articles related to bestseller to the disamb page, so bestseller is covered.
I think, now that you raise the issue and I'm thinking about it, there might be a discussion around if "Best-selling (disambiguation)" should be created, and all articles using "best-selling" listed there, with links from Bestseller (disambiguation) to Best-selling (disambiguation) and vice versa.
There may also be room, as you suggest, for a broad concept page that covers both bestseller and best-selling, though I don't think that Bestseller should be that page. I think it would need to be a new page, though uncertain what it would be called, unless "Best-selling" is used. Mmm. Yes, I could see Best-selling as a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Davies

Why did you archive all the talk page from the Ray Davies article? Archiving is useful when talk pages are too long for easy scrolling, but that was hardly the case here. Further, leaving no text at all makes it confusing for the newcomer - it's not obvious to a person coming to the page that it is designed as a forum, because there is so much instruction at the top. How about if we at least return the most recent comment to the talk page, to make it a little less off-putting? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch, and I do understand your concern. What I did was a standard talkpage archive. We archive both when a talkpage gets too large, and when a talkpage gets stale. The most recent comment on Talk:Ray Davies was over a year ago made by an IP in response to a comment made in March 2006 when the article was tagged with a category saying that Davies was of Irish descent. That the category was removed over eight years ago, and so the question hasn't been relevant for over eight years, is one of the reasons we archive talkpages. I understand what you say about keeping at least one thread, but I do check recent threads to see if they are current or unresolved, and the most recent thread was three years old about some inappropriate external links. The matter is long dead, so keeping it alive would be unhelpful and inappropriate. I placed a talkheader template at the top of the talkpage which gives guidance and advice to users on creating discussions, and what sort of discussions are appropriate: it is sometimes not understood that talkpages are not forums, but places for discussing improvements to the article. The Foundation did experiment recently with inviting feedback on articles from readers, but this was found not to be useful, so the experiment was dropped. If you wish to revive the idea of encouraging forum discussions on article talkpages, you could raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but be aware that encouraging talkpage discussion is a perennial proposal so may not get much support. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was old, I'll grant you that. I find the talkheader template so vast that it's confusing to the newbie and I still think that leaving at least one comment as a visual guide would be helpful, rules be damned! But it's not a big deal; obviously this isn't an oft-used resource. When I said "forum," by the way, I meant the usual talk-page function of discussing the article, not something else. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could, if you wish, leave a message on Talk:Ray Davies inviting people to start a discussion. Or, if you feel {{Talk header}} is too vast, suggest improvements at Template talk:Talk header - you'll find there are people who agree with you that it's too information heavy. There are some who feel we shouldn't have the template at all, and it has numerous times been nominated for deletion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason I've been able to stay on Wikipedia for a dozen years without going insane is that I don't participate in template debates! But of course that means I can't really complain about them either. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can complain - "What is this life if, full of moan, we have no time to stand and groan". SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence

Hiya. Hate to bother you, but some months ago I sent you a redacted version of some e-mails I received about one of the parties in the above case. I was wondering whether you remember that, and, if you do, whether you think you would be interested in presenting your conclusions based on what you had seen to the ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can forward the email and my response to ArbCom if you think that might be helpful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objections to that. If, however, you have any first hand knowledge about any previous history of Hijiri88, it might be useful to make sure the arbs are aware of it. I am thinking both of a block he may or may not have had in the past (yes, I really am that vauge about it, because I only have a weak memory of it) and any particular abuse he may have suffered in the past, perhaps by the sockpuppeting stalker he rather regularly mentions, it might be useful for the arbs to know something about that as well. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryguyrocky

Most likely someone is going to revert my comment, but i hope you read this. You remember the user Ryguyrocky who was pretending to be an administrator and giving barnstars to his own accounts. Now he has opened an account named The Pancake of Heaven! . Check his talk page history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryguyrocky&action=history Even this time he gives welcome message to accounts created by himself. He has even copied my signature code as he must have seen i am blocked. Cosmic  Emperor 

I'll take a look. And those who watch my talkpage are sensible enough to not reverts comments on my talkpage, even by blocked users, as they know that's not my approach. However, even if well intentioned, editing on Wikipedia when blocked is not a good idea as it will seriously impact on any appeals to be unblocked. What Wikipedians like is 1) People who follow the rules, and 2) People who can be trusted. Block evasion is seen as evidence that a person can't be trusted, and as evidence that a person is deliberately breaking the rules even after a warning. If you want to be able to edit Wikipedia again as CosmicEmperor, you need to commit to not editing again as an IP account or under any other created account. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked, and I agree there's a strong likelihood (more likely than not likely) that this is the same person. I've looked through the user's contributions, and while they are not currently a useful contributor, they are not harmful. They appear to want to contribute, and are willing to learn. They will make mistakes (we all do), but provided they are moving in the right direction I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to take the standard offer by Thyrdulf and Seramphimblade, but socks were filing fake SPI against me and no one was able to track who the sockmaster is. The evidence by the sock starts as "Master sock CosmicEmperor has these fellow socks." During my block the Ip socks harassed me a lot by pinging me thirty times in Kasmir Conflict talk page, ANI, user talk pages; and i was unable to reply due to my block. I had no choice but file this SPI with a positive result. Kautilya3 was unaware that I am CosmicEmperor, so he thanked me on my Ip talk page. My first block was indefinite block which i didn't expect at all. At that time i was very tensed and was worried what should i write on my unblock request. At that time TopGun was giving me deletion notice of my sandbox where I had collected evidence of suspected tag teaming by three editors (including TopGun). You can understand that during those tense moments such messages on my talk pages were irritating ( As any red notification gave me hope that perhaps some administrator has reviewed my unblock request) . I removed the message with the edit summary "TopGun trying to bait when I am blocked". Gb Fan didn't like that and he said this What do you think TopGun is trying to bait you into doing?___ _____ _____ _______ _____ If you want to make your case for keeping the page, you can put it here and I will copy it over to the MFD page. Due to this comment by GB fan where he said he will copy my request, i asked him to save my redirect Big Hero 7 which was nominated for deletion. TopGun posted on my talk page stop canvassing to save your redirect. Then Beeblebrox revoked my talk page access with edit summary "inappropriate use of talk page while blocked". After that these IPs came for "Grave Dancing"and two times marked me and OccultZone as deceased wikipedians. 1, 2, 3, 4. Due to that TipToety protected the talk page with edit summary same as Beeblebrox. After the rejection of his RFA User:Supdiop went on disrupting and vandalising wikipedia. His block period increased but he was never indefinitely blocked in spite of his extremely gross comments on his talk page and IP socking as he had a clean past in Wikipedia. Later on he got lots of user sympathizing with him. I too had a clean past and i was also creating articles. But my first block was indefinite. I am very much convinced that there were double standards when it came to blocking of CosmicEmperor and Supdiop.Cosmic  Emperor 

What you are doing now is counter-productive. If you have issues with your block you need to follow the procedures. Try WP:UTRS or WP:BASC. I will not be responding further to any communications you make to me while blocked, as I don't want to encourage you to continue making a mistake. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For all you do for the project, cheers! Tiggerjay (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I do like a barnstar! SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOLz

I like when people correct their posts multiple times. It makes me look normal, or even good. If I could think of a barnstar for this, I would award it. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I do it too many times for it to be funny! But I find it both annoying and funny when it happens! I can imagine someone saying "Use the preview button", but, let's be honest, we only use the preview button when we are not sure - if we used it all the time it would slow us down so much we'd never get any bloody editing done! SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty I usually use the preview button, but I make so many typos that I don't notice them all even in preview, so I have to go back multiple times to correct (did I mention I never learned to touch-type?). I have actually been called out on the IMDB message boards for always editing my message-board posts (and I use preview mode there as well!). Someone (actually someone I genuinely like) said they found my constant editing after the fact "dishonest". What they don't understand is that I am cursed with an oversized impatience, an inability to type bordering on typing-dyslexia, and the reality of being a perfectionist and a professional editor/proofreader. Oy. Softlavender (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_36&oldid=1141021736"