User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 42

Hi! This is part of SilkTork's archives of past talkpage discussions.

Feel free to wander around and browse at will. Old archives from 2006 to 2012 are here. More recent archives are indexed here.

Tea and biscuits are available on request at my talkpage.

← Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43 →

Richard0048 and Consensus

Hello! As the involved admin on the Eritrea page you will definitely be interested in this Edit War Report (see here: [1]) about Richard0048. AcidSnow (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that has been dealt with. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Librarianship and human rights listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Librarianship and human rights. Since you had some involvement with the Librarianship and human rights redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pushing a rock up hill ...

hi Silk Tork ! If you have spare time .... remember the Janis article that you made into a nice, tight, well-written piece ? Well, some doofus gossip columnist has been at it. Some of these people must have grown up on As the World Turns. I can't edit that thing because I'd shred it entirely and cause a ruckus but you are suave and debonnaire with them much-vaunted personal relationship skills. If you have time, that is ... Otherwise, I should just stay away from that article. Why are people such grovel-in-the-mud petty washerwomen ? It doesn't add to our understanding of anyone's significance to the world :(

Thanks ! 210.22.142.82 (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll add it to my to-do list, but I'm not that active on Wikipedia these days so it may be a while before I take a look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Frank FAC

Hi Steve, you had helped me with the GA review for Leo Frank last year and I just nominated it for FAC. If you aren't completely sick of the article by now and have had enough time to recuperate, feel free to leave some comments. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I am not so active on Wikipedia these days, but I did find that article quite interesting, so will take a look at the FAC to see what concerns are being raised. I don't think I will have the time to give a FA review, but will see if I can help out in addressing concerns where possible. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-alcoholic drinks has been nominated for discussion

Category:Non-alcoholic drinks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hot drinks has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hot drinks, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the page history, you created this (and the one above) as 'beverages' and it was renamed today (via a page move) as 'drinks'. Oculi (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would likely have been following the existing naming convention on Wikipedia. I can't tell you why "beverage" got such a hold on Wikipedia, but I'm glad someone is now tackling it, as "drink" is the more appropriate term. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d's future RFA

You wanted to nominate @Mar4d: as a potential administrator. you can explain why you wish to be an admin, can demonstrate some understanding of Wikipedia's procedures and processes, or know where to go for guidance, and are confident enough to go through a RfA, please get in touch with me. We can talk about it some more, and if all looks OK, I'll nominate you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So, will you keep your word to nominate @Mar4d:, after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acejet/Archive#22 November 2015?

Sorry, I am not that active on Wikipedia at the moment; in March I closed down my project to give guidance to potential admins - it is unlikely I will be nominating anyone in the near future. I suggest you try Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, SilkTork/Archive2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wiki Pancake ^{✉ 📖} 14:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Connected contributors has been nominated for discussion

Category:Connected contributors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drinks

Do you have any views on the other 'beverages' categories listed at User:Oculi/beverages? It would be relatively easy to open a cfd on them, but easier still to do nothing. (It's not quite the same rationale as 'beverage' is an adjective in 'beverage company'.) Oculi (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to bite the bullet and change all examples of beverages into drinks. As you have pointed out I have contributed to the current situation, so I am willing to do my bit to help sort it out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we can rename the Beverages Task Force. Should it be 'drink company' or 'drinks company'? There's nothing much to do other than start a cfd, await its conclusion and let bots proceed. Oculi (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now at cfd. Oculi (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support at the cfd would however be welcome. (Surely you weren't going to move 500+ categories and recat 13,645 pages one by one?) Oculi (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised there were so many beverage cats when I started! ;-) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support at the new cfd would still be welcome. It seems to be invisible. Oculi (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have: [2]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the 'old' (visible) one on 31 Aug. The 'new' (invisible) one is on 1 Sept. Oculi (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The second one is asking for "drink" father than "drinks". Might it be an idea to let a bot run though the sub-categories of Category:Drinks changing beverage to drinks, and let it finish that, then look at the situations where "drink" might be more appropriate? In many cases of those sub-cats, "drinks" would still be acceptable. The use of "drinks industry" and "drinks company" is about the same as "drink industry" and "drink company" so I think it most cases using drinks wouldn't be a problem. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cfd-bot (eg Cydebot) will rename the cats listed (and tagged) in the first nom to the names proposed in the first nom (assuming it passes as looks likely). It won't do anything to cats not listed. Nothing will happen to those in the 2nd nom unless the 2nd nom passes. The first nom is 'beverages' (noun) to 'drinks' (per Drink and Category:Drinks). The 2nd nom is 'beverage' (adjective) to 'drink'. There isn't an article on Drink company/Drink industry (or Drinks company/Drinks industry) and Beverage company redirects to Beverage industry, but there is Category:Food and drink companies. Oculi (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow beer - third opinion

Hi SilkTork, I'm looking for a third opinion about Snow beer's claim to be the best selling beer in the world - see Talk page and recent history for the issue at hand. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 18:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That seemed to have done the job. Owen× ☎ 20:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that the IP had responded to my comment, so I've just given a reply. That may well stir things up again, but that's OK. Better for things to get stirred and settled now, once and for all, than for the dispute to simmer and re-emerge in a few weeks/months/years time. I will, this time, put the article on my watchlist! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish and Irish ale listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Scottish and Irish ale. Since you had some involvement with the Scottish and Irish ale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, SilkTork. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)