User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 20

← Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21 →

Incident

Regarding the Infobox case (on Götterdämmerung, I pleaded already like Abraham with God, please forgive me) you said about the Planyavsky incident "That was one incident out of a number that I took into consideration." Please give me one more. - You will probably know that two editors left over the case, and I left the contentious projects not to cause more trouble. Please, no more victims, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

ps: looking at the incident again that you mentioned, Andy didn't even insert an infobox, he only got one up to the normal position.. Consider mercy, with me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right: "Discussions matter. And the tone of our voice, and the reasoned quality of our arguments can achieve more profound change, much quicker, than passion and resentment." You are right, I became too passionate once here on your talk. But please show me one instance in an infobox discussion where I raised my voice or lost being reasonable. - Please visit my user page: I cherish peace above all, and that "every user is a human being". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, we've had evidence that you got involved in agitating to have infoboxes on certain FA around the time they are listed on the main page, even though you were aware that infoboxes in such articles was controversial and opposed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you call "agitating" that I placed an infobox on the talk to remain there, as suggested by Newyorkbrad (Brad on Boxes) in cases of controversy, then you are right. Please look at the discussion that followed, if you see me agitating. - No discussion was necessary, the infobox (developed in March in my sandbox, then still hoping it would be useful) was meant to stay there, what was wrong with that? (I never did it again, nor will I, trying to learn from my mistakes.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You say: "However, I can see that if Committee members are purely going by the difs". Please edit your comment about the diff we talked about above, Planyavsky: Andy did not "deliberately parachutes into infobox editing disputes in such contentious areas", - he moved an infobox to the position in an article that I had written, not contentious at all. - Diffs show than Andy, Nikkimaria and I made about the same mistakes, - please treat us about the same. Perhaps imagine I am your mother, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point I have to say your communications on this matter to me are not helpful. It is highly unlikely I will be responding further. "Perhaps imagine I am your mother" has crossed a line in appropriate communication. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry and will not bother you again with my feelings, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	To SilkTork, for your contributions as moderator of the Tea Party movement structured discussion. You did a lot of good to that discussion, and I only remembered I hadn't thanked you for it when we were putting the finishing touches to the arbitration decision today. Keep up the fantastic work! AGK [•] 00:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AGK. I do like a barnstar. I'm aware that the moderated discussion did not achieve what I hoped, but I would agree that some good came out of it, and I feel that some of the contributors valued it, even though it was at times stressful for all concerned, so I do appreciate this one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Interac (Japan)

Hi Silk Tork,

You came by Interac (Japan) in May and added an unbalanced tag. I edited a portion of the imbalanced material out, but it seems that a couple edits were made on 8/23 and 8/30 that reverted and further expanded some of the imbalanced material.

Could you come back and have a look at it again? I'm afraid that the situation with this page has been going on for a long time and it looks like it might need more regular admin attention. Thanks.Taurus669 (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look later. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the contentious section, and advised the contributor to discuss the matter on the talkpage. I will watch the article and talkpage and assist in any discussion to find an appropriate solution. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. I will work on editing the rest of the page for accuracy and current content.Taurus669 (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mediation/Moderated discussion

I'm interested in exploring improvements to our consensus seeking processes, particularly in the case of "larger" issues (e.g infoboxes) where traditional measures have failed. My very limited view of how this would be organized includes structured or moderated discussions as an important step. I see that we have such a concept, documented at places such as Mediation and Mediation_Committee/Policy. I have some questions, but I'll read through some of the material, to see if I can answer my own questions. However, I do have two specific questions:

• I thought I would start by reviewing some prior cases. I clicked on "Cases", which brought me to Requests for mediation/Tasks. I expected to see an archive of past cases. Is there one?
• I see that you conducted a Moderated discussion. Is this a mediation, subject to the Mediation Policy, or something else? I was expecting to see an initial specification of the rules for the discussion, but did not find them. I thought perhaps they were implicit, if this is a mediation and can refer to relevant Mediation pages, but at the moment, I am unclear about the status of the moderated discussion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There are various types of dispute discussion. They occur informally every day on the talkpages of articles and/or users and/or WikiProjects. In addition there are organised informal discussions, such as Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. The only formal discussion venue for content matters is Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. However, if the community decides that a RfC is going to be formal, then they can do that. And they can do that without looking to ArbCom for authority. Usually when the community decides that a discussion is going to be formal, they will appoint three admins to close the discussion.

I have not to my knowledge used the Mediation Committee, either to seek or provide assistance. Though I did help out with the informal mediation process before it was closed in favour of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

As regards the moderated discussion - it was just that. It was a discussion which I moderated. It was not mediation - it was an attempt to allow the participants to talk together without people becoming abusive or dominating the discussion. It developed its own rules as it went along, and I became much more involved that I had anticipated. While it did not achieve what I had hoped (a neutral, non-abusive consensus seeking forum for those wishing to improve the article), some progress on the article was made. That it was conducted by a Committee member during an active ArbCom case involving the contributors, was part of the reason it failed. But I thought it was worth an attempt to resolve the conflict directly. While I didn't enjoy the experience, it did remind me that I am probably more geared up to mediation of content than arbitration of behaviour. I would prefer to assist people to resolve conflict and build the encyclopedia, than to restrict misbehaving people from editing. However, it also reminded me how time consuming and stressful both activities are, and when my time on the Committee is up at the end of this year, I will be taking something of a break from dispute resolution for a while. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I am working on one of those things which will probably go nowhere, but sometimes you need to tilt at windmills. In short, a three step process (brainstorming session, followed by moderated discussion, followed by community RFC) which might be suitable for some issues. I have some thoughts on how the moderated discussion ought to be structured, but before I fresh out my own thoughts, I wanted to see what has been done. Which is why I am looking through the Mediation history and asking about the Tea Party Moderated discussion. Now that I see it was not a mediation, I'll inquire elsewhere for more info on that process. And while I think even you will agree that Arbcom has shortcomings, at least it exists. I think we have holes on the content side, so that's what is motivating me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Speak to User:Steven Zhang. Dispute resolution is his thing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much

Hi SilkTork. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the barnstar. It's about the nicest thing that's happened to me on Wikipedia. I've long meant to thank you and several other arbiters, such as Roger Davies and Jclemens, for your close examination of the evidence. I was impressed. Thanks again. TimidGuy (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you help?

Having found your name listed among editors that may want to jump into edit disputes, I am posting this note rather than doing a full-blown dispute resolution, with wich I'd rather not bother. Article in question is Wolf attacks on humans. If you're interested, I've posted a lot of stuff on talk page there. When I try to remove material that I consider to be blatantly lacking good sourcing, I get shot down, so to speak. My main contention is merely that topic is science (animal behavior) and sources should be weighted accordingly. BTW I've held hunting licenses for bear, deer, turkey and small game including canines, but not wolves.76.250.61.95 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look, and you do appear to be removing sourced content from the article in a concerning manner. I also note that despite being reverted by several different users, you continued to remove the content. Such behaviour tends to alarm experienced users, and may result in blocking your account - see WP:Edit war. In general users tend to follow a procedure called Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is that you may be WP:Bold in removing content, but when someone reverts your edit, you enter into a discussion rather than getting into an edit war. I note that you have made some comments on the article talkpage. That is good. You now need to explain your concerns more fully and clearly on the talkpage, and in the meantime stop removing sourced content from the article. Bear in mind that we often make progress very slowly on Wikipedia! If you feel you are expressing yourself clearly, and other contributors are not appropriately listening to or engaging with your concerns, then please get in touch with me again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think she was well meaning, but it looks like she allowed her views on the matter to develop into a WP:Supervote. She took a comment by someone unrelated to the discussion in hand, and used that comment to trump consensus in the discussion, even though it's just the view of one individual, and is not based on guideline, policy or consensus. Indeed, Fut. Per.'s comment runs against the consensus of the mediation that NYB closed. I have left a comment suggesting that she vacate her close, and allow someone else to close the discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort. What now would be the next step regarding an effort to remove this contradictory and contentious passage from the MoS, or to at least determine the wider consensus? This doesn't pertain to article content, so it would seem that a RfM would be inappropriate. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I would hope that the closer would reflect on what I have said, and of her own accord vacate the close, but if she doesn't, then it would be appropriate to take the matter to ANI. She's not being asked to change her mind (that would be inappropriate), but - as her close is at best disputed and at worse wrong - stepping aside for someone else to close it would be the best course of action. If her close is the correct one, then someone else will close it the same way she did, so there is nothing for her to lose if she is right in her thinking. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked, and she has vacated the close. Now waiting for someone else to close the discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering

Hello SilkTork,

Thanks for the friendly welcome.

Would you be willing to give some feedback? I’m new to WP and want to get off to a good start.

I’m a technical editor for an engineering and construction firm—with little time, but want to help as I can. So, I’ve been copyediting a bit as I research topics. For example, I have been doing some quick edits for capitalization, grammar and style on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering

Here’s the problem: There’s been an anonymous user who repeatedly changes my editing back to capitalizing common nouns and generic use of titles, etc., on the above article. (There have been several anonymous IP addresses for the edits, but probably the same person.) From the lack of care in the final product, it appears they are an engineer, and not an editor. Thus, the topic is dear to their heart and their persistance is great.

Rather than just using an undo when I saw them in the middle of reverting things last evening, I waited until this morning. I tried leaving a message at their last IP address talk page. Then I realized that the anonymous-IP user will most likely have a different address next time and won’t see my message. I’ve tried leaving a brief explanation when I leave edits, but they aren’t looking at those or are ignoring them.

Would you be willing to check out their latest version and my latest version (Sep. 23 and 24)? And perhaps my message on their talk page? Please let me know what you think. Then—if my interpretations and edits have been mostly correct—what do I do with repeated incorrect reverts from an anonymous user?

Kind regards, Bob, Desertroadbob (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a tricky one because the person uses a different IP each time they edit, so messages wouldn't be noticed, and they don't appear to be responding to your edit summary comments. A range-block would be difficult as the range appears quite large, and I would need to check that nobody else is editing within that range. What I have done is to semi-protect the article for three weeks. This will prevent that editor from editing the article, which may make them take notice that what they are doing is inappropriate (they can't have completely missed that their edits are being reverted, because they are reverting back). I don't think they mean any harm - I think it's likely that they are unaware of our style guidelines, and feel that it is you who are in the wrong! You did the right thing in approaching someone else for assistance after first attempting to discuss the matter with the other editor. And that is exactly what I would advise you to do if it happens again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Here's a biscuit to go with your tea. Thanks for the chat and for taming the IP-hopping edits! Desertroadbob (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Promontory Financial Group

Hello SilkTork,

I'm working with (trying to) another editor named Tri-L on the Promontory Financial Group page but the editor has crossed the line with their insults and abrasiveness. I fear that with the editor's demeanor they will be set off further by bringing this to the attention of the noticeboards.

I guess I'm mainly seeking advice because the changes that we started working through are just factual errors. We agreed to go through it section by section and their grammar (or possibly English) is poor. I'm not trying to drastically take away any of the content the editor has updated/added (as you will see from my original edits that they reverted) and they continue to harass with inappropriate personal attacks.

I reviewed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution and we have a problem because the editor Tri-L has gone out of the first 3 stages of the Graham's Hierachy of Disagreement Pyramid. They have violated Contradiction, Responding to Tone, Ad Hominem and Name-Calling. Can you please do me a favor and just take a look at the Talk page when you have a moment? Thanks for your time. --Monstermike99 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on discussion when there are disagreements or doubts about how to proceed, and that appears to be what is going on. You are both talking to each other, and you are working together to reach a solution. Sometimes it takes time, and it requires patience and tolerance, and sometimes a thick skin! People are sometimes a little abrupt or maybe even rude, and that can be unpleasant, but it is also an occasional unfortunate aspect of editing Wikipedia. My own tip for when people are a bit rude, or the discussion gets heated, is to type out your hot response, then edit it down to the polite and calm response before posting it. You may have to edit a few times if someone has really got you upset! If someone has clearly stepped over the line you could, politely, let them know, or - as now - contact someone for assistance, or even a chat to put things in perspective. Another option is to go edit elsewhere for a while. There's a lot of work that needs doing on Wikipedia. And when you come back to the contentious article, you may find the editor has lost interest, and you can edit it without conflict. I would normally drop the other editor a friendly note to make them aware that their talkpage comments can be taken as aggressive, but that would likely draw their attention to this discussion, and I note you wish to keep the matter low key. I wish you well. And be reassured you are doing the right thing in talking through the concerns on the talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep plugging away on other entries to give him a chance to calm down. Much appreciated --98.109.86.212 (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

beer

After four years of semi-protection, editing has died down a bit. Shall it stay this way? --George Ho (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The history of vandalism on that article is such that I feel unprotecting it would not be helpful.

Anyway, thanks for the nudge. Giving it a glance just now, I think it needs a bit of a tidy up. It wouldn't get passed as a Good Article these days! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

TfD notice of WPUSA banner

Hi SilkTork, I've noticed that there's still a TfD notice that appears next to {{WikiProject United States}}, even though the discussion has been closed for a few days. Any idea why that might be? Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The notice has been removed. You may have a stale cache - see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Move of Plantain (cooking)

I strongly object to your move of this article without establishing consensus first. There have been substantial discussions over a long period which you have over-ridden.

You have also left the talk pages in a mess by not doing the move properly. Please at least complete your move by fixing them, in particularly moving Talk:Plantain (cooking) to Talk:Plantain to accompany the article move. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, my bad. I hadn't finished tidying up, and I hadn't looked at the talkpage for prior discussions. I have now completed the talkpage move. I will happily explain on the talkpage why I feel that plantain is the WP:Primary topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do. I have started a new section. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Halifax Area Middle School

Hello SilkTork, You just merged Halifax Area Middle School into Halifax Area School District. While I personally agree on this measure, there was almost no discussion on the talk page for the merger. Let's wait a little bit and see if we can get some more views on this before proceeding. Thanks! Snood1205 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No need. It has been proposed since September 2010 with no objection. The tag has not been removed, and nobody commented against the suggestion. I am cleaning up the merge backlog. If you have an objection, that would be valid, as we could discuss it. But as you agree, there is no point. I will proceed again with the redirect. Thanks for your attention in the matter! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Aircraft Carrier

Hey, I saw your discussion with User:BillCJ on the Aircraft Carrier talk and I was interested in your ideas on expanding the article (especially "about what an aircraft carrier is, the various parts of it, how it runs, how it is powered, how it is constructed, how airplanes are stored and transported to the flight deck, etc"). Would you have any ideas on going about research towards this apart from a quick google? It seems most of the current contributors are engaged in a massive debate over classification of carriers rather than these core issues with the article. Thanks in advance, Techhead7890 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That was a while ago, but I do recall that editing on that article was difficult as some of my edits were reverted. Have things improved? It's a fairly big topic that would require a decent amount of background reading and research. Working with helpful and co-operative editors would be fun - but not if the folks there are still hostile. There are plenty of other articles equally important that need improvement, where it wouldn't be a battle to make improvements. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, most of the editors seem to be engaged in a massive debate on Talk:Aircraft_carrier about what is and isn't a carrier... (which seems slightly absurd or borderline-OR) - So I sadly don't believe that much has changed, the page is still stagnant. I was mainly thinking about piping in a few improvements here and there at the weak points of the page to set it up for others - but really, to be honest, if you have other pages that need improvement... that could be an interesting and more satisfying alternative. Techhead7890 (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't get as much time these days to work on article writing, so when I do, I prefer my efforts to be trouble-free. That way I remain positive, and as such feel encouraged to do more. Hopefully when my time on ArbCom is over at the end of the year, I will feel more motivated to get back to article writing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:The Rolling Stones albums

A tag has been placed on Template:The Rolling Stones albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the problem. I see what happened - the main RS template was duplicated by this IP account edit: [1], and that had never been reverted. I've restored the main template now. Having a distinct album template makes sense as a stand alone - same as the singles and the videos templates, as this gives more flexible functionality. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks for sorting it out. Either solution was fine for me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#User:Op47 modifying what other users said in a Talk page and Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico

SilkTork,

I am sorry to have to trouble you, someone has reported me to WP:ANI without bothering to inform me (i.e. I have discovered this by accident). Do I need to respond to this? or is the hostile reception that the report has received sufficient? Also, I would appreciate it if you would look at the talk page that is causing the problem. I have tried to resolve the problem by creating an RfC, but an editor has seen fit to place a warning on the RfC with his personal opinion that amounts to a personal attack. If that can be removed then I am sure Wikipedia would be all the better for it. I am not looking for sanctions as such, if you thought I had a case for that, then it would be better to go to ANI myself. I am just concerned that a) he is trying to get his own way by discrediting the RfC and b) I would like a second opinion incase I really am doing something wrong. Regards Op47 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have spoken with the other editor, and will keep an eye on the article for a while. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your actions related to Mayoralty in Puerto Rico

Hi, The actions you performed regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico and List of current mayors of Puerto Rico have been reverted. Please see the rationale at Talk:Mayors of Puerto Rico and join the discussion there. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked for disruptive and abrasive behaviour. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Silk Tork. Not only did you have a quick look as I asked, but totaly sorted out the problem. Please accept this barn star to add to your collection. Op47 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For completely solving an otherwise insoluble problem Op47 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you - I always appreciate a barn star. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Op47, if SilkTork does not mind, I would also like your input on my questions below; I saw you were one of the editors warring with Ahnoneemoos. Did you call in an admin back during the Nov'12 portion as well? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you dead certain you did not just ban the only editor doing any work on that article?

Hope that got your attention.  :-) I was reading one of Ahnoneemoos's ... err... okay, this is a talkpage, please don't give me trouble about the posessive. Now where was I... rare essays published in the passive voice by Ahnoneemoos on the reasons that the number of wikipedia editors was declining, and had just finished writing up an mini-essay on how Bad Cops were misusing their ban hammers, when I visited Ahnone.... the talkpage owned by Ahnoneemoos and saw that Right This Instant they were involved in a dispute with yourself, and that you had given them a timeout, to sit in the corner and think about what they had done. Well, *that* seemed like an ironic twist. So, I did a little reading and tried to figure out the situation. If you don't mind, I'd like to talk it over here with you, and get your motivations, and your take on the idea that reverts and ban-hammers are actually *not* the best way to grow the number of contributors to wikipedia articles. As opposed to, say, meta-discussions *about* wikipedia articles, or meta-meta-discussions about theoretically *editing* wikipedia articles by hypothetical editors that may or may not exist, in the reasonably near future, if driven away. WP:BITE is the key here. I have plenty more to say, but in case you are available on wikipedia this weekend, I will go ahead and submit this, to give you a heads-up that somebody is chatting your direction. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If a user is being abrasive, uncooperative, and disruptive, and rather than responding to consensus and reason they continue to behave as though everyone who disagrees with them is wrong, then yes they get blocked in order to allow collaborative work to continue. I don't think this particular user quite understands what they are doing wrong, and that concerns me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure! Umm.. wait. Citation needed. Abrasive? Uncooperative? Disruptive? Is two against one consensus? Is it possible that everyone who disagrees with them, on some talkpage about some article about the mayors of a small island, way off in the boonies (figuratively speaking -- no offense to puerto rico -- I'm just talking about the lack of attention the article receives) of wikipedia, is in fact ... pause... The Consensus ... of all right-thinking beings in the universe? I agree they don't understand what they did wrong. Neither do I. Please explain to me as if I was not involved. I wasn't, but that's beside the point. Wikipedia is not a kindergarten. You cannot put somebody in timeout just because they were failing to act like a well-behaved kindergartener, standing in line, doing as they are told. From my cursory look at the dispute, I'm leaning towards Ahnoneemoos having policy on their side. How were they wrong, exactly? Honest question. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict -- I will read and respond to you above in a jiff.] First off, I will start off by pointing out that you and Ahnoneemoos have conflicting philosophies about our mutual purpose, here.

• #1A. "We are not the internet, we are an encyclopaedia." --SilkTork
• #1B. "Wikipedia should be the sum of all human knowledge." --Ahnoneemoos (more or less exact cite)
• #2A. "Every word we add to Wikipedia matters." --SilkTork
• #2B. "Every word we DO NOT add to Wikipedia matters." --Ahnoneemoos, kinda sorta, taking some creative liberty with their true thoughts
• #3A. "Deletionist: someone who is willing to revert and ban over a single not-quite-right word." --SilkTork, *very* rough caricature, taking significant creative liberty with their true thoughts
• #3B. "Inclusionist: every bit of knowledge is worth saving, even if we edit it out later." --Ahnoneemoos, *somewhat* rough caricature, taking some creative liberty with their true thoughts

I definitely lean more inclusionist (albeit with a strong dose of law&order to fight vandals and spammers and other unsavory characters). I am 100% with Ahnoneemoos about #2B (otherwise I would be against an *open* encyclopedia and prefer Nupedia/Citizendium/etc). As for #1A, I'm 100% with SilkTork there; Ahnoneemoos is flat wrong... but it is a somewhat subtle distinction. Arguably, wikipedia ought to cover every major branch of knowledge, deeply and substantively. WP:NOTPAPER Actually, when the web was young, *I* thought that is what it would become... now that I'm older, I see my mistake, and use wikipedia as a substitute for what I hoped the internet would turn out to be.  :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I totally embrace different, including conflicting, viewpoints. What I cannot embrace is abrasive and uncooperative behaviour. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are more intellectually flexible than me. I like to think of things in terms of right, and wrong. Ahnoneemoos is wrong that wikipedia should include everything there is. WP:EVERYTHING I'm not sure whether you were wrong to ban them, or not, but I intend to find out. This is of interest to me in a more general sense -- I think that part of the trouble wikipedia experiences with getting new editors involved, and new admins involved, is that current admins are too free with the ban hammer. I'm not saying that is the case here, but I would like to use this one as a case-study, to probe your thinking on where exactly that line is. I mean, if I tell you that you are wrong, and that every word we add to wikipedia does *not* matter, that's not being abrasive. I could sugar it up, and say, well, you are entitled to your point of view, and I like you as a person, but I think I would have to suggest that maybe your assertion is too strong? Gag. "Some people say weasel words are great!" To quote your userpage.  :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I think if you don't find that user abrasive and uncooperative, then I think we have to agree to differ, and I don't think I will be engaging further in this conversation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly your right to refuse to discuss you actions. But it seems a poor way to run a railroad. You were just involved in some case about the Ayn Rand article, which you closed by pointing out that sometimes people make mistakes. You seemed to have the right idea, there. Of course, there *is* a right and a wrong way to write the article in question -- either the lady is a philosopher, or she is not. Either she is from Russia -- the previous edit war on that article -- or she is not. But your decision was about administrative penalty for behavior, not about article-content. That is also your position here, with Ahnoneemoos: that you are administering a specific penalty for specific behavior, rather that blocking them so you get your way in the article. If enough people were to become interested in the article, and decide that the proposal to maintain two separate lists was more kosher, then you would go along with the consensus. Be that as it may, your criteria seem to indicate that you did not hear me the first time, so allow me to repeat: I was not involved. I have never edited with Ahnoneemoos before. How could I find them abrasive or uncooperative? All I've done is read one of their userpage essays, and look through the edit-history of their conflict with you and Op47 and Mercy11 and Timtrent and a bunch of other people. Reading the *contents* of the 25-kilobyte talkpage, and the 10-kilobyte-or-so of article content, which the edit war concerned, is something I'll do if you absolutely insist... or you can just give me the 100-word summary. I'm not the inquisition, here to get your confession, or else. But I *do* think that admins use the ban-hammer too often, and so I'm trying to find out what they are thinking. This case is particular fresh in your memory, and since I happened to run across it, I figured it would not hurt to ask. If you decide you have no further interest in the discussion, that's up to you. I won't be offended particularly. If so, is it okay for me to post the rest of my thoughts here, in case you change your mind at some point, and decide to come back later? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Guess that would be a big-nope? In that case, I'll put my further comments over at my own talkpage -- easier for me if you reply there anyways, since I'll get a popup. I would point out, though, that your decision to stop listening to me, because you *think* I might disagree with you (something which is not at all certain to turn out to be the truth), does contradict the Obama quote you have right at the top: I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Anyhoo, as I said, I'm not too offended. I'll go read the gory details for myself, and you are welcome to comment over on my page if you like. See you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

details of the case-study conflict

You can delete this from your talkpage (or archive it or collapsible-hat-tag it or whatever) if you feel it gets in the way, after our discussion. These are copied straight from the relevant pages, but I edited them to remove excess parens and such.

 
Summary of the contents of the 1500-word article:  

	122-word summary 
	279-word bkgd 
	143-word powers & reqs 
	231-word removal & election 
	519-word list now 
	212-word refs 

Summary of work accomplished since January 2012:  

	Ahnoneemoos has performed several re-reverts on various adversaries, and sometimes tagged.  Additions to the article difficult to judge, but definitely kilobytes.  Comments:  verbose.  10900 + 11400 talkpage bytes.  

	SilkTork has performed one massive revert on Ahnon, plus cleaned up the see-also.  Moved content from a list-page to this page, no net size gain.  Comments:  closed talkpage, banned Ahnon for 60 hours.  zero + 1800 talkpage bytes. 
	Op47 has performed one massive revert on Ahnon, plus deleted a move-tag.  No additions at all.  Comments:  no concensus(sic).  zero + 4600 talkpage bytes.  

	Timtrent has performed one massive revert on Ahnon, plus modified a navtag.  Filled in 32 references adding 2000 bytes of content.  Comments:  duplicating is inappropriate.  4700 + zero talkpage bytes.  
	Mercy11 has performed three massive reverts on Ahnon, plus inserted one cn-tag.  No additions at all.  Comments:  use sandbox, diminished quality, uncited material.  3000 + zero talkpage bytes.  

	24.54.246.74 has performed no massive reverts on anybody, and modified no tags.  Rearranged list of current mayors slightly, no net size gain.  Comments:  n/a.  zero + zero talkpage bytes.  
	Good Olfactory has performed no massive reverts on anybody, and modified category tags.  No additions at all.  Comments:  n/a.  zero + zero talkpage bytes.  

Detailed history of the slow edit-war on the article, and the chatter on the talkpage, grouped by timespan:  

	15:17 12oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎m 26163 +9907‎ Reverted edits by Ahnoneemoos (talk) to last version by SilkTork
	14:20 12oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16256 -9907‎ rv: per WP:RFC in order to allow the discussion to extend up to 30 days since so few people have participated
	18:07 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎m 26163     0‎ SilkTork moved page Mayoralty in Puerto Rico to Mayors in Puerto Rico: In line with other such articles
	18:06 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  26163   -58‎ →‎See also: cleanup
	16:58 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  26221 +9965‎ →‎Current mayors: merge from List of current mayors of Puerto Rico per talkpage consensus
	14:24  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎m 16256     0‎ →‎References
	04:43  4oct'13‎ 24.54.246.74‎  16256    -1‎ →‎Current mayors
	04:02  3oct'13‎ 24.54.246.74‎  16257   +13‎ →‎Current mayors
	03:58  3oct'13‎ 24.54.246.74‎  16244   -27‎ →‎Current mayors
	03:43  3oct'13‎ 24.54.246.74‎  16271   +14‎ →‎Current mayors
	22:42 29sep'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16257  +142‎ 
	19:30 29sep'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16115 +5641‎ Undid revision 575036512 by Op47 (talk) rv: see talk page and WP:EMBED
	19:08 29sep'13‎ Op47 	   ‎  10474 -5641‎ Undid revision 574997702 by Ahnoneemoos (talk) Please see talk page
	13:00 29sep'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16115 +5641‎ →‎Current mayors

t	13:07 13oct'13‎ SilkTork	   ‎  38365    +1‎ →‎Threaded discussion: typo
t	05:57 13oct'13‎ Kingdylan   ‎m 38364  +147‎ 
t	15:23 12oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  38217 +1715‎ commenting
t	14:29 12oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  36502   +58‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	14:28 12oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  36444  +788‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	14:22 12oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  35656 -1359‎ rv: per WP:RFC in order to allow the discussion to extend up to 30 days since so few people have participated
t	18:07 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎m 37015     0‎ SilkTork moved page Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico to Talk:Mayors in Puerto Rico: In line with other such articles
t	16:58 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  37015 +1359‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors: closed discussion
t	12:06 11oct'13‎ SilkTork    ‎  35656   +29‎ tags
t	17:53  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  35627  +834‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	17:47  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  34793 +1965‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	17:39  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  32828 +1941‎ →‎Survey
t	17:38  6oct'13‎ Op47          30887  +910‎ Threaded discussion
t	17:20  6oct'13‎ Op47          29977  +849‎ Answer
t	14:22  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  29128  +352‎ →‎Survey
t	14:17  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  28776   +12‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	14:11  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  28764  +894‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors
t	14:03  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  27870 +1280‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	13:54  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  26590  +216‎ →‎Survey
t	13:52  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  26374  +791‎ →‎Survey
t	13:05  6oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  25583  +241‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors
t	11:48  6oct'13‎ Op47          25342 +1881‎ RfC
t	04:41  5oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎m 23461     0‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	04:40  5oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  23461  +923‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors
t	02:14  5oct'13‎ Kingdylan   ‎  22538  +148‎ →‎Survey
t	22:28  4oct'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  22390  +905‎ →‎Threaded discussion
t	18:52  4oct'13‎ Dailycare   ‎  21485  +296‎ →‎Survey
t	14:00  4oct'13‎ Legobot     ‎  21189   +14‎ Adding RFC ID.
t	13:20  4oct'13‎ Op47          21175  +573‎ →‎RFc for list of mayors: new section
t	19:29 29sep'13‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  20602  +230‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	19:12 29sep'13‎ Op47          20372  +381‎ The list of current mayors...
	
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	
	18:48 12may'13‎ Op47 	   ‎  10474   -90‎ Remove move tag, no concensus to do this at this time.
	
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	
	01:23 25dec'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  10564  -133‎ 
	
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	
	08:55 30nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  10697  +164‎ Filling in 11 references using Reflinks
	08:51 30nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  10533 +1826‎ Filling in 21 references using Reflinks
	05:52 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   8707  +355‎ →‎Background
	04:18 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   8352  +768‎ →‎Background
	03:54 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7584  +109‎ 
	03:53 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7475    +2‎ →‎Background
	03:53 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7473  +136‎ →‎Background
	03:48 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7337  +186‎ →‎Background
	03:30 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7151  +199‎ 
	03:28 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6952   +79‎ →‎Background
	03:25 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6873  +116‎ →‎Background
	03:14 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6757  +106‎ →‎Background
	03:11 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6651   +88‎ +1 reference
	03:06 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6563   +49‎ 
	03:05 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6514   +63‎ +1 reference
	02:58 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6451   +75‎ +1 reference
	02:45 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6376 +2740‎ Undid revision 525635611 by Mercy11 (talk) rv per WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS. WP:BURDEN also states: consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step which you clearly have not done
	
	02:04 30nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎   3636 -2740‎ Per talk page. Uncited material
	18:15 29nov'12‎ AnomieBOT   ‎m  6376   +19‎ Dating maintenance tags: {{Move portions from}}
	17:54 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   6357  +138‎ →‎Election
	
	17:34 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎m  6219   +23‎ →‎References: |state=autocollapse for both navigation templates, which distract the reader from the article
	17:29 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   6196 -5936‎ →‎Current mayors: duplicating a list held elsewhere is inappropriate
	16:48 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12132   -86‎ 
	16:44 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12218  -242‎ 
	16:41 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12460    +5‎ 
	16:41 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12455  +435‎ 
	16:37 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12020    +9‎ 
	16:35 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12011   +35‎ 
	16:32 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11976   -51‎ 
	16:31 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12027  +429‎ 
	16:13 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11598   +15‎ →‎References
	16:11 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11583    -1‎ →‎Background
	15:50 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11584   +80‎ 
	15:34 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11504 -4041‎ Undid revision 525547164 by Mercy11 (talk) rv: they do not diminish the quality of the article
	
	15:27 29nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎m 15545 +4041‎ Reverted good-faith edits by Ahnoneemoos to last version by Mercy11: the edits diminished the quality of the article. User notified to discuss his edits at the article's Talk Page.
	04:22 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11504   +64‎ 
	04:18 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11440  -180‎ 
	04:11 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11620 -3925‎ Undid revision 525482121 by Mercy11 (talk)
	
	03:29 29nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎m 15545 +3925‎ Reverted good faith edits to last version by Thief12: Don't experient here; use the WP:sandbox instead
	22:54 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11620    +2‎ →‎Background
	22:53 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11618    +7‎ →‎Background
	22:52 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11611   +10‎ →‎Background
	21:41 28nov'12‎ Good Olfact ‎  11601   +10‎ removed Category:Mayors of Puerto Rico; added Category:Mayors of places in Puerto Rico using HotCat
	20:26 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11591   +51‎ →‎Current mayors
	20:25 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11540 +1747‎ →‎Current mayors
	19:34 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   9793   +81‎ 
	19:33 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   9712    -2‎ 
	19:26 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   9714    +4‎ 
	19:24 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   9710 -5835‎ 

t	13:23 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  19991 +1674‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	10:52 30nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  18317  +597‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: thank you
t	10:45 30nov'12‎ SMcCandlish ‎  17720 +1371‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: Maybe worth merging.
t	05:53 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16349    -3‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	04:40 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16352    -2‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	04:40 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16354    -2‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	04:40 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  16356  +559‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	02:53 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  15797    +1‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	02:48 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  15796  +811‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	02:40 30nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  14985  +816‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	02:04 30nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎  14169 +1648‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos: comments
t	23:06 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  12521  +293‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	23:00 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  12228  +260‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: yes, but no :)
t	22:56 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11968  +291‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	21:00 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11677    +1‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	21:00 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  11676  +235‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	19:51 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎  11441  +684‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: it's good to disagree in a civilised manner
t	19:33 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎  10757 +2464‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	18:57 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   8293 +1246‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: thoughts
t	18:34 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   7047  +856‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	18:11 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   6191  +524‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: registering my opposition to the proposed migration of material
t	18:02 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   5667  +528‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	17:57 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎m  5139    +1‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: typo
t	17:56 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   5138  +719‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: we disagree
t	17:49 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   4419  +818‎ →‎The list of current mayors...
t	17:30 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   3601  +315‎ →‎The list of current mayors...: new section
t	17:11 29nov'12‎ Timtrent    ‎   3286  +357‎ →‎Please form a consensus. War is not needed.: new section
t	17:06 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎   2929 +1180‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	16:31 29nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎   1749  +910‎ comment
t	15:37 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎    839    +2‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	15:36 29nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎    837  +347‎ →‎Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos
t	15:27 29nov'12‎ Mercy11     ‎    490  +440‎ bad edits
t	22:44 28nov'12‎ Ahnoneemoos ‎     50   +23‎ 
	
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	
	01:58 26aug'12‎ Thief12     ‎  15545   +97‎ →‎Removal from office: removing cn, amendment was on the External Links section, added it here.
	
	- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
	
	02:39 27apr'12‎ Good Olfact ‎  15448   -25‎ removed Category:Puerto Rico using HotCat
	19:43 12apr'12‎ AnomieBOT   ‎m 15473   +16‎ Dating maintenance tags: {{Cn}}
	19:22 12apr'12‎ Mercy11     ‎  15457    +6‎ →‎Removal from office: cn
	00:36  3mar'12‎ Thief12     ‎  15451   -28‎ →‎Current mayors in Puerto Rico
	23:24 15feb'12‎ Thief12     ‎  15479   +17‎ →‎External links: added PR template

Question

Hi SilkTork,

I'm wondering what to do. I noticed an addition to the Quran article that was poorly done. I corrected that. Then the fellow came back and put the same topic into the lede. It's about how some scholars believe that the Quran is not what the Muslims claim. I reverted it because the topic is dealt with in the article below, and to put such in the lede is inflammatory--and said so. The Bible article does not show counterclaims in its lede, and it seems biased to put such in the the article about the Quran.

Now another fellow jumped into the fray by reverting my revert, claiming to not see what would be inflammatory and--strangely--saying to not use the word "holy" (I didn't, and the word is not in the article at all).

Rather than just my using a second revert on that page within 24 hours, I would like to talk with one of the two--but, do I use the talk page for the article? From the background each fellow shows on their profiles, they do not seem neutral on this issue--and their edits are not neutral. Moreover, the edit that they are defending is not consistent with the style book. This could get messy fast. What do you suggest?

Regards, Desertroadbob (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you wish, you may now enter the discussion phase of WP:BRD. However, not everyone has the patience to get into the discussion part, especially if it means dealing with people that may be difficult, and that is fine. There are plenty of other articles which also need work. Though if you do feel you have an interest in the topic and how information is being presented in the lead, then please do initiate a discussion on the talkpage. If it does start to become unpleasant, you can look for input from others, though you can still make the choice of moving on. In this situation, I would be comfortable with providing some further input if you do start a discussion, and you feel it's becoming unpleasant. But, as I say, you don't need to feel obliged to either initiate or carry on a discussion which is unpleasant for yourself. Nor do you need feel responsible for the improvement of the article - if there is inappropriate bias in an article, it tends to get ironed out over time. Those articles where a handful of editors may be attempting to preserve a bias are eventually spotted, and through our procedures such editors are dealt with. So if you stay or move on, it's up to you.

As regard the remark about "holy", that is because in your revert you reinstated that word by mistake. This can happen with reverting. I would suggest only using the revert button to deal with obvious vandalism or disruption, or to correct minor errors, as otherwise such mistakes can occur, and also because reverts can sometimes be felt as hostile. I tend to make a normal edit, and directly adjust the text that concerns me. I feel more part of it then, and may actually see something I hadn't noticed earlier. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

ARBCOM: Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Reverts and ban performed by User:SilkTork regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Next time you have a minute to spare, you should probably officially recuse from this case. While it's blatantly obvious that you would do if it is accepted, it is probably wisest to dot the i's and cross the t's :) Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If it looks necessary I will do. Thanks for the reminder. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Banned?

I was labeled on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe as a "known genocide denier," and therefore warned not to edit Eastern Europe or I will be added to the "interested parties" list. I need help here. I would like my name removed from the list.

The label is untrue. The Holocaust was genocide.

I don't watch the article "Eastern Europe" and have no real interest in doing so. If I've edited it, it was so long ago, I've forgotten.

Can people just be "pre-added" like that? Can people just be labeled by one person on Wikipedia?

The party adding me seems to have no "standing" in this arbitration, as far as I can figure out. Can a person be "added to" an arbitration list without his consent, having never edited an article before?

He appears to have done this as retribution for my reporting him for bullying at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Intimidation_of_newbie_88.104.219.76.

What can I do, if anything?

Thanks.Student7 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about, but I'll take a look, and get back to you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I took a look. You have been warned for edit warring in a section related to Armenia on Genocides_in_history, and as Armenia comes under Discretionary sanctions, where editors may be topic banned or blocked for edit warring, a warning is felt to be both helpful and appropriate. People who are warned are listed, so that if they continue edit warring they may be blocked without further warning. Edit warring is bad everywhere on Wikipedia - it is particularly bad in some topic areas which have a history of heated and inappropriate behaviour. My suggestion is that you either make a case for the edit you wish to make, and if consensus is against you, accept it and move on. Or move on now, as it appears that consensus may already be against you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined arbitration request

The arbitration request "Mayorality in Puerto Rico" has been declined by the Committee. You may find the arbitrators' comments helpful. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 19:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Myanmar

Hi, Can I ask you to revert your post here ? this template is for Myanmar, we have another one for Burma. the official name is still Myanmar and people still use Myanmar for sport articles like Myanmar national football team. your change made some problems for sport articles, I think it won't hurt if you revert it, at the end if will redirect to Burma article, thanks in advance. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I see there is some uncertainty over which is the appropriate usage for Burmese sport related articles. Category:Burma national football team and Category:Football in Burma indicates a mixed usage of Burma and Myanmar. And looking at Culture_of_Burma#Sports, there appears to be some inclination toward Burma. It is difficult when either a person or a country change name as there is a period of transition. We have the guidelines WP:Common name, and WP:Official name, which are explained at WP:Remember the reader. The importance for the English language Wikipedia is to ensure that the bulk of the readership are not confused, and that they know they are being directed to and have landed at the correct article. Someone looking for an article on Burma related matters, may not click on a link which has the name Myanmar, because that name is not yet in common usage. Thankfully, it is not Wikipedia editors who decide this matter, it is reliable sources that guide us. Here's some of what I found when putting Burma Myanmar and Football into Google: Burma, Burma, Myanmar, Myanmar, both, Burma, Myanmar, both, Burma, both. It looks a bit messy, but Burma comes up more often than Myanmar; enough for me to question how helpful it would be to change Burma to Myanmar in a navigation template. As some sources use Myanmar (Burma), I wonder if that may be a workable solution? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, but I'm not asking you to change the name of the article Burma. no, but I want consistency between similar templates, I mean, this template Myanmar and Myanmar and Myanmar are almost the same but now the outcome is now different after your change. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Three templates all doing the same thing. Is that standard for flags? I understood similar templates usually end up being merged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I think they are slightly different, for example you have can something like this MYA with flag template, or you can use flag variants for {{flag|Myanmar}} and {{flagcountry|MYA}} unlike {{MYA}} I mean something like this Myanmar. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right - it does appear to be standard. Having the different templates is to allow flexibility so people can decide which flag to use, or which name to use, if there are variations. I would have thought it was possible to have just the one template with parameters to allow for different names and flags, and for shortcuts to be redirected to the one template. But there you - I suppose nobody has got around to tidying it up. I am reluctant to revert my edit as the main article is Burma not Myanmar, and it is not clear to me either that there is at the moment consensus to use Myanmar, nor that reliable sources are clear on the point. I think something like this needs broader consensus so that there isn't patchy usage across Wikipedia. Rather than fight for single edits, why not start a RfC on the Burma talkpage to seek broad consensus on getting name consistency across Wikipedia. It doesn't make sense to have a country called one name in one set of articles, and another in a different set. With broad consensus you can get mentions in articles, article names, templates and categories all changed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hello, SilkTork. Could you help with a new issue? It's regarding the List of oil refineries: a new user Kullaexim has been repeatedly putting an entry for Kosovo onto the list. However, I researched the issue (twice now, to be sure) and there is no third-party evidence that an oil refinery is operating in Kosovo—or that a new one was built after 2000 AD. The first time this entry appeared, there was link to a website with a tab for "refinery"—which did not allow access to the page. I've twice removed their entry and posted explanations in the edit line. The second time, I posted a notice on their talk page and the article's talk page. I pointed out the lack of evidence. Again, there was no response by them and they simply replaced the entry. Can you block them from editing the List of oil refineries and explain (with the authority behind you) that they need to follow guidelines? Desertroadbob (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, the situation is becoming curiouser and curiouser. Since requesting your help, the non-responsive user Kullaexim finally replied. And they are wanting to do self-promotion on WP. It seems to me that WP is having quite the discussion on the issue. They have a link, but it does not show any production for the refinery—and I’m not familiar with the website. Kullaexim also admits that there is no online verifiable third party evidence for production numbers. This situation is again/still over my head. Can you (again/still) take things from here? Desertroadbob (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The user's name does not comply with policy so needs changing. I have left a note on the user's page via Wikipedia:Twinkle (if you haven't enabled Twinkle yet, I can recommend it - it provides a range of templates and can perform a number of tasks quickly ans easily with a simple click). As they are now engaging in discussion, and appear to be willing to work with you, I think I can leave the rest of the matter in your capable hands. I have the user's talkpage watchlisted to check they do change their name. If they continue to edit without changing their name, and I don't notice or I'm offline, you can report them at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Making appropriate reports on administrative pages will stand you in good stead if you ever wish to go through RfA - and I think you should consider becoming an admin one day. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that, SilkTork. Thanks also for your kind words about my possibly becoming an admin someday. I have a lot to learn before then, but it's encouraging to hear.

New question: I had my name changed and now seem to have two talk pages (one for my new name, the other for the old name/talkpage--which is also tied to my new name). How do I get down to one?Desertroad (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You go to User talk:Desertroadbob and click on the "move" tab, and rename it to User talk:Desertroad (you can simply delete the word bob, as the name will already be in the template). If there is editing history at the new name, then an admin will need to do it, so let me know and I'll move it for you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm guilty as charged: my editing itch got the best of me and I had already changed the new page. When you have time, please do move my talkpage and do whatever else needs to be done. Thanks, Desertroad (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Done Mlpearc (powwow) 13:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)