User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

interest in PPI assessment

Hi SilkTork, I am so excited that you have some interest in article assessment on this project. I am looking for a group of about 20 people both public policy experts and Wikipedia experts to evaluate about 10-20 articles every 2 months. The articles would range in class so I am guessing the time commitment to be about 2.5 hours every 2 months. (You would probably have a better idea of this than I would, and I assume it would vary somewhat between assessors.) I would really appreciate any input you have on the evaluation plan. The first assessment package is designed to test variability within the assessment metric for the WikiProject: U.S. Public Policy, which is a version of the 1.0 assessment metric. It is totally planned, it just needs 10 or preferably 20 people to assess articles. If you are interested I am open to describing the statistics and methods that will be used to measure variability. Also, I am new to Wikipedia, so please feel free to coach me if I misstep, and know that it is not intentional. hopefully we'll be in touch, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment goes live, and I'll do some article assessments. SilkTork *^YES! 10:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

SilkTork, welcome to the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team. I am excited to get started, let's move the discussion of project details to the [WP:USPP/Assessment Talk page]. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the PPI Assessment Team. There is a request for you to review some articles and a description of assessment logistics on the WP:USPP Assessment Page. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, recently you signed up to help with assessment on Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. It's a lot to digest, and totally understandable if it's not what signed up for. However, there are also some exciting perks to this project: 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating, and 5) other interesting benefits you will find with participation.

The first group of articles requesting your assessment has been posted. I was hoping to do a preliminary comparison of the data on 8 October 2010. The second assessment request, which is part of the same comparison, will go out about the same time. To help with organization, if you haven't posted any assessment scores on your assessment page by 8 October 2010, I will delete your assessment request and you will not receive further requests. I hope the unusualness of this assessment research does not discourage your participation; if you are not interested working in the research I hope you will continue to assess articles within the project. If possible let me know on my talk page if you don't wish to be a part of the research, or perhaps if there was some confusion or bad communication; what the public policy team, and I, in particular, can do to make it more positive for volunteers. Remember, I am new to Wikipedia and trying to learn the best way to research this project, to hopefully integrate the amazing resource that is Wikipedia onto more university campuses and classrooms. Thanks, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for contributing to article assessment in WP:USPP, you have some great insights and comments - It's pretty clear you are experienced at assessment. Your continued involvement would be very appreciated. There is a second assessment request posted. There will be weekly updates about the research for this project posted here, look for the first one tomorrow. The next assessment request will come in early November. There is a lot of expertise and discussion about article quality happening in the project, so if you have any thoughts on the metric, or any ideas keeping project research exciting please let me know. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork -- Amy Roth is now out on maternity leave (she had a healthy baby girl this weekend!) so I'll be filling in for a couple of months. I'd like to get the second assessment done this week if possible -- I've made some edits to give you direct links to the versions we'd like you to assess. Please let me know if you can't finish it by this weekend! Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for all your help! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've just become aware of this. I am about to leave for 12 days in France with limited access to the internet, so I will not be able to do these assessments until I get back. Please leave a note if you wish me to continue. SilkTork *^YES! 22:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks! I'll ping you in two weeks if we still need help. Enjoy your trip! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China

I have posted a GA reassessment at Talk:Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to close that individual assessment, and open a community assessment which will bring in more people. There has already been discussion without agreement. The community assessment will bring in experienced GA reviewers who have not previously been involved in the article who will then give their independent views. SilkTork *^YES! 14:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have it watchlisted. SilkTork *^YES! 08:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bleach misunderstanding

I apologize as I did not see your comment starting "Well good for you . . ."; I only saw your comment "No, I am not working with you . . ." which is what confused me. Given your initial comment on my talk page, I thought you simply planned to restore my edits, and did not object to them. As you told me "Your edits will have been lost, so I'll now go through and try to restore them", I restored my edits in an attempt try and be friendly by not making you have to bother with the tedium of doing it. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and believe me, I never felt you weren't acting in good faith. Once again, apologies. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the apologies. I do react badly to total reverts. It's rather like someone pushing in a queue at a shop or cutting in sharply when driving. I'm sure the person doing the cutting in feels they have a justifiable reason for doing so ("In a hurry" / "The space was there" / etc), however the effect on the person affected can be quite out of proportion to what has just happened. In the context of Wikipedia's wider aims, reverting good faith edits is not a big deal, but it can generate ill-feeling and can lead to edit wars and significant disruption. My desire is not to create conflict, so my own approach on the whole is to move away and get involved in some other aspect of Wikipedia. The most I may do is make some terse comments about the reverting. I try hard not to be inflammatory in my comments, though some of my indignation may come through, as I am human after all! Anyway - as an example of how a total revert is not helpful, here is your first revert - [1]. You'll notice that your edit removed a link to the correct article, and restored the incorrect title of one of the sources used. What you had done was revert not one edit, but every edit I had done - that was five edits over the space of over half an hour. I note that you then later go through and reinstate a number of the edits I had made. What may be helpful in future is if you did not revert work done in good faith, whether by experienced editors or IPs. If you don't like or don't understand or don't agree with the edit, then open a discussion. I'm not talking about amending and correcting mistaken edits, I'm talking about undoing edits which are a matter of individual opinion, and undoing positive edits simply because you haven't read through them and considered them carefully. I think by now you probably have come to understand that what you did was inappropriate; and while not expecting it, it would be nice to hear from you a realisation that what you did was unhelpful, rather than an excuse that you did it in "an attempt try and be friendly". :-) SilkTork *^YES! 10:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not immune to making errors when I edit, but I try to fix them as soon as possible, hence my numerous edits. And while I regret the misunderstanding, the fact is that my edits were made in good faith and with the intent of not trying to unload work on you. Nevertheless, I'd like to put aside any grievances and emphasize my appreciation of your editing efforts. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me. None of this really matters in the big scheme of Wikipedia, and there are occasional conflicts even amongst the most well meaning of editors; however, I appreciate you reaching out to sooth over this disagreement. SilkTork *^YES! 11:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you see if the article is good enough to pass now? igordebraga ≠ 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:FormerIP is the reviewer, I simply added some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 09:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Feedback

Hi Sage. I am just about to start my assessments when I notice that each page has an assessment feedback form on it - example: Equal Access to COBRA Act. I note that this is as a result of adding Category:Article Feedback Pilot to the article page, as per your instructions. Was the intention to have the feedback form on the article page itself, or on the talkpage where assessments and other discussions about articles normally take place? I can see the value of having the form on the article itself as that will likely result in more responses, and we do have various other tags on article pages in order to aid development, though its placement there does have issues which might be better discussed more widely. I assume that if this is deliberate, that it would be temporary - though even then it would be good practise to pass it by the community to get some consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 10:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that feedback form is aimed primarily at readers and is intended for the articles themselves; it's complementary to the standard kinds of assessment we put on talk pages.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you direct me to the discussion about using the assessment form on the article page. SilkTork *^YES! 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Conrad

Hi Silk, I know you are putting out fires elsewhere but you were quite helpful in mediating a prior flare up at Russell Crowe. Before this one reaches any level of heat, I was hoping you would take a glance at Robert Conrad. In a nutshell, his age and birth name have been a point of contention. Online biographies have listed his date of birth as 1935 and his birth name as Falk. In 2003, he was arrested for drunk driving and court records and police reports indicated he was born in 1929. This was reported at the time in the press and the discrepancy was noted. Daily Variety reported his real birth name was Konrad Robert Falkowski. It appeared that he may have wanted to appear younger and not Polish/less ethnic professionally. (A birth year of 1935 would mean that he was both in the military and married at 16 years old.)

While the press reports about his age have been added and reverted several times, occasionally as now, age explanations are just dropped into the article unsourced and the birth year changed to 1935. If you'll look at footnotes 13,14 they say nothing about his military service or that his mom got him out of an enlistment. The citations are to sources that report court documents or police reports establishing 1929 as his actual birth year. I don't have any problem with adding a fact checked, media source that explains the court record discrepancy but at this point I don't think one exists. At least the reverting editors haven't provided one. These reversions have occurred over a very long time. If you would eye ball the recent edits, you'll get a sense of where the discussion is. Again thanks for your prior assistance. Eudemis (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left a comment. Let me know what happens. SilkTork *^YES! 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations

I have no idea where you got that idea - one of the two sources explicitly says that 'Commonwealth of Nations' is the current name! The name changed from the 'British Commonwealth' to the 'Commonwealth of Nations' in 1949. See London Declaration. The Commonwealth's other key constitutional document, the Singapore Declaration, also opens by calling it the Commonwealth of Nations. You may like to google 'Commonwealth of Nations' and see the plethora of reliable sources that attribute this name.

The Commonwealth Secretariat uses 'Commonwealth' as a brand, as you might understand; its own name is explicitly and solely 'The Commonwealth Secretariat', under the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966. It uses the brand well - that does not change that the full name is 'The Commonwealth of Nations'. Further, in the interest of disambiguating from other Commonwealths, Wikipedia has decided to use the full name where appropriate, including, but not limited to, all article names. Bastin Talk 13:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see I have misread the Evolution of Australian Foreign Policy source. I suppose that is because Commonwealth of Nations is such an uncommon term ([2] just under 300K Ghits) compared to "The Commonwealth" ([3] over 23 millions Ghits), that there is an astonishment in encountering the term. WP:COMMONNAME indicates we should be using the most common name - "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." If Commonwealth of Nations is some rarely used but "official" term then it would be appropriate to mention that, as in Big Ben and Venus de Milo. It would be good to get some other sources on the name and what is considered current usage. I have written to the Secretariat, and hopefully they will be able to give some guidance on the issue. Thanks for pointing out my misreading. SilkTork *^YES! 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking

Hi Steven, As for that article, you must do what you like to it and abide what others think. I've had my say.

I don't want to change my username - I did that about 3 years ago for precisely the reasons this present thing has raised again, and I'm happy with my new one. I stopped using the old because I decided to draw a line under what I had written about Early Med stuff on wikipedia (apart from a few tweaks) and didn't particularly like the way I was coming across. The figleaf of pretended anonymity (at least at the point of delivery) is something I have been grateful for, and has enabled me to keep editing in quiet fields of music etc. Like many others (probably you will understand) I have posted things I'm not too proud of but cannot erase. So, if the combibulation of too much poisonous Suffolk ale has not so rotted your self-respect that you are insensible to a plea for discretion (and that's certainly the effect that Suffolk ale had on me over the years) then please allow me to preserve my illusory peace of mind. Otherwise I shall have to take my finger out of my ear, break off that old ditty, catch a wherry to Rochester and biff you with a sackful of dried hops, you beer-weasened old gasbag. I'm sure you won't mind the vernacular!

Icelandic Wagner magazine? Hmm Eebahgum (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The way you have things set up is that someone clicking on your old user name gets directed to your current user name, so if you wish for discretion, then I would advise undoing that link. A user would not be aware you did not want the accounts linked - indeed, the appearance is that the accounts are the same, just different names. You need not be concerned about accusations of sockpuppetry as the old account is not being used, and you have made it clear that the two accounts are run by the same person. If you wish your current account to not to be associated with your previous account, then delink them; and if you are concerned about any possible future accusation of sockpuppetry, contact a checkuser and let them know about your two accounts. I hope that helps. As for your comments, it's usually best to keep personal comments to a minimum in order to avoid offending people, and to take extra care when making even witty comments about tracking someone to their hometown and assaulting them. There are users here who would be very concerned if you has sent them that message. Until you know someone better, don't do it. And even if you know someone well, then the humour could be misinterpreted over the awkward communication system that is the internet. Ah - I've just noticed that you have used your old account to send me this message as though it were your current account. That is curious behaviour. SilkTork *^YES! 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

IWM up for Good Topic

Hello again, trust this finds you well. Just a small note, as you've reviewed IWM articles in the past; Imperial War Museum and its related branches are up as a good topic candidate at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Imperial War Museum/archive1 if you'd be interested to comment. Best regards, --IxK85 (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I'm not sure what a featured topic is, and I don't have the time to learn about it. I think I'll leave that for those who know what they're doing. Cheers. SilkTork *^YES! 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)