User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 48
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:SilkTork. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 52 |
verifiability essay
It is now very obvious that many editors do not understand the point of the "verifiability, not truth" policy. I think your comment at the RfC was very clear and insightful. As you may know we have an essay: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, meant to explain this phrase to newcomers. Anyone can edit an essay, and I just made some edits to try to make it clearer but (as with just about anything at WP) I think it can still stand improvement. Would you read it over and see if you can improve it any? If the policy changes the essay will have to be changed, but in the meantime, it ought to help newcomers understand what we mean, and should explain things as clearly as possible Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I keep meaning to take a look - and will do shortly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Fellow Editor Dispute/Mass Deletion Issues
SilkTork, I appreciate your willingness to assist others with issues that may be above their experience pay grade level.
Here's what I have for you.
Articles for discussion:
I started adding some content that I believe to be to valid on West Memphis Three (wm3) article page. From the beginning I began discussions on the talk page due to the polarizing nature of that case. I quickly came across an editor named bloodofox and later an editor named sudoghost, possibly the same?, who without discussion deleted or undid my edits/contributions.
At first they simply undid my work. I reinstated the contributions with my reasoning behind the them and made requests that they move to the talk page to discuss issues prior to mass undo. My contributions/edits were done individually; however over the course of a few days worth of undo redo, the contributions/edits were combined by bloodofox/sudoghost into one mass entity.
Ok-if you read through the talk page discussions, you will get a feel for our positions without me going into it here, and you will also see my repeated requests for a senior editor to intervene with some sanity and reason. End story on that article is a senior editor block editing and we are working through getting my contributions reviewed by her and then added to the article. It’s a work in progress, but it is moving forward I think.
What brings me to you is that I recently added some content that again, I feel is valid with valid references to the Damien Echols article. Within 45 minutes, bloodofox had gone in and simply undone my contributions. His reasoning was "cherry picked claims to make someone look bananas."
As I did on the wm3 article, I created a new section on the talk page to discuss the added content and seek input from other editors per the Wikipedia dispute resolution guidelines.
It is my assertion that each quote is valid, and each reference link as also valid.
Instead of getting into yet another edit war with this editor, I want to get a senior editor involved early on to assist /guide me through this process. If there is something I can do to further support my content other than what I have already done, please let me know and will take those steps.
What I want to avoid is one editor bullying everyone else who contributes content that while valid, informative and relevant to the article, is something they personally disagree with.
Any assistance and time you can offer on this matter is very much appreciated.Opticks3 (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- My first question is: as there is already an article on the incident and the three suspects - West Memphis Three, why are there duplicate articles on the individuals - Damien Echols, etc. Normally the individuals in a crime case are dealt with in the main article per WP:One event, unless there is reason for specific notability of a particular individual. Is there reason for specific notability for Damien Echols? SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
For clarification, the comment by Opticks3 that I removed content without discussion is about as patently false as one can get. I made it very clear from the beginning why I was removing the content and continued to do so, something which Opticks3 never once addressed (the unreliability of a source he was inserting, which I was concerned was a WP:BLP violation). As for Bloodofox and I being the same person, Opticks3 is more than welcome to open a SPI on that matter, otherwise I would greatly appreciate it if such accusations were not made without evidence. - SudoGhost 23:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hundreds
I see you've been moving articles from Foo (hundred) to Hundred of Foo. Has there been any more discussion since this? My own preference was for Foo Hundred, which seemed to me to be the more common usage (as well as aiding sorting). I think it warrants wider discussion before going further. --Mhockey (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I like Foo Hundred, but when I did a sources search for each of the moves, Hundred of Foo was the most common. While I would like to go with mine and yours personal preference, the point of the moves is to put the titles into most common usage, be it Foo Hundred or Hundred of Foo. If anyone does their own search and finds that the title is incorrect, then it would be appropriate to correct it. And I certainly wouldn't object to any of the articles being either Hundred of Foo or Foo Hundred as in most cases both terms are used, and anything is better than Foo (hundred)! SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey can you take a look at this discussion?
Hi, I feel like this particular RFC discussion [1] is going nowhere, with people at loggerheads. Can you clarify whether the disputed source is under WP:RS and WP:BLP?--PCPP (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've left a comment. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Falun Gong RfC
I responded to your edit/suggestion at the RfC on Falun Gong. I think it's headed in the right direction. There are a number of other questionable things that have been recently added to the page. In addition, there are a few outstanding edits I had wanted to make a long time ago to have the page read less like a literature review and more like an article. When it comes time to review those changes, can I solicit your opinion again? Homunculus (duihua) 16:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have responded and expanded on my edit to include the source you mention. Yes, you can solicit my opinion. I am aware that the Falun Gong topic is problematic, and not enough neutral people are involved, so I do make myself (reluctantly!) available. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. If you are available, please take a look at the recent ArbCom case and have your word. [2] I am not, first and foremost, opposing my own sanctions, although I believe they are unfair and unwarranted; I have not edit warred or engaged in disruptive behaviour. But relatively lighter sanctions were imposed on PCPP, although his problematic edits have been persistent and frequent. I have sent you e-mail that I'd like you to review. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have left a comment and an offer on the ArbCom page. I have seen your email - but, to be honest, I have not read through the diffs. I am not a disciplinary admin, I see myself as a dispute resolution and a content creation admin. As such I am less concerned by past behaviour than I am about future behaviour. What I like to do is see articles improve, and to help editors to improve articles. If someone has pissed on the floor, I am more concerned that they clean it up, than that they are locked outside for ten minutes. Of course, if after I have got a mop and helped clean up, they deliberately piss again, then I have no qualms about locking them outside indefinitely. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your offer is very reasonable. I sent you e-mail. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 10:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Blocking as punishment
Hi ST. I'm just letting you know that I appreciate your closing of this debate. Not an easy one by any means. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork. Would you be able to close any of the RfCs at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive243#RfCs close requests – October 2011? If you don't have the time or the inclination, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- The target title has changed to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfCs_for_closure. I have a few other items I need to be working on, but if I do get time I'll take a look. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Noticed your edit and summary. WP:CD works for me as a redirect. Did you mistype it? SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh, sorry, I had typed WP:Cd (lowercase d). Still, it seems a rather messy state of affairs at the moment – is it worth taking this to RfD? It Is Me Here t / c 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- It gets around 100 hits a month, so some people are using it. Unfortunately we don't know who, so we can't ask them if they wanted Wikipedia CD Selection or Centralized discussion. Either way there would need to be a hatnote on one of the likely targets, and as Centralized discussion already has the hatnote, and has slightly more average hits (around 1100 compared to 800), we might as well leave the redirect pointing at Centralized discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I really rather meant that I think it is not a great state of affairs that CD and Cd should point to different targets. Perhaps have e.g. Cd redirect to CD, and CD disambiguate to CD Selection and Centralized Discussion? It Is Me Here t / c 10:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. Yes, your solution makes sense. However, it looks like someone created Cd when CD was redirected to CENT, so somebody wanted a direct shortcut to the other page. Creating a disamb page would make an extra click through for everyone, so nobody gets an improvement. For those people who mistype Cd and end up on Wikipedia CD Selection by mistake, then a hatnote on that page pointing here would serve well enough. That means that those who know CD leads here, and those who know Cd leads elsewhere are all happy, and those who have made a mistake will be redirected. Only those who made a mistake will have the extra click through, rather than everyone. I'll do the hatnote now. If you feel that is not a workable solution then it would be appropriate to get more opinions via RfD, and I would support that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- When I said "here", I meant "CENT". SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, that's fine, thanks – I think your solution (where both articles hatnote-link to each other) is more elegant. It Is Me Here t / c 13:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change
FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)