User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 45

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 40

←

Archive 43

→

Template:Expand language

Hi.

Given your previous discussions about the {{Expand language}} I thought it appropriate to inform you about a deletion discussion about it. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Left a comment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the Ganas article

I haven't gotten to the 55 books yet. The article is good enough for me now. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyswatting (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree Shaping -> Arborsculpture RFM 2

A second request to move the article "tree shaping" to "arborsculpture" has been opened. Since you have previously been involved in the subject, you may wish to participate in the discussion. AfD hero (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping rename?

Hi. Im an uninvolved editor that participated in an RfC at Tree shaping, and it looked like we had good consensus for a rename. I noticed you closed the subsequent rename RfM section, saying the rename proposal did not meet the requirements. Could you be more specific on how the rename request should be formatted to be satisfactory? Before the rename request (that you closed) was initiated, there was a lengthy RfC here that covered all the renaming ideas. Did you see that RfC? Could you post your reply on the Talk page of that article so interested editors can see it? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I too am rather puzzled at what seems to be a rather hasty close to a long and complex debate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Are you purposely trying to stifle debate? This RfM should have run its course for seven days and an uninvolved admin should have closed. I hope you will voluntarily recuse yourself as an involved party, you have always seemed reasonable so I hope you can see why an editor who has participated in an ArbCom should not be using his position as an admin to take sides in a debate. Colincbn (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, did you monitor the other discussions on the page? I (as an uninvolved admin) suggested the RM,[1] and arbitrator Casliber agreed.[2] As such, the RM should probably be re-opened. I can do it, or would you like to? --El on ka 03:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. I have reopened the discussion. I had been informed of the move request but not of the RfC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --El on ka 13:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, but more importantly thanks for protecting Beer! Colincbn (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For protecting the page "Beer" from vandalism. Cheers mate! Ballon d'or (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Roundhouse / Roundhouse (venue)

It has been proposed that the article The Roundhouse be renamed (to Roundhouse (theatre) or Roundhouse (venue)). As you moved the page to it's current location (from Roundhouse (venue)) in 2008 your input would be welcome to the discussion at Talk:The Roundhouse#Requested move. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject London Transport for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Brought to you by Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 19:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

violatiom of WP:3RR

Hi, Just contacting you, as I recently got to know you in deletion of [Atheism 3.0] page.

User:Anupam has been doing his very POV edits on heavily disputed Militant atheism page. He had removed the POV tag of that page without consensus and when I tried to put it back, he did edit-war to removal it. He didn't care for WP:3RR and violated it by doing 3 reverts on Aug 18. Can you please look into this. Thanks and Regards, Abhishikt (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:SilkTork, I hope this message finds you doing well. As an experienced editor, I would like to clarify the User:Abhishikt's baseless accusations here. The POV tag was removed with consensus (five out of seven editors affirmed this) after administrator User:Master_of_Puppets affirmed the closure of the discussion supporting the current introduction, which User:Abhishikt opposed. Other issues in the article were also discussed and addressed in the course of the last few months. Despite the fact that these problems were resolved, User:Abhishikt repeatedly added the POV tag on the article, without stating specific concerns with the article, in violation of WP:NPOVD, which states that "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues." In the current discussion on the talk page, User:Abhishikt has refused to list any specific concerns, as the policy suggests, but rather, edit wars to reinstate a tag over issues that have already been resolved (see the following exhibits for example, Exhibit One, Exhibit Two and Exhibit Three). His repeated tagging without grounds has been criticized by other editors as well. I hope this clarifies the situation. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, I suggest you read the discussion threads/history by yourself, rather than believing Anupam's chicanery.

If Talk:Militant_atheism#Introduction was a real consensus, then we won't be having discussion like Talk:Militant_atheism#Closure_of_Introduction_Issue_and_Word_Razor_Solution. Regards, Abhishikt (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Abhishikt's comment above demonstrates the fact that he refuses to accept the discussion as supported, despite the fact that administrator, User:Master of Puppets declared it so. In recent news, the discussion regarding the tag was also closed today, with User:Abhishikt receiving another warning from a different user. I also do hope that you will take the time to read the discussion and evaluate the situation. Thanks for taking the time to review the situation! With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 16:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

just FYI: Anupam has controversially removed this tag multiple times in the past, which was hated by multiple editors - Talk:Militant_atheism/Archive_4#Removing the NPOV dispute tag??? Are you FREAKING KIDDING ME?????????? Abhishikt (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That was from over one month ago and is not relevant to the current situation, since the issues have been resolved as delineated by the exhibits I provided above. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 20:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've only had a chance to have a quick look. It would be helpful if you folks could tell me (as briefly as possible) what the issue is as regards neutrality. What point of view is (potentially) being pushed? What are the concerns? Also, I note that the article is about militant atheism as a fact - the actual philosophy/belief and application of that belief, and also about militant atheism as a term - the use of the term as a form of potentially negative grouping/labelling. There are tensions within the article because it is attempting to do two different things. It's like trying to combine Jew and Jew in the same article. It is easier and clearer to deal with the two concepts in separate articles, summarising and linking to each article as appropriate. I suspect that the treatment of the negative connotations of the term alongside the actual philosophy are at the root of the NPOV dispute, though wait to hear your views on that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply SilkTork. For a neutral perspective of the situation, I would contact, User:Master of Puppets, the administrator who is reviewing the article. Several parties have worked out potential issues with the article, namely the Introduction and Word Razor. There was no consensus for splitting the page into two separate articles. However, the issues have been resolved and recently closed, as evidenced here and here. The main issue here is that User:Abhishikt does not respect the decisions made at these two closed discussions and despite multiple requests, refuses to delineate other specific issues that he has with the article, in violation of WP:STICK and WP:NPOVD, both the main issues here. As such, he has been cautioned, not only by myself, but by other editors as well (e.g. example one, example two). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the split discussion, Anupam. The split proposal was not the same as I am suggesting, though it is interesting to note that there is a strong view that the article as currently constructed is problematic. The discussion had exactly equal !votes and comments on both sides of the discussion, so while it may be read that there was no consensus for a split it can also be read that there was no consensus to keep the article intact. Closing when there was no conclusion wasn't helpful as the matter is unresolved. I also note that there are ongoing concerns with the POV issues, so that matter is not closed either. Rather than direct me to someone else, can I again ask that Anupam and Abhishikt, as the main parties in this dispute, explain concisely your concerns.

I will move this discussion to Talk:Militant atheism as it is more appropriate there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your edits at Strawberry

Intentional links to disambiguation pages is policy, per WP:INTDABLINK; consensus has been reached and repeatedly reaffirmed that this is necessary as it is the only way to prevent such links from showing up as errors needing to be fixed on the "What links here" pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've now read the text at WP:INTDABLINK that you've pointed me to, but I'm not clear what you are asking me to do. Have I done something wrong at Strawberry? Or is there something I still need to do? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous strawberries

Regarding your page move of Strawberry (disambiguation) to Strawberry: your edit summary states that

there shouldn't be a redirect for the primary name. The primary name should be either used for the primary article or for the disamb page

while linking to WP:DABNAME, a section of the disambiguation guideline which, in point of fact, makes no such proscription. Indeed, if you look further up WP:Disambiguation, you'll find the following:

If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic.

Note the bolded text. It's perfectly fine for a term to have a primary topic and yet be a redirect (see, for example, Elvis, which redirects to the fellow named Presley, even though there are other uses for the name).

Your page move has been undone. If you remain unclear on the disambiguation guidelines, I'm sure the good folk over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation can explain better than I.

Regards, 88.104.46.22 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The advice is: "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." There was no primary topic for the term - there are two possible - Garden strawberry and Fragaria. There have been different personal views on which of those is primary, with some thinking it should be Fragaria, while a few others (such as yourself) thinking it should be Garden strawberry. There is, as such, no agreement on which article is the primary topic. In that case - "If there is no primary topic, the ambiguous term should be the title of a disambiguation page". And, to be sure: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."

I am not, however, in disagreement with changing the target to Garden strawberry, except that I suspect someone will come along later and change it to Fragaria. It appeared to me at the time, and still does, that offering readers the option of a disamb page to decide for themselves which page they wanted to read would be the most helpful and least disruptive approach. Seems not ;-) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Another example, a double one, is that HP redirects to Hewlett-Packard as primary usage, and Hp or hp redirects to Horsepower, but the dab page is at HP (disambiguation). It happens quite a lot: Hewlett Packard (or Garden Strawberry) being the best name for the article does not prevent it from also being the primary usage for HP (or Strawberry); the {{redirect}} template is useful for leading people to the dab page. (Chipping in as one of "the good folk ..." mentioned above!) PamD 13:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in, PamD. I was making a comment, which I have left above, at the time you posted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)