User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 39

← Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40 →

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ziggurat

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Ziggurat. I have requested downgrade to pending changes to Ziggurat, which is one of the articles you semied indef. Thanks. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Responded, and thanks for the heads up. As a note for the future - it's usually more effective to approach the protecting admin directly first as they can give you the background to the protection, or simply unprotect on request. Only if you are unsatisfied with the protecting admin's response would you need to set up a formal discussion. Additionally, the protecting admin does not need to be consulted before another admin changes protection, particularly if the protection was put in place some years previously. Anyone who has been elected to be an admin is seen to have the good sense and good judgement to make protect or unprotect decisions, so once a formal discussion is initiated it can safely be left to other admins to make the decision. In short, if you are going to contact an admin about a protection, it is best to do so before setting up a formal discussion, rather than afterwards. All the best. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. That is a good idea to ask the protecting admin first before a formal discussion at RFPP. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Leo Frank Article Reference Removal

An editor named MarkBernstein is attempting to remove a link on the Leo Frank to The American Mercury which was placed there in context. I was wondering if you could respond to the discussion about why it is relevant to the article in context. DopeyBoB (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Note left. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Brewing article reverts

Heya! Curious about some of the reverts on the Brewing article. Happy to move the discussion there if you prefer... let's see if we can improve this article. Full disclosure, I'm a long-time professional brewer and brewery owner. Let's see...

• "Commonly cereal grain" reference. I'm fairly certain that all, not most, beer is derived from a cereal grain -- if you were to produce a malt beverage based on, say, sweet potatoes, it wouldn't be beer. I realize that the dictionary definition makes mention of other sweet, occasionally slightly alcoholic beverages (i.e. root beer, ginger beer, etc...) but those aren't the subject of the article. Still, not a major point, just an observation. I feel that "commonly barley" is probably the most appropriate phrase, because the vast majority of beer is barley-based.
• Removal of flavored and bittered. Is your objection due to "bitter" being a taste sensation, and therefore already covered with flavored? I'm sympathetic to that, but someone inexperienced with beer may benefit from the notion that hops provide both hop character, and bitterness as distinct components. This is covered elsewhere, but the passing mention wouldn't hurt. Also not a big deal.
• Removal of vorlauf. I've never worked at a brewery that didn't vorlauf, and this is a discrete step of every brewery SOP I've ever seen. This should be in the article somewhere.
• Kettle vs Copper. Is this a UK difference? I rarely hear the term copper used, except in historical context, or in very old breweries. I feel that kettle is the current industry term (it's certainly the term used by manufacturers). Is this a geographic difference?
• Yeast. We should really be more specific. A good deal of yeast actually propagates VERY well at high temperatures (to a point); but it produces off-flavors and precursors you don't want. Pitching too cold is where growth is slow, in most cases. Mileage may vary.

Cheers!! - superβεεcat  17:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not reverts, but building on what you added, and putting in cites to reliable sources for information you inserted. In some places where you altered sentence structure in a way that was awkward I did a copy-edit which sometimes meant returning the sentence to how it was. And yes, this discussion is much better off at the article as it's about the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding GA review:Coimbatore

Hi! You have started reviewing Coimbatore for GA. It has been more than 35 days since you started. Would be good if you complete the review and update with the comments soon. It has been pending for more than 7 months since GA nomination. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh good grief, I'm awfully sorry. I don't even recall doing that. I remember considering it for review, but then decided against it due to pressure of time (if you look at my contributions I am barely on Wikipedia these days). I must have templated it with {{subst:GAstart}} around the time I reviewed Jaipur, and simply forgot I had done so. I have now removed the template, and retuned the GAN to the queue. I am sorry for any inconvenience. If I do get some time in the next few weeks I'll take a look and see what I can do to help out, either in tidying up the article, or in reviewing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

RfA question

Hi, SilkTork - I forgot to ping you in my response to your request for diffs, and just wanted you to know that I just added them. I appreciate the amount of attention you've given to the process but at the same time, I did not intend to draw attention to the stupid mistakes I made as a newbie 4 years ago or to the parties who were involved in my COINoscopy. I prefer to let bygones be bygones but out of respect for your due diligence, I made an exception to my bygone rule - not to mention the fact the comments I made should have been supported with diffs, or eliminated all together. My bad. Best wishes....--Atsme^📞📧 20:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Looking at the diffs you supplied, I agree with you that based on the available evidence Brianhe didn't make a serious mistake, and wasn't the one hounding you. Keep well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

WT:Drafts

Hi,

I pinged you at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Clarification over main-space to draft-space moves because you might know something about a history of discussion at the AI regarding making bold moves into the incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I turned off the name notification shortly after it was introduced as my name was being dropped into discussions unrelated to me simply to get me to comment. I have today turned it back on as I am no longer as active on Wikipedia, and I suspect few people will be using my name simply to get me to comment, unless, as here, there is some relevance to me. I'll take a look shortly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Poplar

Hi SilkTork,

Can you explain moving Poplar (disambiguation) over the redirect to Poplar? In my opinion, the genus Populus, which Poplar previously redirected to, is the primary topic. Although there is no primary topic in terms of which tree in the genus, the genus is still the primary topic for me. Can you revert your change, and open up a discussion in RM?

Your move has also created 600+ links to the dab page that need to be addressed. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My thinking was that given the sheer amount of different topics that someone could be looking for when typing in "poplar", that it wasn't sufficiently clear that any one of them were more significant than all the rest, which is a requisite of a WP:Primary topic; additionally, the landing page of Populus wasn't providing guidance to a reader to assist them in finding the page they wanted, and the introductory sentence behaves more like a dab page in itself: "Populus is a genus of 25–35 species of deciduous flowering plants in the family Salicaceae, native to most of the Northern Hemisphere. English names variously applied to different species include poplar, aspen, and cottonwood." However, when I looked at the incoming links, and the proportion of them which were clearly related to one or other of the trees in the Populus genus, I did wonder if my revised set up was actually less rather than more helpful. My thinking then was that perhaps what is needed is an article on the poplar tree itself for some of those links to land on rather than the vague Populus genus, but at that point I realised that there was a lot of work involved and wondered if I had started something I wouldn't be able to finish! I agree that it would be useful to get more input on this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You should not have moved it without discussion. The move seems wrong to me, and should be reversed. All the places are pretty small. Why do you assume that Populus isn't "the page they wanted"? Probably it is. The article lists, what, 15 species with a common name including "poplar", so to say "perhaps what is needed is an article on the poplar tree itself" just shows muddled thinking. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is something clearly contentious about an edit, we encourage people via WP:EDITCONSENSUS to make the edit first, and if there are concerns or problems regarding that edit, then we modify it or discuss it. It is not policy to discuss every edit first, and we are encouraged, per WP:RMUM, to make a page move if we believe (as I did) that it is uncontroversial. Now, having done the move and looked into it, I agree that the edit is problematic. However, I also feel that directing poplar to populus is problematic as it is not helpful or informative, especially as the common yellow or tulip polar is not part of the populus genus. What I feel is appropriate is for a discussion to be set up to look into possible solutions in order to unmuddle everyone's thinking, so that is what I have done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Rm#TR if "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move" it should be treated as potentially controversial. If you really thought that no one "could reasonably disagree with the move" then your editorial judgement is even poorer than I thought, and I already thought it was pretty poor. The language used to be stronger, and should be made so again - falsely "uncontroversial" moves seem to be increasing, and are a great waste of time. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry I wasted your time John. I see you are upset about this and that was not my intention. I can't promise I won't make edits in future that you disagree with, but I will always, as now, listen to your concerns and respond politely to you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and I was rather ruder than necessary, so sorry. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#.22Potentially_controversial.22 as I think the page is currently too ambiguous. I don't believe WP:EDITCONSENSUS applies to page moves, which non-admins normally can't reverse. For them the bar is much higher, as set out (not very clearly) at WP:RM. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for opening up the discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for getting in touch with your concerns. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)