User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 54

← Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55 →

Silk Tork

Thank you for the 'Silk Tork' explanation, to me it was quite amusing. Best wishes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can be reassured that it's not a sexual thing, as some have speculated! :-) SilkTork (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Though Ai No Corrida was a film I had seen when younger, so it may have had a subconscious influence - who knows! SilkTork (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I always thought SilkTork meant "silk torque": a soft and gentle yet powerful turning force. If you need something diplomatically turned around, you apply the silk torque. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Oooh. I like that. SilkTork (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read the answer to the question yet, will do so shortly... but what I gathered from the question is that it refers to a fancy brand of toilet paper made from silk.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Tork branded products are found in public toilets in the UK (and I assume other countries) - I have seen Tork branded sinks, hand dryers and urinals. SilkTork (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your RfB

Congratulations, your RfB was successful. Welcome to the crew! Primefac (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As the new member I suppose I have to make the tea. SilkTork (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You’re off the hook, we got a new new member. –xeno^talk 19:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the team! Please add what ever you want to share to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Current_bureaucrats. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Though I suppose nude photos of my favourite kitten is not what you meant. SilkTork (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Congrats on your 'cratship - may your spanner and screwdriver be twinned and shiny, for evermore. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, though I was hoping for a deerstalker hat and an oily briar pipe. SilkTork (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Congratulations for bureaucratship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Congrats..The Crat' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool, and it's my size as well! How did you know? SilkTork (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Congrats, SilkTork! I'm not sure if there any new shiny buttons with the "bureaucrat" user right, but all I have to say is it's about time! The Crat Corps have seem to have been "understaffed" for awhile now, and you'll be a welcome addition to helping clear any backlog. Doug Mehus T·C 14:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I had a look, and there is one marked Do Not Press This Button. Of course, I pressed it. SilkTork (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork, Oh, I bet I know what that button does. It sends a group ping to Meta-Wiki to the Stewards with a proforma message that alerts them to a new bureaucrat pressing the "do not press this button" button, to which the stewards just chuckle and clear the notification. Doug Mehus T·C 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Congrats on your 'cratship.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Good on you and congratulations. I may have disagreed with you at times, but you will make an excellent crat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you! ;-) SilkTork (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The torc comes with the shirt!
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Wear your torc well...I worked all night on it.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I do like a gold torc. Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Nicely done, Steve. Best wishes. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dank. SilkTork (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Congratulations and best wishes. Glad to have been able to support. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Donner60. SilkTork (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the lead on PlayStation 3 accessories for you!

You did it in 2011, and I am here just to double check with you to make sure that you're on the same page with me! Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 18:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I haven't checked, I'm sure you've done just fine. Keep on expanding leads with information from the main body of the article. Most visitors to an article only read the lead, so it is important that leads summarise all the important information in the body of the article. SilkTork (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for helping me

Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 18:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou. SilkTork (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious

look at both sides

Thank you for quality articles, beginning Everards Brewery, List of songs with lyrics by Gerry Goffin, Architecture of Chiswick House and Smooth jazz radio, for Districts of Kraków and Beer measurement, for helping from 2006, including arbitrating services, for "sometimes I will linger and sweep up the shit", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2353 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, though those articles you've listed had very little to do with me. Some articles I have actually worked on, include: Beer, Brewing, Covent Garden, George Harrison, Chuck Berry, The Kinks, A1 in London, Kraków, Kilgour–Matas report, Savile Row, Deptford, etc. Most of which are now GA or FA. Beer is the first article I worked on that I was pleased with - I heavily rewrote that and took it to GA in 2008. I have been nibbling away at Brewing for some years, and intend to take that to GA, probably this year. This is a useful tool for identifying which articles someone has worked on. Article creation is not something I work on, though when first here in 2006 I did create a number of beer articles. The articles that tend to interest me will be the big, sometimes complex topics that take their time to research, organise and write, but are most likely to be the ones already here on Wikipedia, and often already drawing lots of readers, so are perhaps the ones that genuinely need most of our attention. I have done a number of GA reviews, and I think the one that pleased me most was working on Clitoris with Flyer: Talk:Clitoris/GA1; a challenging but rewarding task on a complex and important topic that attracts over 5,000 readers a day. There are a number of writers here on Wikipedia that I admire, and I would put Flyer right at the top of that list. She researches well, organises well, and can present complex information in a manner that the general reader can understand, and she is not afraid to tackle big topics. SilkTork (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope Flyer will melt again. - Perhaps put this summary - or a link to it - on your user page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, as over the years I have noted that people don't realise what content creation I have been involved with (and that came up in my RfB as an oppose by someone who was expecting me to put up such a list), but I feel the summary I have put on my user page is sufficient, indicating I have experience at various levels of both content creation and content assessment, as well as experience of other aspects of Wikipedia. I did at one time have a link to the GAs I had been involved in as nominator and reviewer, but that list is genuinely just for me, so I took the link away. I prefer to just have an indication of what I have done so people can get an impression of my experience, rather than have a list. Each aspect of Wikipedia has its value and importance, be it starting an article, developing an article, tidying up an article, protecting an article from vandals and/or users in dispute, creating guidelines on how to write, format, protect an article, etc. We need people to do all these varying tasks. We all need each other. I love and respect our community, so I particularly value the awards people have given me over the years, such as your blue sapphire, so I do have those on my user page: User:SilkTork#Stars. SilkTork (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I also value appreciation, therefore have comments that made me blush on my talk page. The sapphire comes from a project which values quality article improvements highly, but it has also been awarded to people helping that purpose by other tasks than the actual writing, and while likely recipients are writers of a first FA on the main page, some received it for their first DYK article. "We all need each other", indeed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about your RSN closure summary

Sorry for having to ask you about this again, but think it's necessary for you to clarify something about your closure summary in this discussion. It's being claimed here and here that your closure summary concluded that the two books discussed there, by Earl B. Hunt and Heiner Rindermann, are "fringe" sources. My own reading of your closure summary is that in the absence of any sources for or against the assertion that these sources are "fringe", we don't know whether the sources are fringe or not. I also think there was very little support for the statement that these are fringe sources in the RSN discussion itself. However, I also can see how your closure summary could possibly be misinterpreted, and it's possible that I'm the one who's misinterpreting it.

Could you please clarify what you meant in your closure summary for that discussion, and whether you meant to say that there was a consensus that these sources are fringe? If you could explain the meaning of your summary directly in the two discussions that I linked to, that would be especially helpful, because I think everyone will accept your authority on this matter. 2600:1004:B14B:E50A:B880:292B:8DEF:3B45 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have looked at the discussions, and the users seem to have got the gist of my close: the sources are reliable and so can be used, however, until the views in the books gain widespread acceptance in the scientific community they should be treated as fringe. So the sources can be used, but used with care such that the views are not presented as mainstream. In order for the views in the books to be treated as standard rather than fringe, there needs to be a wide consensus in the academic community that the views are accurate. If you have evidence that the views of Heiner Rindermann and Earl B. Hunt are accepted by the academic community, then that would be useful information to present as an argument their views are no longer fringe, but have become mainstream. I hope that helps. SilkTork (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It isn't clear what type of evidence you think is required here. Hunt's book is a standard college-level textbook, and has been positively reviewed in every academic journal that's reviewed it. Normally, I'd assume the way to judge whether or not ideas are widely accepted is based on how they are presented in standard textbooks, and the way of judging whether or not a textbook is fringe is based on how it's been reviewed. One other piece of evidence I'm aware of is a pair of surveys [1] [2] conducted by Rindermann of people who have published research in cognitive psychology journals, which found that more professionals agreed than disagreed with him in most of these areas.

If what I've described isn't adequate, can you clarify what type of evidence would be required in order to demonstrate that their ideas have wide acceptance? 2600:1004:B117:F3CA:3174:A036:DA02:381C (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think what you say makes sense, and you need to be presenting such information in relevant discussions. I can't change what I said as I was commenting on the discussion that was in front of me. But if there were a future discussion on this topic, and you provided the evidence for what you say, then I would be able to take that into account, as would anyone else looking to close such a discussion. If requested, I would close the RfC and bear in mind your evidence if you presented it. SilkTork (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the outcome of a RFC like this one determined by the number of votes in each direction, or is it necessary for the closing admin to consider the strength of the arguments presented, the way is done in a deletion debate? 2600:1004:B162:4EE:51BB:C75C:498:D8A2 (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussions are not always formally closed, but if they are the outcome is determined by assessing consensus. See Wikipedia:Closing discussions, in particular Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome. It's also worth looking at Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions to get more background. We have a very useful search engine on Wikipedia which can be used to find the answers to questions. If you put "WP:" into the search box, followed by the key words of your query - such as "closing discussions", then you will generally get to the answer you want. SilkTork (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)