User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Mod_mmg

Editor assistance needed

Hi, I noticed that you are one of the editors kind enough to list themselves at Editor Assistance. I have a perhaps unusual request: I have some problems with another editor, who is either deliberately trolling or otherwise desperately in need of editor assistance. I started out the wrong way with him or her, so my advice will probably only be counterproductive. Would you be willing to see if there is anything you can do? The editor is User:Mod mmg, and problems include:

• Template:Possiblevandalism and its deletion discussion
• Incorrect article tagging, e.g. at Tom McRae (album)
• Canvassing; like this and five similar ones
• Problems at Wikipedia talk:Don't stuff beans up your nose#Example: instructions to make a batch script prank
• A secondary user / sock (but no edits) / whatever? at User talk:Darcyyy1996
• Warning a much older user for a username violation: [1]
• Moving a Californian organisation to the British spellign of their name, twice[2]
• The discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Archive#Mod MMG's View
• His tagging today of a hill for speedy deletion A7 [3]

I personally don't believe one can make that many different mistakes by accident (it's not as if they are buried in his contributions: they are the vast majority), but I'm not the most patient admin, and I have had a discussion with him or her, so I am probablyno longer objective or uninvolved. Any advice is welcome! Fram (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look. It appears that Mod mmg is an enthusiastic and well meaning new contributor to Wikipedia who hasn't yet become familiar with our procedures and philosophies. Most new users do have difficulties with our complex processes, and it can take years to fully understand the main issues and specific consensus. There is a concern that the user is not learning from observation, and instead tends to argue, though even that can be the result of the more experienced users not explaining process and consensus clearly enough when undoing or repairing Mod mmg's edits. I'll drop a word on Mod mmg's talkpage and suggest Mod mmg requests a mentor. SilkTork *^YES! 12:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. While I'm not as confident about it all as you are, I'll wait and see how it goes (otherwise there was no point in coming to you, of course). Fram (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I can see that you are a keen, enthusiastic and well meaning new contributor. Welcome to Wikipedia. It has been drawn to my attention that you are making a few mistakes, and a glance at your edit history shows that you are causing a little bit of discomfort for other users with your edits, especially when you repeat something that has been corrected (such as when you moved an article to an incorrect spelling). I can see, however, that the more experienced users are not always fully explaining the principles behind why some of your edits are being changed. This is a shame, as having some explanation, and links to the appropriate guidelines and essays will speed up and reinforce your learning process, and lead to fewer conflicts all round. There are a number of experienced users who are willing to assist new users in the most appropriate and trouble free ways of editing Wikipedia. Take a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. There are some areas of Wikipedia where assistance is required which doesn't require that much knowledge or experience, and you can build up your knowledge and experience as you go along. Take a look at the backlog on Category:Articles needing cleanup. You can work your way through those articles and see if there are any that you can improve. Or work though Category:Wikipedia articles with missing information to see if you can supply the missing information. This work would be very valuable, and if correctly done would assist in the building of the encyclopedia and in reducing the backlog of work to be done. Any questions, please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Hi- Your message on my talkpage

After reading your comments on my talkpage I have many things which I wish to say to you. I will not say them all as I would like to keep this brief. I will agree with you in that I am a well meaning contributor. I also understand that your post on my talkpage was made with good intentions. I will also seriously consider accepting your help in making myself a better editor. However, there is one big issue I would like to get off my chest. I shall type it in all capitals so just ignore it if you don't like it. YOU HAVE BEEN GOING TO MY CONTRIBUTIONS LOG AND LOOKING FOR EVERY INSTANCE WHERE I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SOME DISAGREEMENT FROM OTHER USERS AND JOINING IN ON EVERY INSTANCE ON THEIR SIDE! O.K. the rant is off my chest. On a more serious note: I must inform you that, yes I admit my modification to the WP:BEANS policy was unneeded, I shal let that drop. However: You say that my possiblevandalism tamplate is redundant and yet point to a template with a completely different intended purpose. My tag is for new pages which are not-noteable absolutely rubbish, vandalism- possibly, but must be deleted regardless. The tag you point to is for pages which are obvious and clear cases of hate-vandalism or spam-vandalism. Now I would like to draw your attention to the robot animation you decided needs deleting if the uploader dosen't explain quick. Regardless of copyright, this animation is used in countless talkpages (not just my own!) throughout the wikimedia family. It is even the primary image on one article! So keeping in mind how widely used this animation is, it would make more sense to just change the copyright status of the image and not just delete it. Now for my final point. I am planning a moderate change to the Ensemble_Studios page. Check the talkpage of the article for my proposed change, under the heading "update". I would like you to give your opinion on this (i.e. whether it will get reverted 5 mins after editing). Also, I have not yet decided whether I will participate in the editor development projects you refered me to. Can you please reply to all this on my talkpage. Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 08:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

• No problems regarding the rant - there are times when people need to get things off their chest. A number of people find editing Wikipedia to be quite stressful, and will sometimes get frustrated. Some editors used to use Wiki stress meters to show they were finding editing Wikipedia difficult - this has declined over the years, as the focus is now more on creating the encyclopedia rather than personal feelings, though some people still use them, see: [Wikipedia:Stress alerts]]. While some people find difficulties dealing with the largely impersonal and functional manner of Wikipedia, where the focus is on creating an encyclopedia, rather than social networking and being nice to people, a possible outlet that some editors find useful is to type out their rant, click "Show preview", read it through, then delete it. If they still feel like making a comment on an issue, they carefully consider how best to present their grievance in a neutral, factual manner, with an aim in mind for the resolution. If their intention is just to say - "Your edit was appropriate, but it has made me personally unhappy", then they may consider how helpful to the project as a whole it would be to let other people know their personal feelings. On the whole the Wikipedia community frowns upon editors who create discord by venting their personal feelings rather than assisting in building the encyclopedia in a co-operative collegiate manner.
• I am not quite clear on what you want me to do about the template and image discussions. If you would like me to give you some personal feedback on the guidelines and policies regarding those issues, I will do. However, if you are making the comments here as part of the debate into deleting those items, then that discussion is better off taking place on the relevant deletion discussion pages.
• I've had a look at Talk:Ensemble_Studios#Update. It does look as though the article on Ensemble Studios needs updating. You have found some information on a forum about a game that a successor to Ensemble, Newtoy Inc., has released. Now then - how to proceed? The questions are:

1. Is the source you have found, a reliable source? See: WP:RS
2. Is the Ensemble Studios article the most appropriate place to place that information? See: Wikipedia:Relevance of content
3. Should a new article be created for Newtoy Inc? See: WP:COMPANY
4. As the statement "In May 2009, a fourth studio called Newtoy was created by several developers from Ensemble. Newtoy is already working on its first game for the iPhone." is seen to be out of date, it will need editing - see WP:DATED. How might it be better worded?

Have a look though the above and let me know your response to those questions. Also, let me know if you wish to have some input on the relevant guidelines and policies related to the deletion discussions you mentioned. SilkTork *^YES! 10:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh...

After reading the comments from you on my talk page, I have realised that it may have been a bit hasty how I PRODed all those pages in one session. I think I might check with you or someone or get consensus on the talkpage before PRODing or adding speedydelete templates to pages in future. Also, thanks for your other earlier response on my talkpage. I think I will begin to update the ensemble studios page soon, as per what I have already informed you of. Now, one last thing, the animation I and several other users had on their talkpages has been deleted. It was even used on an article ( Gait_(human) ). Until you removed it and then it got reverted back by someone else then it got deleted, then another image was used. I myself decided to use it on my talkpage after seeing it on an admins page! So as you can see this image was widely used throughout the english Wikipedia as well as other language versions. I has now been deleted and I would like advice on how to procede from here. Thanks,
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The image was removed from commons as it did not comply with WikiMedia guidelines and policies. When an image is owned by someone, and that image is used without the owner's permission, it is illegal, and the people or organisations which use that image illegally can be fined. The Wikimedia Foundation is a respectable charity foundation which does not encourage people to break the law.

Among the options open to you, the two main ones would be: 1) Track down the owner of the animation and ask the owner to donate it to Wikipedia under a GNU Free Documentation License; 2) Use a different animation - one which has an appropriate GNU Free Documentation License. You could have a look through these to see if there is one you like that you can use. SilkTork *^YES! 08:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mather Zickel

I want to thank you for fixing Mather Zickel's article. I contribute to Wiki on an irregular basis and only just now got the message that it had been proposed for deletion. Anyhow, I appreciate your help. Have a great night. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. The article could do with more development, so I have put a {{find}} template on the talkpage which will assist in finding sources. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Ohh...

Thank you for explaining why the image was deleted, that fact that wikipedia or the uploader may be in legal trouble if it continued to stay (even though it was very, very unlikely) is an argument no-one can ignore. And thanks for suggesting some new animations, I have put what is possibly an even better animation on my talkpage, userpage, and editnotices. I will now procede to update the ensemble studios article, and then maybe take a break from major edits for a while. Thanks!

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 07:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ensemble Studios

I have updated the 'Closing' and 'External Links' sections of the Ensemble Studios article. I would be glad if you checked out what I have done! And yes, before you ask, I did add references.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 08:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good morning. I'll take a look now. SilkTork *^YES! 08:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Each article has a history section. To view someone's contributions you can click on the hole next to the previous contributor, and then the hole next to the last edit of the contributor you want to look at, and then click "compare selected revisions". This is useful as it highlights differences in red: [4]. If you look at that you'll see more clearly your changes. Your edits look useful, and you have got a source. Well done!

Some details:

• You've made a common error (I do it quite a lot!), in that you have added past tense ("has") but haven't removed the present tense ("is").
• You place a cite in the middle of a sentence. This is sometimes acceptable, though it is more common to place a cite at the end of a sentence in order not to stop the reading flow.
• If your information updates the previous information it is permissible to remove the older citation.
• The names of games are usually placed in italics. You do this by placing '' before and again after the name.
• Linking can be overdone. Sometimes people link too much, so it's good that you haven't overlinked. However, it's always worth looking to see if something can be usefully linked for the reader. I think it might be useful to link wired.com, as not every reader would know who or what Wired is.

I'll take a look now at your sources. SilkTork *^YES! 09:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Your source is a fansite forum. Forums and noticeboards, especially those related to fansites, are generally not regarded as reliable. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if the heavengames.com forum would be considered reliable, though the answer would be no. You'd do better tracking down the wired.com source, or doing a search for "Newtoy" + "Words with Friends" on Google: [5]. That search will throw up a press release: [6], which it would be permissible to use to confirm your statement that Newtoy have released those games, though does not confirm the wired.com award. I searched wired.com and only found this - [7]. There was no mention of an award.

I hope that helps. You'll be able to amend the article with that information. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read your feedback on my editing. Thanks! I will not be able to make the corrections until tomorrow so if there is anything really pressing then... I don't know, but I won't be able to do anything more until tomorrow. Until then, bye!
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 09:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the article. Keep well. SilkTork *^YES! 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany

Wispanow

Consensus at AE seems to be that I should be engaging with Wispanow. Since you've kindly offered to mediate, I've summarised one of the issues he has edit-warred over here: Talk:Scientology_in_Germany#Protection_under_Article_4_of_the_German_Constitution. It would be great if we could resolve this, so it does not result in future flare-ups at the article. I'll invite Wispanow to respond, and if you could keep an eye on the discussion and chime in as appropriate, that would be great. Thanks, --JN466 11:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note on Wispanow's talkpage asking him if he wishes to have a moderated discussion. I have outlined some examples of disruptive editing that would result in a warning, and if the disruption continued would result in a topic ban. These restrictions will, of course, apply to you as well. Such disruptive editing would include placing POV type tags on the article without consensus, reverting any non-vandal edits, or making comments about other editors in edit summaries. If you see an edit that you wish to revert, please get in touch with me, and if I agree that the edit is inappropriate I will deal with it. If I am not available, then please wait. There is no non-vandal edit that is so bad that it cannot wait. For avoidance of doubt, I would count an unsourced libelous BLP statement as a vandal edit. SilkTork *^YES! 21:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. To tie up a remaining loose end, you referred at AE to this edit of mine, mentioning in the edit summary a talk page discussion you had been unable to find. This diff contains the relevant talk page discussions. I proposed returning to the Feb 19 version on the talk page at 00:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC), and the GA reviewer, Mattisse, replied at 01:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC), The unreliable sources need to be removed, as well as any information that they are sourcing that is not sopported by other sources. I agree if the "originals" can be found, that would be fine. The SP Times article seem good. It seems to mostly quote what the German official said, as I recall, without commenting on the veracity of much of it. I have had no problem with your judgment nor your willingness to cooperate with other editors, so I trust you judgment in restoring the articles sources to a reliable condition. I made the edit at 13:26, 23 February 2009. In case you were wondering, I restored the deleted information about Antje Victore's allegedly fraudulent asylum case later that day, in this edit, but now sourced wholly to reliable sources. The GA reviewer had objected to the source whyaretheydead.net, which had been inserted by an IP in this edit. If you have any other questions about the edit, please ask. I note your points about moving forward, which seem fair, and I look forward to the process. --JN466 00:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked into your links, though I totally accept I would have overlooked something, and apologise to you for any errors I have made. I have a general feel for what has happened on the article, and that should be enough for the task in hand, which is looking into Wispanow's concerns, while being aware of Wispanow's past conduct. SilkTork *^YES! 10:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

talk:Scientology in Germany

Thank you very much for your offer of moderated talk. Probably the first case: Jayen466 will not stop, insulting me to performing an edit-war. Unbalanced, because there have to be two editors for that. I just want to discuss the article, not to be attacked without any reason. Thank you. Wispanow (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise language

Hi SilkTork: I'm an uninvolved editor here. I had added some comments on the talk:Scientology in Germany page just before you archived stuff. They were an attempt to find some compromise language. Jayen466 suggested on my talk that I re-add them to the bottom of talk:Scientology in Germany, but I thought I should check with you as to what might be most helpful.--agr (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I had noted that conversation and meant to restore it earlier, but got distracted. I have restored it now. SilkTork *^YES! 22:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved a comment from EdJohnston (whose input I had solicited yesterday) from the moderated discussion to the article talk page; I hope that's per your intentions. Best, --JN466 23:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany

SilkTork, in this edit Wispanow changed the wording

"Between 1996 and 1998, government publications on Scientology proliferated. Courts backed the publications, holding that they did not interfere with religious freedom, but merely reflected the government's responsibility to keep the public informed.

to

Between 1996 and 1998, government publications on Scientology proliferated. Courts published those not to interfere with religious freedom, but to undertake the government's responsibility to keep the public informed.

The cited source, p. 88 in Richardson (ed.), says: "Between 1996 and 1998, government publications on new religious movements mushroomed, with a considerable proportion dealing with Scientology. The courts had approved such warnings, arguing that they did not interfere with the free exercise of religion but responded to the government responsibility of informing the public."

The cited author, Hubert Seiwert, is a Professor of Religion at the University of Leipzig and was a member of the German government's Enquete Commission on new religious movements.

I would like the article to return to the prior wording, as the present version, implying that the courts took an active role in the publication, is at variance with the cited source. Per your role as the moderator of the recent discussions, would you be able to perform the revert, or permit me to do so? --JN466 11:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer waiting until Wispanow has had a chance to respond to my last message. I'll leave a note on his talkpage explaining that we wish to move on, and give him a few more days to respond. If there's no word from him after that time, I feel it would be reasonable to proceed with a GAR as previously discussed. SilkTork *^YES! 16:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. Thanks. --JN466 21:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just see he has responded in the moderated discussion. --JN466 21:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

List of billionaires

I suspect that it might be a copyright infringement too. I didn't start that list (2009), only the new one (2010) which only have 10 names for now as I thought it should be updated if it should be here at all. Anyway, thank for bringing it to WP:CP, I hope someone who knows more than me about copyright problems can straighten it up. --Skizzik^talk 11:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I started a conversation on Talk:List of billionaires. I'm really not 100% sure I know the two sides of the argument, but I think there should at least be a discussion about this since it's disastrous if we go the wrong way. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Old Article

Dear SilkTork, I am seeking your help to review the artcle Jayen Varma which was deleted earlier. I had not contacted any other admins since I got myself convinced about the rules and action of yours and also of the person who tagged it for deletion. With recent news article item appeared in The Hindu in India, I hope the article can be replaced. I have just posted a draft article in my user page for you to verify it. I also checked about record labels and I find that in India its rare that musicians and singers have royalty and copy rights and labels for their own songs. They sing and play music on an agreement/call sheets and often the rights are with producers. While this is not the case in the West and its still a big issue here. The article is still there in Italian language. Please look in to the draft in my user page and move it to original space, if you find its ok. Thanks .--Musicindia1 (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. It is, unfortunately though, just one newspaper report, and it doesn't give us much in the way of notability. I've known articles deleted with more than one newspaper report. The criteria under which Jayen Varma would be judged is WP:CREATIVE:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums

I don't see Jayen Varma meeting that criteria with that one article, do you? SilkTork *^YES! 17:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear SikTork, I see that he meets one of this criteria 100%. He is known for originating a new concept of slap bass playing and technique. And sure partially with the rest of the criteria. I have been closely observing artistes in these genres for years. And I have seen that there are 100 s of bassists known in the world from USA and they are all almost here in WP. But the man in question who is the greatest bassist of India is the one who is doing it as big as them from Inida. I am proud to say this. I do not think you will agree to it. I request you to move it to the original space if you think its true. Its a long discussed subject and I do not wish t talk again on it. Its up to you to decide.----Musicindia1 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any authoritative sources confirming a claim that he has originated a significant new concept, theory or technique. I see evidence that Jayen Varma has been promoting his bass slapping style. While it is admirable that he does promote himself and his style, until an independent musical authority remarks upon his playing style, it remains an individual promoting them self, and Wikipedia is wary of being a part of any promotion or advertising. Wikipedia reports on people and topics that have already achieved notability. It would be highly inappropriate of us to be responsible for creating that notability - though we are aware that because of our nature, and our wide coverage, that people do attempt to promote or advertise their band or their company or organisation through us. Because of that we tend to err on the side of caution with cases like this, where an individual does appear to be keen to promote themselves, yet there is little evidence of their notability.

I do not see Jayen Varma meeting our notability criteria at this time. I would be willing to look at more evidence, but I cannot support a reinstatement of the article under the current evidence. You can ask another admin or experienced editor to look into the matter. People have different opinions. The editors at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron are always very keen to assist in maintaining articles on Wikipedia, you try approaching them. SilkTork *^YES! 08:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will see if anyone else can look for the same (from the link you have given me). Regards--Musicindia1 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: E.S. Updated

Thankyou for updating the ensemble studios page, I didn't really have the time to do it. Thanks!!
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 22:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Akmal

I was going to get to it first thing after I got back. Thanks for your work there, and for clearing it as GA. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 22:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Semi-periphery_countries#Expert

I left you an (overdue) reply there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's cool. I'm comfortable with you removing any tags you feel are inappropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 18:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 01:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)