User talk:SilkTork/Dispute Archive

Drax

Dispute Assistance

I saw your page amongst those who offer assistance with editor disputes. So after reading your page, I first got myself a nice cuppa, and then wanted to write to you in the hopes you might be willing to assist me with a matter which I am finding rather upsetting. While I have been a user of Wikipedia for some time, but admittedly I am fairly new when it comes to contributions. One subject that I am very interested in is the programme Doctor Who, and recently added a page about a character who has appeared in four separate works. One series, and at least three other books. (As this character was the antagoinst in two of these works, I felt he was worthy of his own page consistent with the precedents established for other characters.)

After posting the page I had a few folks pop by to make edits or corrections, which all made the article better. But one user, known as Digby Tantrum, has been keen to delete rather than to make things better. While I may have made errors, I feel that helping me correct them is more helpful than deleting my work. I went so far as to drop him a professional note to tell him how I feel, and that if he would be a bit more supportive instead of destructive that it would help those of us who are new to learn.

Apparantly he didn't feel that his behaviour was unprofessional, and went back in and put a flag on the page that indicated that it had questionable "notability." (In that there are four sources of work cited, I don't believe that this was a warranted behaviour.)

I don't really want to have a "war" with anyone, but having already contacted this person as the dispute page suggested, the problem does no seem to be getting any better. So I am looking for any help you can offer.

My thanks in advance for your help.

RobHoitt 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rob. I hope you enjoyed your cup of tea! It often helps just to share concerns with other people, and to know that you are not alone. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that sometimes people agree on how an article should proceed, and sometimes they don't agree. When we agree with each other there are no problems - but when there are disagreements this can be frustrating. It's happened to all of us at times - and it will happen again. The best way is to acknowledge to yourself that the edit conflicts are not personal. The other editor is not making judgements about you as an individual, but it simply working on a collaborative article, and has a different way of doing it to you. The best way of dealing with any such dispute is to discuss it, and to discuss it in as friendly or at least as neutral a manner as possible, and to assume that the other editor has good intentions. In my experience most edit disagreements when conducted properly result in a stronger, better article. An article only written by one person with one point of view can end up unbalanced and possibly biased. So, uncomfortable though it can be, an edit disagreement can be a Good Thing! I've looked at the discussions you've had with User:Digby Tantrum, and I can see that he is providing full explanations for what he is doing, and he is using a respectful tone. He has concerns about the article, and he is giving some suggestions for how to progress it. I would say that the initial contact could have been friendlier, but that is not a criticism of Mark - messages about copyright material and fair use images are left on many user's talk pages, and they do tend to be factual and blunt. I have now left you a big, friendly welcoming message with a number of useful links. I hope that will compensate. As for the Drax (Doctor Who) article itself. Well, as the notability tag indicates, some references would help. I have added a reference section and put in one reference as an example. There are more advanced ways of showing references, but the way I have done it is real easy, and is quite acceptable. I wouldn't be able to comment on the notability of this particular character - however, I have noticed articles within Category:Time Lords that also deal with Time Lord characters. Perhaps take a look at those and see how much information they contain in relation to the Drax article. Though, be warned, just because those articles are there, doesn't mean they would survive a discussion on deletion - they could be there because nobody - as yet - has questioned them! I hope this has been helpful to you. If you need any more help or advice on this or any other matter, please feel free to get in touch again. Good luck! SilkTork 10:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back, I am in the process of researching additional resources to add more "meat" to the article, but I was able to add to the reference box you've added. Over the last couple days, Digby has been a busy person adding and revising the article, albeit nothing was really negative, so perhaps the communication to him to state I was concerened about deleting things without explanation was enough.

Seeing you have an interest in beer, should you ever come across the pond, I would encourage you to visit the Washington DC area. I have recently migrated here and find myself near several microbreweries. one of note that I visited recently is the Red Brick Pub in White Marsh, Maryland. They make all of their own beer, and quite respectable IPA's and ales. Should you make it over, I'll have to get a round. Anyways, thanks for the advice and the help. RobHoitt 16:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I just found this online, It seemed most appropriate. Thanks again!!!

		The Minor Barnstar
		For showing me how to add reference boxes RobHoitt 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I spoke too soon.

It appears that the individual has elected to revisit the previous problem... The individual made a point of scolding me on my talk page for casting him in a bad light in my commentary above, so when you have time, take a gander at the talk page for the article I spoke to you about earlier. I am wondering if the point I have made to him twice (both there and on his talk page) about the substance of his commentary is appropriate. Many thanks. RobHoitt 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: A round of drinks

Nice one. I have been meaning to visit the US of A. I have a few beers I am interested in! I'll give you a shout if I come over and we can buy each other a round. Regards. SilkTork 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anytime, it would be my pleasure. Which American beers are you interested in? I am often amazed at just how abundant the variety is here. I found myself at the local grocery store which devotes a whole aisle to beer and "coolers" and another just to wine. A wayward six-pack of Tecate (Mexican, from the Cerveceria Cuauhtemoc Moctezuma in Monterrey.) found its way into my cart. (Tecate reminds me almost of Molson's Canadian [maybe slightly sweeter], in that it appears to be a very crisp pilsner-type.) The local store offers beer from all over North and South America. I would be very willing to conduct any research for you on this topic, provided that it includes subsequent taste testing. :) Cheers! -RobHoitt 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have an interest in Bert Grants, especially Bert Grants Scottish Ale as that defined and began a style. Sadly the brewery closed a while back so supplies of Bert Grants in people's cellars are diminishing all the time. Another one is Yuengling Porter as that has a long history. My son was in New York last year, and he was running out of money, so I wired him $400. He was very pleased and asked me if there was anything I wanted bringing back - I said a bottle of Yuengling Porter would be nice. He gets me a bottle of Yuengling Premium! $400 for a bottle of boring pale lager! SilkTork 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I just checked. I haven't had Tecate. You can check out ratings for that and other beers on RateBeer - [1]. Cheers. SilkTork 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tecate was rather good. I have some Leinenkugel's Summer and Yeungline Lager in the fridge now. The Leinenkugel's Summer actually used coriander as a flavoring, very curious, but it works!!! RobHoitt 15:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Coriander is a popular flavouring in wheat beers. Was is Leinenkugels Sunset Wheat you had? SilkTork 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... (Quickly sneaking into the trash to check the empties...) Yes, that is exactly right. I have had several wheeat beers and hefeweisens over the years, (I even have homebrewed up a couple...) but either they have been "plain" or flavored with honey or cherry. Generally when I think of coriander, I think of cilantro, which in my house is often purchased, and usually goes into a nice homemade salsa or other random "tex-mex" dish... I had never seen it in a beer before, but it made for a very crisp, and tasty libation. RobHoitt 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Forgive me

I see you are doing good work on Wiki, and you appear to be a solid and respected editor - just the sort of person we need on Wiki. You have done nothing major wrong, however this comment [2] has been drawn to my attention. It's a a shame, because it's not helpful. It's in public, and it's a matter of record. RobHoitt is trying to make Drax (Doctor Who) a better article. He is keen, and needs to be encouraged and helped. You both share an interest in Dr Who and should get on. We have no cabal here - we try to create a community where everyone helps each other. Such a comment, following RobHoitt's comments to you that he found your tone to be hurtful and alienating, doesn't look good. I'm sure you didn't mean to be hurtful, however that is the way that RobHoitt is seeing it, and that is the way I would see it if the same thing was said to me in the same circumstances. As you have some knowledge of Dr Who, and you have some months of Wiki experience, could I ask that you work with RobHoitt, and give him some support, encouragement and helpful advise. He is a friendly, co-operate person who responds very well to friendly communication. If you take him under your wing I'm sure he would be able to improve the quality of his article writing. Regards. SilkTork 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However, I'm afraid I don't share your optimism regarding RobHoitt's potential as an editor. I've seen no signs that he's willing to learn about the encyclopaedic coverage of fiction, despite being pointed in the direction of the relevant guidelines, or that he has the emotional resiliency to cope with the simplest of disagreements — something understandable in an editor yet to see their twenties, but, frankly, worrying in someone past thirty.

Wikipedia is not operated by a cabal, true. But we're also not a haven for the incapable.

It's possible that I'm wrong about Rob. Maybe, with the right kind of mentor, he'll get his act together. But I'm damn sure I'm not that mentor. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with your response. SilkTork 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm not aiming to become Wikipedia's first living saint. I prefer to deal with the realities of the editing process. Oh, and this? Well funny. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it gave me some amusement on a wet Monday! ;-) SilkTork 08:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Mark elected to redirect the page into another, see: [Talk:Drax_(Doctor_Who)] and took the page down altogether. As he seems to have a personal issue with me as noted in his previous commentary including earlier in this thread. However his commentary above is the third public comment that I would consider inappropriate he has elected to make, and when combined with what I would take as destructing a page for the purposes of getting even, I really am wondering if something a bit more formal is in order. You have more experience in this arena, so I am curious what your opinion about this is. Also I wanted to thank you again for your help and support. Perhaps I will be owing you a six-pack before too long. RobHoitt 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Drax (Doctor Who)

Drax (Doctor Who), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Drax (Doctor Who) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drax (Doctor Who) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes '~~~~'. You are free to edit the content of Drax (Doctor Who) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 10:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the article has been listed for a wider discussion on the issue of its notability, and where and how it should appear on Wiki. Regards SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 10:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, might as well. There isn't any content left in it now anyways. I dare not say how I really feel on the matter for fear of getting publicly flamed again. RobHoitt- 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC) - comhrá/talk

I forgot to restore the text when nominating for discussion. It's back now. Not that I think it will have a significant difference, but at least people now have an opportunity to see what is being discussed! Cheers. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 07:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

SigBlock

I like the signature block you are doing, you've inspired me... cheers! :) RobHoitt- 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC) - comhrá/talk

Y'alls signatures are horrible to look at. Really. Deiz talk 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There's always a critic... RobHoitt- 20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC) - comhrá/talk

Well, more than one.. check Riana's talk. Choose whatever sig you like, but don't be surprised if others aren't impressed with editors who feel the need to use garish / large / quirky signatures to identify themselves while editing an encyclopedia. Deiz talk 00:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment on User:SilkTork's page

FYI, I guess things have worked out. See below- Rob

Looking at your recent contributions, I was wrong to be so pessimistic about your potential. Allow me to apologise for that: I'm sorry. People who create free images are always welcome on Wikipedia.

Regards. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, it actually means a lot. No doubt it would also please you to know that I prefer to use software from a British company called Serif Software for my graphics work. The Serif folks opened up their US operations near my old home in New Hampshire, and were very kind in giving several software packages to a local Radio Club with no requirement of advertising or being repaid in any way. The software worked great, and I've been a loyal customer ever since. Cheers! RobHoitt- 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC) - comhrá/talk

Though I am damn right in saying both your signatures are eyesores. So there. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Request For Help In Edit War

I have been having edit wars with UtherSRG, in that, when I try to post reconstructions of prehistoric animals, he accuses me of "original research," and removes the picture, sometimes even deleting them. However, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia Policy on Original Research makes an exemption for self-made images provided they are made with an attempt to be accurate, but, UtherSRG disregards this interpretation. In fact, he scoffs at whatever excuse or reference I or others provide, as, apparently, my reconstructions are incredibly offensive to his scientific sensibilities. The only reason why he does not harass other artists who post self-made reconstructions is, apparently, they do not edit articles he has claimed to protect. If it is a problem of accuracy, other Wikipedians have either given me more accurate references, or they have replaced my pictures with more accurate ones. I want to be able to continue to use my pictures to help improve Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, UtherSRG is immune to reason, and consistantly ignores consensus. I don't understand why I must be afraid to post my reconstructions for fear of offending the impossibly hypersensitive scientific sensibilities of a single Wikipedian, while other artists are free to post without interference. Is there any way resolving this?--Mr Fink 14:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look and get back to you. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is UtherSRG allowed to disregard consensus and flout the various rules at Wikipedia?--Mr Fink 02:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A Okay

Thank you! Everything has been fine: I have had no further problems with UtherSRG.--Mr Fink 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

user created images

Compare Mr. Fink's works with the image at Thylacoleo. Can you see why I don't think Fink's images are up to snuff? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't like the backgrounds? Anyway, I think the main issue here is that the images are both popular and acclaimed within the community that is most involved in creating the articles in which the images appear. By a broad consensus they are wanted on those articles. Wikipedia runs along by consensus, so that even when you or I or the Queen of Sheba do not agree, we have to accept. It is right to challenge something that you don't agree with. But if, having put forward your best argument, consensus is still against you, then you have to stop the challenge - no matter how painful that is! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah... then I find other people to put forward *their* best, such as the creator of the Thylacoleo image.... If he's willing to create images to replace Fink's.... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's sounds like a good solution. I've often found that disputes end up making an article better as people look for alternative solutions which are acceptable to everyone. Well done. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pedro Malan

[3]

Can I ask why you delisted that? It doesn't appear that an opinion was given. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As per procedure. I am looking into the case, therefore I remove the listing so that somebody else doesn't need to do the research. Currently I am looking into how to create a succession box as that appears to be the main problem with the article. If creating a box is easy I will explain how it is done to the two editors. Thanks for your concern. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll put in an infobox to resolve the situation. --Dali-Llama 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just put in an example of how to create a succession box. You can use that or create your own infobox. Good luck! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello SilkTork!!

That looks GREAT! Thank you so much. I´ll do my best to make this box available. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pleased to help! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Tks again! Well, I did my best, here. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I have tidied and expanded the article a little bit. Regards. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks good. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion Diavlog

Yes, thank you very much for your help. Pdelongchamp 15:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent surgery on the Korea University thread

I found you have performed a huge surgery on the Korea University hread. The first thing I'd like to ask to you is if it valid to remove any contents supported by reliable references, though they are written in languages other than English. I am kind of confused by the recent observations showing as if Wikipedia only cares the stipulated styles, and looks away from the genuineness of contents.

The second question, I would like to ask is there are lots of other Korean universities thread filled with similar contents you just removed. They are also underpinned by references written in Korean. Will you do the same surgery on them, like you just have done in the Korea University thread? If you need, I will search those thread and give a list for you. In addition, I will keep trying to improve contents in the KU thread in accordance to wikirules.Patriotmissile 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Patriotmissile. I removed a chunk of text from the lead section of Korea University which was very problematic for a number of reasons, and was the main cause of the conflict between yourself and Epthorn. As I explained here, the reason was to enable editors, yourself and Epthorn included, to work on the text in a collaborative manner and cure the problems before reinstating the text in the article. The problems are largely to do with poor quality writing, incorrect grammar, inappropriate tone and biased selection of material. It is questionable how much of the text should go back into the article, though I leave that to other editors to sort out. It may be decided that after a clean up all of it should go back in, but certainly if in goes back in without any editing then the problems will remain. Is it valid to remove poor text? Yes, always. Is it valid to correct bias? Yes, always. The text is still there, and is there to be worked on. It is quite common for problematic or questionable text that may be useful to be moved to the talk page for discussion. It is a better way of dealing with controversial text than simply deleting it. It is up to you and the others to now work on improving the text in a cooperative manner. As for content over style - no, we always prefer to have good content. The question here is how much of "Korea University has striven to recast its old somewhat conservative image to global and future

-oriented figures, and efforts for the recast have been fruited successfully so far" is actually worthwhile content, regardless of sources for the statement. It's a matter of carefully selecting which bits of information to use out of the many bits that are available. If you find a 50,000 word account of KU it wouldn't be appreciated if you used all 50,000 words in the article and defended your action by saying there is a source. It's about making careful choices. That's your task as an editor. And your decisions will either be supported by other editors or not. When your decisions are not supported then it is considered appropriate to discuss the reasons with the other editors in a respectful manner, and to accept the decisions gracefully if the reasons are valid and reasonable. I hope this helps. If not, please ask me for a clearer explanation. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As for your second question. I am not looking at the other Korean articles. I have concerned myself with this one because a third opinion was asked for. If you'd like me to look at another article I will do. Which one would you like me to look at? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

SilkTork, Thanks for the helpful intervention. Because I had been one of the two editors involved in a bit of a tussle over the page, I was hesitant to make the changes in tone myself as it might cause a revert. As to the citations and non-English references, that's a sticky problem with no good solution. Frankly, I think the way you edited it dodges the issue though (in a good way), since the important point (that KU is regarded as one of the top three universities) is still there and has a source in English from a known paper... it's not really necessary to have 9 sources for one statement. Some of the other statements that had sources were a little too POV/advert anyway. I think the page is now a good place to start from to carefully add information and make it similar to other institutions in terms of information. Thanks, Epthorn 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Silktalk,

It seems that you're the right person to ask this question. I am concerning to remove the thread completely from Wikipedia, and would you explain proper procedures for it? In addition, I am planning to remove all my info donations I have made from English Wikipedia, so let me know if such act is considered as violation in Wikipedia.Patriotmissile 19:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An article can be nominated for deletion. Information on this can be found on Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. People then discuss if the topic of the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, and if it has sufficient sources to confirm the topic's notability. Korea University would pass such a discussion and would not be deleted. You would need to have a good reason for nominating an article for deletion. People may not be happy if an article was listed for deletion for personal reasons, such as being frustrated at the way an article was progressing. As for removing all your contributions, you have agreed to license your contributions under GNU Free Documentation License so they no longer belong to you as such. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

Contributing to Wikipedia can be very frustrating and most of us have had bad experiences from time to time. It can feel personal when someone else starts to edit an article that one has worked on for a while. You could give Korea University a break for a while. Try editing in some other area of Wikipedia. Or even take a short break from Wikipedia for a few days. It can work. It can help to put things in perspective. The nature of Wikipedia is that it is collaborative, so people will work on the article anyway. Sometimes articles go backwards with poor editing, but in most cases they go forward in a positive manner. There is no need to feel that without your attention any article will go bad. Because every change is stored on Wikipedia you can take a break for a month, and come back and restore the article to an earlier point if that is what you wanted to do. There is no need to worry. Take a break from KU and perhaps upload some pictures, such as Image:Seoul daylight.jpg, which is truly beautiful. You have a real talent for photography. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up tag on Korea University

SilkTork, I found you put a clean-up tag in the Korea University thread, and would you let me know what exactly you want it to be ameliorated in my box? Is it referring to clean-up dead hyperlinks or else?Patriotmissile 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The tag is on an internal list. See the guideline Wikipedia:Embedded list and the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat. As an example of how to present information, see Oxford_university#Notable_alumni_and_faculty. If the number of KU alumni grows large, then would be the time to split out into a standalone list - as it is at the moment, the amount of people can be dealt with appropriately as a prose paragraph, with some information as to who the people are. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion on The Cardiff Team

Hi you kindly gave a measured 3rd opinion on The Cardiff Team. The article has onw been deleted after, following your recommendation, I edited and moved brief descriptions on 3 Davenport works of fiction to the Guy Davenport page. This material has now been deleted by user SocJan after a limited discussion with one other user and regular contributor to the Guy Davenport article. Can I ask for your opinion again please Tony 12:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Tony

Flash Gordon

Hi SilkTork,

Thank you for taking this on. I will try to be brief. This is a matter of ruling on the principle of using tags over a disputed section or erasing the section altogether. If you look at the diffs on the Flash Gordon talk page this section was completely removed from the article by a previous user and I restored it, albeit shorter, a long time after and only at the suggestion of another user. The question is: Do we erase sections that displease us or do we tag them so other users can clean them up. See here the user tags the section. Later the same user changes his mind and erases the section as in here remarking in the edit summary whole section not encyclopedic. If someone would like to come up with a BRIEF overview and not just spoiler insanity for no encyclopedic purpose, please try. The question is how do you try to improve a section if a section is not there?

Further he does something similar to the Gorgon article recently as in here. Then I invite him to discuss this and he replies: Sorry, but the discussion was in the edit comment: and he erases it again after I restored it as in here. Then he tells me I don't understand how Wikipedia works. I thought consensus was an important principle here.

Please also note that these two edits happened immediately after I edited both articles. Anyway the principle I am trying to establish here is that instead of annihilating whole sections it would be best if they were tagged first and people got the chance to repair the faults in situ. If you erase it how can people see its faults? Thanks again for your assistance in this matter. Please help because it is not fun edit warring with people that don't even want to discuss things on the talk page. Other than this dispute very few other times have been as disappointing to me as dealing with this present dispute. Take care. Dr.K. 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. This is a dispute about how much plot should appear in the article. I'll come over and give some links. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be as bold as stating that they don't call you Silk for nothing. Your abilities as an interlocutor are in direct proportion to the promise of this adjective. Excellent guideline, flawlessly and tactfully rendered. Thank you very much for the great time and effort you put into this eloquent work. It shows me the depth of ability and fairness available within this great project.

Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that makes matters easier for both of you. Now go forth and edit! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It sure works for me. Thanks again. Dr.K. 16:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with dispute

Hello SilkTork, I got your name off the dispute resolution page. I'm having problems with editor User:Susanlesch‎. I first came into the conflict after an anon registered complaints [4] that her edits at Star Tribune didn't make any sense. Essentially she's added sections to the Star Tribune and New York Times articles about their headlines over the course of days and weeks. I guess the idea is to give the reader a sense of each newspaper's online "style" but none of it made much sense to me and I didn't think it added anything to either article. I expressed my concerns on the Star Tribune Talk page [5], and in an edit summary on the New York Times [6]. She responded to my concerns and the concerns of the anon with responses that did not address the substance of the complaints levied against her and in a tone that displayed an aggressive unwillingness to engage in discussion, as if the meaning of her edits was self-evident. I've found her communications with me in particular to be condescending and dismissive [7], [8], [9]. I've tried to evoke WP:Consensus, but she repeatedly asserts no desire to discuss her edits. Please help! Regards, --Beaker342 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Beaker342. Greetings again. Hello, SilkTork. Nice to meet you. I am really sorry but I am not feeling well. Beaker342 is escalating his or her whatever. I can only add that he or she didn't answer any of my questions on the Star Tribune talk page where whatever this is started earlier today. May the best man, woman or child win. I really am not concerned about winning this one. Again, Beaker342, if you would like to contribute to the article about the Star Tribune newspaper I encourage you to add your idea, which I thought was neat. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, SilkTork. Sorry but I am really not well. Whatever this is has gone on for over the space of six hours today and I am not feeling well. Could you kindly close the above issue if possible? I will check back a bit later on and see if you are online. Thank you in advance if you can, and Beaker342, again information about the "format i.e." whatever of the Star Tribune would be a wonderful addition to Wikipedia, in my opinion. Best wishes to you both. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. I have no dispute with anyone on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia. SilkTork would you kindly confirm here that this issue is closed? Beaker342 sent me an apology on my talk page (his or her first post there was a couple hours ago and no I am not feeling well). Thank you and everyone who participated in whatever the heck this was. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I had to look in your talkpage history to find the apology from Beaker342. I understand and sympathise with your desire to bury this incident; however, in the interests of clarity and open communication, the community prefers that messages are left on a talkpage for a while, and then archived appropriately. People do different things, and that's the collegiate nature of Wiki. It's up to you to consider how much you want to assist others in the project, and how much you want to do your own thing. Of course, individual circumstances result in individual decisions, and you may be hurting so badly in this issue that you just want to forget it. I mention it so you are aware that I wasn't able to find it immediately, even though you made mention of it in your communication. You may use this information to inform your future decisions. Or - put simply: It causes problems when you delete messages from your talkpage - it's best not to do it in future!

I hear what you are saying about dropping this issue. If editing Star Tribune is causing you stress, I would suggest editing elsewhere on Wiki for a while, and come back to it when you are feeling stronger. Best wishes, and keep well. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 10:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds completely fair to me. So I may consider this issue closed? (I track open issues and at this time because of my physical health would appreciate being able to close this one.) Star Tribune is a Low priority WikiProject Journalism article (at least according to my rating at the moment) and I have no interest in it at this time. You'll just have to trust that I manage my talk page in a way that works for me. One other person had a similar comment by the way, quite a long time ago, and I noticed a comment about it at a meetup. To each his own (some people completely delete their talk without archiving it, right?). Thanks so much for your efforts. Best wishes for the holiday season and the new year. -Susanlesch (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your involvement is up to you. That's always been the case. I have been attempting to deal with the editing rather than the individuals, and not leaving messages on user's talkpages. I have today requested that Beaker342 cease messaging you about the issue as I can see you've made it clear that you don't wish to discuss the matter any more. Your continued involvement in the discussion about having a "style" section in the article is up to you. You are not obligated to watch the article, nor to get involved in any discussion. I suppose what I am saying, is that I have seen the issue as being about editorial content rather than behaviour. I can see where it has involved behaviour, though I have tried (and am still trying!) to steer it away from that area. You have done nothing wrong. You have nothing to feel bad about. I think Beaker342 didn't fully understand the Wiki way and has tried to pull you into this issue rather more than he should have. I haven't communicated directly with you (until today, here on my talkpage), and I have pointed out to Beaker342 that it would be inappropriate for him to continue to communicate with you. So, as far as you are concerned, yes, the matter is closed. Tuck yourself up in a comfy duvet with a warm Pot Noodle and watch some daytime TV. Wiki is not worth the stress when you are ill. You are a valued contributor - we want you to continue with your edits. You make Wikipedia a better place. Now, have a rest, and come back refreshed. Or edit in a different corner of Wiki for a while. The important thing is for you to recognised that you are valued and that you have done nothing wrong here.

The matter is closed! SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your help with Star Tribune, and unrelated style issues in New York Times and Time. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I rarely get these, and it's very nice when I do. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. -Susanlesch (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for your input on credit crunch. I would appreciate some help pruning those links and nixing the commentary. The other editor has quite an agenda and, at this point, starting a revert war is not my aim. Montco (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet

Help with a dispute

Hi. I got your name off Editor assistance page and I'm hoping you can help out. Me and another editor (editor #1) have been dealing with another editor (editor #2) who basically reverts every edit either of us do based on their personal feelings. The article in question is Karyn Kupcinet. As you can see from the history, it's been nothing but an ongoing edit war. Long story short, after a few weeks of the article being left alone, I decided to rewrite it. I ran this idea by the editor #1 who, after I wrote the article, copy edited what I wrote for mistakes. We both agreed the content was well written and properly sourced. Naturally, this brought editor #2 who never agrees with us out of the woodworks (after having previously been banned for being uncivil) and has changed EVERYTHING. Now, I understand that will happen, but editor #2 changed things that were properly sourced because they have one book that counters two publications that I used as references. The bottom line here is that the editor #2 doesn't want anything in the article that reflects poorly on the subject or that isn't in that one book. They've also added lots of unsourced items and attempted to stick statements near or before other statements that are properly sourced in an attempt to pass them off as sourced. Editor #1 and I have attempted to talk to editor #2 but they won't stop changing the page and constantly add things without sources and pay no attention to Wikipedia policy or style guides.

Is it possible for you to step in and take a look at my rewrite and theirs and see which one is the better version or offer any advice? I'm (of course) willing to compromise regarding the article, but the other editor and I feel that the only reason editor #2 is constantly rewriting the article is because they feel the page is theirs and they're the only one knowledgeable on the subject. They're also unwilling to compromise and rarely address either one of us attempting to agree on something. Instead, they rewrite the article and become indignant if anyone changes a word. Basically, only three of us are involved in this dispute. Another new editor has popped up recently, but I suspect that is a sockpuppet along with a few other anon IPs that have popped up as well.

Anyhow, any help would be greatly appreciated and I apologize for this being so long and/or confusing. We're both pretty much at our wit's end regarding this article and that editor. Thanks! Pinkadelica 11:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look. I'll take a closer look later and give my opinion on the talkpage. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Any help is greatly appreciated. Pinkadelica 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet

I hope that you don't end up regretting taking on this dispute resolution. The reason that it has been so contentious can easily be explained by the posting Dooyar left in response to your initial question. This is how it has been ever since he/she began adding to this article. It's quite frustrating. Wildhartlivie 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. However, in my experience, articles get better through such disputes. There is a reason why there is a dispute, and that is usually because the article is not balanced enough. There are going to be decisions I recommend that you will support, and some that you will not support. Somehow we will work our way through to a hardened and brilliant article. I would strongly urge you to focus entirely on the article and refrain from commenting on the other editors involved no matter what they say or do. I will give this message to the other editors as well. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet

Thanks for your message. In the future, I will focus on the article and the dispute, but (and I'm not making excuses for myself) the other editor (Dooyar) rarely addresses the topic at hand and usually goes off into something else. Plus, the snide remark about Wildhartlivie being suspended from editing the article kinda ticked me off. :) We've been dealing with this guy for the past few months and, at times, it gets beyond frustrating. I apologize and look forward to finally getting a good article completed. Thanks again for helping. Pinkadelica 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

What is the remedy if someone ignores the dispute process and does not acknowledge the questions being posed and discussed? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We are all volunteers and cannot be conscripted to take part in a discussion. However, if a user doesn't get involved in negotiations with the community, especially during a dispute when requested to get involved, this will be looked upon unfavourably. If there is a Request for comment on that user, such behaviour will be taken into account - though not getting involved in discussion is not, by itself, a reason for such a RfC - the user would have to be displaying disruptive behaviour for a RfC to be called.

To make it clearer: An edit dispute is common and is not by itself reason for a RfC. The first stage is discussion, then a request for assistance. If after these stages the dispute continues, and it is shown that one of the parties involved in the dispute did not fully engage in dispute resolution, then it will look poorly for them in a RfC - continued poor behaviour in some cases can lead to sanctions, such as temporary blocks. But I don't think we are anywhere near a blocking situation at the moment.

Wiki editing can be frustrating at times - a way to help is to have several areas of interest so if there is a dispute in one area you can get on with editing in another area. I have been involved in disputes which were cleared up in days, while others dragged on longer. If people are not getting involved in discussion then we have to proceed without them. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I actually have been working on other articles quite diligently. One problem I've had with it is that a specific editor has followed me to one page and started the same type of behavior that landed this article in dispute. I've actually considered changing my username. Ah well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Following another user with the deliberate intention to disrupt their legitimate editing is called Wiki stalking; this behaviour is frowned upon and if it becomes serious would be a reason for calling the RfC I mentioned above. Would you like me to take a look at the articles involved and give an impartial view? SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at the three most recent articles you've edited along with Dooyar, and in all three Dooyar was involved in the articles first. Dorothy Dandridge - your first edit appears to be 5th Dec - Dooyars was editing back in August; Janis Joplin - your first edit appears to be 11th Oct; Dooyar's is in August; Gertrude Lawrence - your first edit 7th Nov, Dooyar's was in October. There are a number of articles you're editing in which Dooyar is not involved. I've not yet seen an article in which you started and Dooyar followed. It can sometimes appear when you are in a dispute over editing that someone is targetting you, and you can start to feel victimised. I don't see any evidence for stalking at the moment, and it might be just your general feelings of frustration. Regards SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 10:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet dispute

Hi. I'm just going to apologize in advance for the (fairly civil) rant I left on the Karyn Kupcinet talk page. I appreciate your help and guidance regarding that whole dispute, but after careful consideration, I feel what I ultimately said needed to be said. You and Wildhartlivie have been amazingly patient in dealing with the other editor, but I can no longer sit back and let that editor play games and complain about being personally attacked by Wild when that is simply not the case. I know these things take time to sort out and I'm certainly not the most patient person in the world, but I honestly feel these alleged issues and debates are not issues at all and are merely a ploy to drag things out. Again, I apologize to you personally because I respect the help you have given and I honestly admire the patience you have shown regarding the whole situation. Perhaps I could've dealt with the situation in a different manner, but I'm a firm believer in calling out malarchy (I'd like to use a stronger word there!) when I see it. At this point, I am seriously considering bowing out of the whole dispute because of the other editor's diversionary tactics, lack of respect for anyone else's work and/or opinion, and their false accusations. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pink. I can remain patient and calm in this only because I'm not involved. Like you, I have got frustrated and enraged when dealing with disagreements regarding areas of Wiki in which I have been involved, so I understand where you are coming from. My advise to you is not to take this personally, and to detach yourself as far as possible from the personalities of the editors involved. Deal only with the issue of the content of the page, and ignore as far as humanly possible any personal remarks. In situations like this it is all too easy to read slurs in comments where none was intended. By remaining detached you are better able to assess proposals regardless of who makes them. Editor A, who is liked, may make a poor suggestion, while Editor B, who is not liked, may make a good suggestion. It is often hard for those involved to accept the good suggestion of Editor B. Which is why it's helpful to sometimes get that outside view - in this case, me. Stick with it - the Karyn Kupcinet page will become stronger and better through this process, and your input is greatly valued. Regards SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He's At It Again

I always get the distinct impression that UtherSRG always has a monumental ax to grind against me. He's at it again, reverting my pictures, claiming that they are "just cartoons." ANd the fact that he lets other people post their art, like with the anatomically wrong picture in Procoptodon [10], but not mine, makes him out to be a colossal hypocrite given the angst and drama I went through with him last time, when he claimed that I wasn't allowed to post "original research" pictures. --Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Make better images. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So who died in order to make you the sole arbiter of what pictures can and can not be used in Wikipedia because they offend your superhuman sense of aesthetics? I mean, is your aesthetics the only reason why you've always taken the time to give me nothing but grief? I thought it was about how "original research pictures weren't allowed in Wikipedia because (you) said so."--Mr Fink (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

UtherSRG doesn't care about accuracy, he doesn't care about correctness, all he cares about is getting his own way, with Wikipedia and other people be damned. If he really did care about making Wikipedia better, then why would he put me through Hell with his vociferous nitpicking about the supposed inaccuracy of Deinogalerix, only be so eager to use an allegedly better, three-toed picture of what's supposed to be a one-toed kangaroo?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way anyone can get this colossal hypocrite to stop?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How you doing? You left a message on my talk page a while ago, and I briefly looked at it, then got involved in other things. Sorry. You've pinged me again. I'm happy to look into what's troubling you, as I think you are a valuable contributor to the project. What's concerning you at the moment - point me to articles and diffs. Regards SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the same problem with UtherSRG, in that he refuses to let me post my picture of Procoptodon solely because he refuses to accept my pictures, to the point where he insists on replacing it with a "better" picture, to the point where he continually disregards the fact that it is inaccurate. [11] --Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Bates dispute

Thank you for weighing on the dispute.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Any problems let me know. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you help please?

Hi. I don't really know who to turn to. Could you take a look at Cottage pie, Cottage pie (redirect) *?*? and Shepherds pie. The feces seem to have met the ventilation here. I don't know how to fix this—I'm not adverse to the move itself. I think admin intervention is necessary to get the histories and talk pages in the right places. I can't remember if you are an admin or not. If not, do you know someone would could take a look. That would be really great. Happy editing TINYMARK 23:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything now points to Shepherd's pie - I hope this is the way that people wanted it. I took my cue from the first sentence of the article. Regards SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 10:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ! TINYMARK 10:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lantana11

Can you advise me?

Hello and greetings from California. Many editors offer their services of advice and expertise, but I am seeking yours because your user and talk pages seem particularly friendly. I could use some Wiki-friendliness right now. I am a relatively new Wikipedian and make contributions relatively seldom; I've often made edits and then deleted them because I was unsure of documentation or perfect neutrality. On 11 June I, User: Lantana11, made a brief addition to article KCBS-TV, recasting the opening two paragraphs. My added material was factual and, I believed, relevant to the article. Within the hour my edit was reverted by User: Rollosmokes; the edit summary merely called my addition "unnecessary." I had a similar experience with this editor on another article a month ago--thrice in one day he deleted two brief but factual additions of mine, branding them "unnecessary" and even "ridiculous." After my fruitless attempts to reach a compromise edit, in great frustration I resorted to an episode of "sock puppetry'--unwittingly, because I did not know that using IP and username alternately to make a point was a violation. But I sat out my block, realized the edit conflict was not worth being angry about, and sent this user a lengthy apology and truce. It was rebuffed and even deleted from his talk page. In the first article edit I had made in a month (KCBS-TV) I received the same treatment at this editor's hands. It makes me a little uneasy about editing when I know there is someone out there waiting for the chance to "put me in my place." I have no intention of arguing or starting a new reversion war, but I do feel a need to stand up for my edit. If you have any advice or guidance for me I would be very grateful. Sorry for such long-windedness, but I wanted to put the complete matter before you, and as you can see this is important to me. Thank you, Nick Lantana11 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I'll take a look at your edits and get back to you in a moment. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that Rollosmokes' history shows that user has been in conflict previously [12], [13], [14]. However a person's past history doesn't mean that all that person's actions will be bad, and some accusations may be unfair. That being said, it's not encouraging that this user has got three ANI mentions.

I also note that WikiProject Television Stations seems to have at its heart a group of editors who rule Television Stations very strongly, and Rollosmokes is part of this group. These individuals may have a reason for their strong attitudes - I have no experience of editing within the Television Stations topic, and it may be a target for vandals which sometimes leads people to have lower tolerance levels than in other less targeted areas. However, it does mean that unless you are working in compliance with this group, that you are likely to have ongoing conflicts.

Unfortunately not all editing on Wikipedia is done in a supportive, collaborative manner. For example, Cabals do exist. That is a reality. Also some areas attract more conflict than others, due maybe to the subject matter or to the editors who dominate that topic. There are rules on Wiki to moderate aggressive, intimidating and unhelpful practices, and to encourage a supportive, collaborative spirit - but the rules are sometimes difficult and time-consuming to enforce. If a user (especially a group of well-installed users) choose to dispute a complaint, it can take a very long time before that dispute runs its full course, and if the person pursuing fair action is less knowledgeable in Wiki ways, has few confederates, and is not as strong willed as those opposing, then the fair action may not be achieved. It is up to you to decide if you wish to continue editing in an area in which you have to fight your corner, or if you might prefer to edit in areas where you may be more welcomed.

My first observations are that you appear to have been very badly treated by Rollosmokes, and I don't quite understand the reason why the user has treated you so badly, nor why that user has reverted your edits. Not to suggest that your edits are right and Rollosmokes' revert was wrong, but that first appearances are that Rollosmokes seems to have handled your case in an unnecessarily aggressive manner which tends to cause more conflict.

I note that you have been blocked for sockpuppetry. I haven't looked fully into that, and would like to hear your side of the story. It appears that your editing alternated between account and IP. This can sometimes happen by accident - but it looks like you made a revert from your account to an edit by your IP in a manner that suggested you were using your account edit to support your IP edit as though they were done by separate people. I understand the frustration that may have prompted this, though if this was deliberate this was a silly thing to do. I hope, if this was deliberate, that you have acknowledged this, and are prepared to commit to never doing this again. We learn by our mistakes, grow stronger from them, and move on. "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." Confucius

Anyway - I think Rollosmokes has - for whatever reason - reverted too strongly in your case, and I will enter into discussion with that user. SilkTork *^YES! 23:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SilkTork, I am grateful for your words!

Hi again from Nick, otherwise known as User: Lantana11. Your prompt message almost rendered me to tears--and I'm a big kid now! Thank you for your opinions. I laid this matter before you not to promote the rightness of my edit to article KCBS-TV or to have my edits reinstated (in and of themselves they don't matter that much), but to receive some kind of feedback about my interaction with User: Rollosmokes. I have honestly felt that my discourse with this editor has been singularly and unnecesssarily unpleasant, and for the life of me I do not know why. The edits that he has reverted have been factual; I felt he deleted them not due to lack of documentation, or relevance, or even unwieldiness but simply because he did not want them included. I got the feeling that he had taken an attitude of sole proprietorship over certain broadcast TV articles, and he wanted no opposition. This idea also emerges from a brief glance over the talk pages he frequents. I know I'm being long-winded again--forgive me. But there are a couple of things you should know about this situation. First, Rollosmokes has quickly reverted some of my edits to my own talk page--he must have had my user page on his watchlist. That threw me. Second, I was guilty of sock puppetry; I willingly overturned Rollosmokes' reversions under my user name AND again under my IP address, pretending to be a different editor. Yup, I did it--I knew it was smarmy, underhanded, and foolish, but at the time I did not know it was an actual Wikipedia violation; I might not have done it otherwise. But I was so frustrated and red-faced mad that I did this in a matter of two minutes. I was rightly blocked and later contacted a couple of administrators asking how long the SSP template remained on my user page. I made it clear that I felt awful about this and would not repeat such an action; I received permission to archive the template. In my relatively brief time as an editor I have had only positive and gratifying interactions with all other users but this one--even when there was some small disagreement pending, I ultimately made new friends. Whatever may result from this episode I am fine with. I am not arguing with any other editor from now on--I learned the lesson that it is not that important, and I want Wikipedia to remain a fun and interesting part of every day. I am glad that you have heard me out and have some encouraging words for me. I'm in good Wiki-hands. Should there be anything else you might want to know about me please give me a buzz; "Stay in Touch" is the old expression. Thank you again and my warmest regards, I am yours truly,--Lantana11 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: KCBS-TV

I'm not surprised that Lantana11 has contacted a third party. He had no choice but to do so, as I asked him leave me alone as a result of our last disagreement, during which he labeled me as a "vandal". ([15], [16])

My issues with him over KCBS-TV, and other articles, is based on a professional critique of his work, and is nothing personal. I feel he is trying too hard to push his point across, and is ignoring the consensus built among other editors of television station articles. We do not label network-owned stations in Los Angeles (like KCBS-TV) as "West Coast flagship stations", nor do we have "East Coast flagship stations" located in New York City. The New York City station for ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC are the flagships of their respective networks -- period.

Virtually no one in the industry uses these regional terms anymore, though there were merit to these designations at one time. The need for separate programming hubs on each coast has largely disappeared as broadcasting technology (specifically the use of satellites to deliver network programming) as evolved. The Wikipedia article Flagship (television) has some incorrections, which needs to be clarified. I explained this with Lantana11, but he nevertheless continued to make these changes to the article, as well as similar changes at WCBS-TV. He even used an unregistered IP address, "67.180.135.133" (talk • contribs) to shield himself from attribution, both before and after changing his user name from "Nickfaitos" to Lantana11. The sockpuppetry got him blocked, and rightly so.

He is also adding lots of unneeded, over-expanded information into the introduction to articles. The point of the intro in an encyclopedia is to briefly introduce the subject, with facts that are few in number but important in context. There is no need to overload the intro with unnecessary, and in some cases, trivial information -- even if it is factual.

Compare the KCBS-TV article before and after the recent revision ([17]). The revised intro, which I originally rewrote, keeps the station's important information simple. Lantana11's version is full of stuff that either should be placed elsewhere in the article or is so trivial that it really doesn't belong in there. Along with the incorrect "West Coast flagship" line, he over-expands on the location of the studio and transmitter (trivial), as well as on translator station and cable/satellite coverage (redundant).

The community of Wikipedia editors who work on television-related articles have dealt with difficult editors who refuse to work with an consensus, or who make changes and tweaks without discussing them with the communuity first. I found Lantana11 to be one of these editors who cared more about making their point instead of trying to discuss and understand what really goes on around here. We are not cabals, as you implied in your comment to him. But we do have very little tolerance with vandalism and even less for editors who want to push their POV instead of discussing it first. Lantana11 is also aware of that, but he again only wishes to make his point anyway. And he'll go to any and all lengths to do so. He put the issue up on the Television Stations WikiProject talk page, only to delete his own thread after less than two days. And he has sought other opinions from anyone who would listen, as you can see from his contributions page.

My true intention is not to be harsh, but I have no control, nor do I care, how someone interprets my words. I did my part and discussed the issue with him, and got nothing in return except being called a "vandal". Yes, he did apologize for his harsh words, but it was too little and too late. My opinion on him was already made up. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I do have sympathy for your situation, and I understand that you feel very strongly that Lantana11's initial edits weren't helpful. But they were not vandalism. And neither is the edit under question.I did compare the KCBS-TV article before and after the recent revision ([18]), and it was that which prompted me to agree with Lantana11 that some intolerance was taking place. The first change in the edit is from "channel 2" to "Channel 2". You reverted this. Yet later in the same article Channel 2 is used, and the station appears to be referred to as Channel 2 [19]. You reverted the phrase "serving the Los Angeles, California metropolitan area." to "located in Los Angeles, California". If the TV company does indeed broadcast to the Los Angeles, California metropolitan area it would be a more pertinent fact than simply where it is located. And if it broadcasts to a wider area, then the edit could be amended and improved rather than simply reverted. Consider that at least one person feels that the channel's broadcast audience is important information. And I support the idea that such information is pertinent and should be in the lead section. The expansion of the basic information in the second paragraph doesn't appear to me to be trivial at all. Either the channel's audience is important or it is not. The state to which you reverted merely says "In the few areas of the western United States where viewers cannot receive CBS programs over-the-air, KCBS-TV is available on satellite to subscribers of Dish Network and DirecTV." While Lantana11's edit gave much fuller and detailed information: "KCBS-TV is included in basic-cable systems spanning the wide area between Ventura and Riverside counties. The station's signal also reaches some of the more remote Southland mountain and desert areas through relay transmitter stations. And in the few areas of the western United States where viewers cannot receive CBS programs over the air, KCBS-TV is available via satellite to Dish Network and DirecTV subscribers, and, in fact, KCBS can be seen by "dish" viewers in many parts of the United States; it is listed in program guides as "CBS-West." " which even if you argue is too detailed for the lead section (which is a point of discussion I agree) it is information which should appear somewhere in the article - perhaps in a section entitled ==Audience reach== or some such.

From your past comments and interactions, and your comments to me above I do feel you have grown too protective of the television station articles in which you are involved. This situation does happen frequently. So much so that we have a policy about it :Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. It's an understandable situation, especially in an area which has, as I suspected and you confirm, attracted either vandalistic attention or well-meaning but poor quality editing. Some Wiki editors have little patience with being supportive to other editors who may be struggling to come to terms with Wikipedia's ways - a snappy vandal tag, and a huffy, "I'm right and you're wrong" message when pushed for an explanation, does more harm than good, and leads to situations like this where third parties get involved. In situations like this I am never persuaded by comments that "but then he called me a vandal" because in cases like this people respond with like for like, and it is up to the more experienced Wikipedian to show how to behave. Simply put, if you see a stranger in your office and you ask if you can help, the stranger will explain what he wants, you give the assistance, and things proceed smoothly, and you have a future colleague who, when he has found his feet, may be of great profit to you and your company. If you shout "fuck off out of my office", no matter what happens later, you have created a negative and aggressive atmosphere from the start - and pleading that "but he then told me that I was a jerk" will be your own fault.

You are right that my comment above about a cabal can be read in relation to your group of fellow editors. It wasn't meant as a direct comment, but the use of the word to suggest that your group might be as difficult to deal with as cabal was - yes - implied. I was suggesting to Lantana11 that - for various reasons - he might have difficulty working in harmony with you and your group. I'd like to see you prove me wrong on that count. Would you be able to work with him, and consider the merits of the edit under discussion? SilkTork *^YES! 09:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to work with the consensus on television station articles, then fine. If he can understand the meaning of "Keep it simple", then fine. But on a personal level, no. We've tried it already, and it didn't work. I personally choose not to go down this road with this user again. Rollosmokes (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed by the attitude displayed here and here. I would suggest you consider putting your personal feelings aside for the needs of Wikipedia - continuing to snub Lantana11 after he has had the decency to apologise and offer to work with you is a little counter-productive to the harmony of the Project as a whole. You don't need to hold hands and dance in the flowers with him, but a little bit of civility goes a long way! But, whatever, if that's your personality, so be it - I can't change that! I wish you well in your continued editing of Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? All I see is you working with one or two others (at the most) to force your agenda and drive people away, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#It_gets_worse... being a prime example. You have been removing criticisms of your activities [20] while re-inserting POV ("WWNY was broadcasting Ottawa commercials and stealing their revenue.") and errors ("A series of one minute recollections by local vetatans and others of their war memories, to co-encide with the release of The War (documentary)" [sic] from KWSU-TV). Removal of template fields while they were still in use broke many pages, and even when someone tries to be reasonable with you, your response is often something like this. Please try to contribute more constructively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Now this user is threatening me with a ban from Wikipedia here (even though he is not a WP admin)? I believe the concerns raised were legitimate and "a little counter-productive" was a line crossed long ago. Thanks for your efforts, though. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's actually an empty threat. It's unpleasant - but some people do, unfortunately, behave like that. My suggestion is to ignore it. The IP address from which you operate has attracted a fair degree of criticism, though sometimes a little unfairly. Have you considered registering - some editors have a prejudiced attitude toward IP addresses. SilkTork *^YES! 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all your help and your concern.

SilkTork, I really am glad that of all the editors that have offered editorial assistance, I chose to contact you. Your efforts and your time in examining and analyzing my situation have been not only fruitful and valuable to me, but also gratifying--I feel terrific in knowing that such editors as you are available to offer not only advice but also neutral and rational observation and conclusion. It is true that I am a comparatively new editor and need some help in navigating not only the waters of factual editing, but also of dealing with other users. Common sense always helps, and sometimes it is in short supply--that is true of me as of anybody else. I also want to thank you profusely for taking the time to analyze the specifics of my edits with User:Rollosmokes. This was effort above and beyond. As I've already told you, the edits themselves now pale to me in comparison to just doing things right and enjoying Wikipedia. That's my goal, and I plan to avoid anything infringing on that. Being right isn't everything after all. We could use your mediating skills in many parts of the world! Your support has been uplifting for me; should our paths cross again on any other subject or for any reason it will be a pleasure to sit down and chat with you. Sincerely, Lantana11 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish you well. Remember to be patient with others. There are a whole variety of people editing on Wikipedia, and not all of them are warm and friendly. That, after all, is not the point of the Project. The intention here is to build a free, accessible, accurate and reliable store of knowledge - to that end sometimes people's feet get trodden on and feelings hurt. This is, after all, not a playground or networking site. It is up to you to decide if you wish to continue editing in the field of TV Stations given what has happened. If you do, I would strongly suggest that you initially confine your edits to adding reference sources to existing information, and build from there. And make sure that whatever you add to an article is backed up with a reliable source. If you do decide to return to editing TV Stations articles, I would suggest first a period of editing elsewhere to get a better feel for editing and having your edits accepted. Sometimes it is better to edit in an area in which you have little knowledge, for then you are forced to do some research, and you can then use that research as reference sources for the information you add. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to add...

After perusing your user page I should also say that I wish you the best of health, long life, family, and longevity in all your vocations and avocations. Lantana11 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You Have Provided Me with a New Approach to Wikipedia

SilkTork, thanks ever so much for sending me this list of tasks and duties that need doing for Wikipedia. It seems that, as you already knew, that this is an excellent way for a relative beginner to learn the nuts and bolts of editing. By performing these tasks an editor can learn where weaknesses lie in articles, where the unnecessary diverges from the necessary, where re-organization and re-ordering is needed, and where an entirely new article is warranted. I think I am going to start making contributions to these tasks for a bit and get a good grasp of what Wikipedia needs. I see that you have been gracious enough to take more time to examine my interaction with User: Rollosmokes--I could never have dreamed that any editor could have lent me such support and affirmation. After seeing his comments I felt compelled to send him another message of apology and fellowship--well, you saw how that turned out. I knew it would, and honestly I did this so I could say that I had done all I could. On this subject--may I belabor you one final moment? As if you haven't done enough? I see that you communicate with User: Tomeasy. My situation had apparently come to his attention and he sent me some uplifting messages. In return I answered him with thanks and, being in a hurry, originally sent my note having forgotten to log in--the message was signed by my IP address 67.180.135.133. Within minutes I caught this and edited to show my username. This did not escape the attention of Rollosmokes, who, evidently interested in my activities, examined my IP address page and, seeing a couple of other similar mistakes made of haste, quickly reverted to a month-old version of that page with the old "suspected sock puppetry" template. His contributions page confirms this. I plan to get rid of this unwarranted SSP notice. Though I am starting to be a nuisance, I felt you deserved to know about this since you have been so willing to take notice of my situation. Again, Steve, thank you for your help and I sincerely hope that our editing or Wiki-paths cross very soon. Do you in the UK say what we do in the US--"Don't be a stranger?" All my best, Nick Lantana11 (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've Just Turned on My Computer and...

I've got to say again...many, many thanks. I believe we are through with this and it's now time for us to go on to better and more constructive things. Do keep in touch if you care to. And by the way--as you know we in the US will be electing a President in the fall, and he will be seeking a new Secretary of State. Care to move over here and make yourself available for the job? Lantana11 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stop it

"This is unpleasant and total nonsense. You now appear to be stalking Lantana11 in some petty vendetta. You are walking a very fine line. Cool down and let it go - continuing to act in this manner will only cause more problems for everyone concerned."

Um, you must be kidding me. Last time I checked, registered users who utilize unregistered IP addresses to make questionable edits are considered to be practicing sockpuppetry. I'm not stalking anyone, I'm just calling it as I see it. If Lantana11 wants to edit, then he should do so from his registered account, not from an anonymous IP. As for a vendetta, I'm not the one who's gone to four different users -- yourself included -- to explain his "woe is me" story. I've let it go in my own way. Someone should tell "Nick" to do the same thing. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. The guy forgot to log on and then corrected himself. It is, for your future information, within permitable Wiki practise to have more than two accounts for legitimnate purposes. It is also within permitable Wiki practise to make mistakes and then correct them. It is not permitable to stalk another user with the intent of being disruptive - and that is what you are doing. Your excuse does not cover up what you have done - it is clear and obvious that you are seeking to annoy him. Now - take a deep breath and let it go. SilkTork *^YES! 09:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

EU dispute

Vaseline

Why did you erase my question about vaseline? What was wrong with it. Did not I have the right to ask ? [21] Waiting for your explanations... --Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That is totally bizarre. I've looked at that dif several times now and tried to work out how that happened. I assure you it was not my intention to delete your question. If I want to remove material from the page I do so either by striking out or by moving it to another page along with a link to that page. I made several edits in that dif, but I can't work out how your question was deleted because it's not even close to anything I was writing that I might have changed my mind about. Bizarre! My sincere apologies. You'll note I have now given a response to your second attempt at the question. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The EU Mediation

When making the decision about this painful issue, please consider that even proponents of the EU think it is a Unique organization and there is no other like it. Listing it with other monetary unions will not change anything.If the EU is actually Sui Generis and unique ( and I got some disgusting personal attacks for using this term "too often") how can it be compared to something else? If it is the only "of its kind" why should it be listed with things that are NOT "of its kind"..Why wont we make a separate chart and put it all alone because it is UNIQUE. If it is not unique then why are they saying that it is unique. That is what I am talking about and no one seems to understand. I was just wondering what was your opinion on this point of view?--Geographyfanatic (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll not be making any decisions. I'll be helping you guys reach an agreement. As this has been developing I have, of course, had my own opinions - but these have in fact changed, and quite possibly will change again. I will make suggestions, but these suggestions will not come from my opinions but from ideas raised by the discussions. I am not keen at any stage in intruding my own views. This is not a case of persuading me, but of reaching agreement with those most involved in editing the article. What I am keen on is that all avenues are fully explored - even those which may initially seem daft. And that when all avenues have been explored the best solution will come forward. At the moment there is still a fair degree of arguing points by some of those involved rather than engaging in the questions I have set. The idea of the questions is to break out of the vicious cycle, and to reappriase the situation; to reach common grounds of agreement from which we can start to build consensus. I'd like to see more people address the questions so we build on that platform - but human nature being what it is, people will sometimes simply want to keep hammering away at familiar bones of contention than to address their mind to something new. It's not a complaint - we all do it. It's just accepting reality.

As for the notion that the EU is unique, that works both ways. It can be included because it is unique, and it can be excluded because it is unique.

We'll see how the discussion develops. SilkTork *^YES! 14:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Silk, I'm getting disgusted by this mediation discussion. If Wikipedia is going to allow the changing of definitions and meanings, then I can understand how some feel that Wikipedia lacks credibility. If there are no immovable standards, then there is no comparison. If the EU is listed, then the UN should as well as the Middle East and other country groups. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What changing of definitions and meanings are you referring to? At the moment I am gathering information and looking at all aspects of the issue, and hoping that all participants are also broadening their mind to look at all sides - including considering why some other editors have a differing point of view. Disputes are very common on Wikipedia - we work through them by patient, civilised and intellectual debate. Well - that's what we hope to do! Mainly we get there by squabble, spit and hissing! However, in my experience articles grow stronger by going through a dispute. When all sides of an issue are examined, then we can be sure there is no bias or prejudice taking place. Or - rather - that the potential for obvious bias is reduced. Whatever - I have not been through a dispute yet in which an article has got weaker.

However, the process itself can be very frustrating. It's important to remember that this is not a battle in which any person is going to win. It doesn't matter whose viewpoint ends up being used to inform the article, what matters is that the knowledge itself is clear, factual, useful, reliable and unbiased. Your involvement in this process is helping to ensure that the article will end up being unbiased. I would rather you remained in place and stayed on course with the mediation. Answer the set questions and sign the statements that you most agree with. By doing that you help the process, you help me, and you help the article. SilkTork *^YES! 17:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

202.128.34.205

First I would like to thank you for inviting me to create an account. I believe that "immovable standards" Founders Intent has stated is crucial to the long term credibility of Wikipedia as a information source. What I believe is that many users are just pushing their own political agenda in the "Countries List" by placing the European Union and is hurting wikipedia. If I had my way, I would be firm and faithful to the word "Countries" because unless it becomes a real country or the definition of a country is changed, it is just becoming uneducated if we place it there. I believe you too see that people like me have a more solid nonpartisan argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.128.34.205 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't invite 202.128.34.205 to form an account, that was Geographyfanatic. I did invite other IP accounts in good standing. However, I do hope that you do form an account and contribute positively to the Project. SilkTork *^YES! 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

I do understand what you meant. and thank you for informing me but I have to tell you that I did not do it with bad intentions as I just tried to inform the owner of that IP that his/her actions were not favorable and instead of vandalizing the article, he/she could enter the discussion and communicate his ideas with others. Also, concerning your worries about sockpuppetry: if you believe that that is the case, instead of speculating, I would love if the IP would be checked and adequate actions taken if proved to be necessary.Regards, --Geographyfanatic (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The most likely action that would be taken for a sockpuppet IP account engaged in a 3 revert edit war would be an initial 24 block to prevent further disruption, a sockpuppet tag placed on the accounts and a warning. If disruption continued after the block then the IP account might be permanently blocked. There may even be blocking consequences for the puppet-master account depending upon the severity of the disruption. At this stage the IP account is idle so there is no need for action. The main thrust of administrative actions on Wikipedia are to minimise disruption - if there is no current disruption there is no pressing need for action.

I read what you said to the IP account and much of what you said was commendable - however a gentle warning was in order, as you understand, otherwise your opponents might have complained. Anyway, no worries! I might pull together some thoughts on a suggested solution to the EU issue within the nest 48 hours. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

possible solution to gdp problem

I placed a chart and a clear explanation that you might want to look at on the talk page. I honestly believe that that is the ONLY Fair solution. Tell me what you think and I'll wait for others' opinions too.Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal) --Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I already received one comment by canada jack and he says that it is logical for the chart to be in descending order because of "nature" of the sources. According to him, i'm thinking, the chart which was in ascending order since the beginning and noone had problems with it,will be more logical to be converted to descending order after I started talking about moving the EU to the bottom.He wants the chart to follow the EU back and forth I guess.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have had a quick glance at the comments. I'll pay more attention later. SilkTork *^YES! 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• The existing charts are entirely wrong. The difference in data is enormous. Only the top several countries' gdps are accurate. the smaller ones were made up I believe. Just take a look at CIA. [22] and then look at the CIA chart on the page, countries like Ukraine, Latvia, Georgia, Ireland,..... It is TOTALLY made up. Its from 2007 data, both on the real website and wikipedia chart as well. The difference is enormous.These whole page needs to be deleted and remade.I will have to look at World Bank too--Geographyfanatic (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the few example of differences

Ukraine Real -320,100,000,000 Chart says - 131,200,000,000
Ireland Real - 185,500,000,000, chart says - 253,300,000,000
Latvia Real - 39,730,000,000, chart says - 27,000,000,000
Georgia Real - 20,500,000,000, chart says -9,553,000,000

I can go on forever and ever and ever. Countries that someone thought were inferior, they just made up numbers for them or did not update for years. This is outrageous. The entire list needs to be remade and these people are pushing some EU agenda in here. It is shameful, its indeed and sectional fight on wikipedia.I would love if you would pay serious attention to this. Regards--Geographyfanatic (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you've just discovered the true nature of Wikipedia. It depends on the vigilance and work of everyone. It is all our collective responsibility. When you discover something inaccurate in Wikipedia you can make an IMMEDIATE adjustment. That's the beauty, power and weakness of Wikipedia. If you read in a normal encyclopedia data that is wrong, you can't change it. You can write to the publisher and ask for the information to be corrected in the next issue - but there's no guarantee that your letter will be read, or even that there will be a next edition, and even if your letter was read and acted upon, it might be years before a new edition came out. With Wikipedia you can make that correction right now, without asking anyone's permission. Go ahead and do it. SilkTork *^YES! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

problem is not in that. The problem is that people ( you know who I mean by that)dont see the real problems. How many times they provided the VERY same website. they did not look at the data even once. This is not the case with just several countries. MOST of them are wrong and I have to ask you to freeze the discussion for now.This is not something that should be ignored just like you are asking me to ignore it . Those people are blinded, You think the EU location is more important at this point? I can not ignore this problem the way you are asking me to ignore it.This is not something minor. I bet they Knew it, and I bet they did not even bother to change it.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly believe that I will not be able to participate in this discussions any longer , this whole EU hysteria is getting more and more annoying.It has blinded people. Some of them are so picky that on certain pages they even look out for commas and periods but they did not care to see this disaster. I already contacted the sides concerned, I do not know whether they will be willing to continue this discussion or not but I believe the solution that this discussion will result in will represent only one side and therefore can possible be subjected to a further study anytime, by anyone.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying ignore the situation, I am saying that you should be bold and make those changes yourself. My involvement in this is to moderate the discussion, not to write the article. And the nature of being a Wiki editor is that you don't ask someone else to make a correction, you do it yourself. If the data in the sources has changed, or if the data in the List has become corrupt, then it is appropriate to update the List from the source. It's like correcting a spelling mistake. Go ahead and do it. SilkTork *^YES! 06:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I just looked at the list you linked to above. It's the (PPP) list not the (nominal) one. Have you used the wrong link? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

SilkTork,

I want to personally thank you for all your efforts in the GDP list dispute. To you, I also want to apologize in advance for my recent constant sarcasms, but after being called "an ignorant" I have to find some humour (and posibly make some others to laugh as well). I have been very neutral (in favor of keeping the EU, but neutral) but this last comments simply got me out of my shoes.

Thanks again, Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Miguel. And there's no need to apologise. Disputes can get very nasty, and I've had many comments thrown in my direction - if it's just a case I'm mediating then I don't mind. Only once have I ever got angry enough to respond badly - it was during this case: User talk:SilkTork/AMA Archive/Mattisse. But I do understand the frustrations felt when trying to get over what appears to be a perfectly clear and reasonable point and someone else doesn't quite see the point! Just bear in mind that there is no rush on Wikipedia - we are here for the long haul. Sometimes it makes sense to edit elsewhere for a while - until the fuss has died down - and then come back and make your edit. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the mediation. I'm disappointed with the outcome. I'm also done arguing the point. The inertia is obviously too great, like reducing the size of the US tax code. Later. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry you're not happy with the way the discussion went. Given that the article appears to be reproducing lists from three sources, then the problem of including the EU for comparison purposes doesn't lie with Wikipedia, but with the sources themselves. The problem with the article that was causing a fuss is that the article didn't make clear that it was simply reproducing the lists. Once that is made clear then we have no choice - in order to remain reliable and unbiased we have to reflect the original source - neither adding nor taking away. From what I understand we are taking the entire lists (same names and same data) from the three sources and simply transferring them here side by side so the three sources can be compared - in the transfer process it would be highly inappropriate for anyone to add or drop an economy, or to alter the data in any way to give a misleading result.

If there's any part of that process which I have misunderstood then let me know and I'll take a close look at it. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Geographyfanatic sockpuppet

I do not know what the policy is about reporting sock puppets appearing in a mediation case, but I can imagine that you are not happy with the fact that I posted this message at Husond's page and not at yours. I hope I did not violate any rule with doing so. The reason is that, together with Husond I have a long history of tracking this guy and and Husond (who was perhaps the first victim of his personal attacks) is familiar with the identification of Polscience. There have been more than 100 so far. Since I found my request this time quite delicate, I wanted to spare a lengthly explanation as to who this Polscience is and simply get a technical check conducted. I hope you are not offended. Sorry, also that I waited so long, which caused a lot of dramas on the talk page that might have been avoided. I just did not want to make a wrong accusation. Tomeasy_talk 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - you did the appropriate thing. Sockpuppets are a nuisance, but I tend to listen to what people have to say rather than how many times they say it in different voices or HOW LOUD THEY SHOUT, so they have less of an impact on discussions than they think they do! Irrational ideas are irrational ideas no matter how many times they are repeated - and most sockpuppets tend to pursue rather odd agendas that tend not to get consensus, which is probably why they create another user (or two) who will then support their ideas - nobody else will! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 14:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Geographyfanatic sockpuppet

Hello SilkTork and thank you for contacting me. User:Polscience often send e-mails after his socks are blocked, saying that he's a newbie, never heard of Polscience, not being a sock, etc.. No checkuser was done for this one as it's an obvious sock (I usually block Polscience's socks at least twice a week). You may request a checkuser just to make sure, it might actually prove quite helpful if you do because it will probably reveal a dozen other socks. Or, you may contact checkuser User:Alison, she's already found hundreds of socks from this guy who just doesn't seem to give up. Regards, Húsönd 18:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Alison has done the check, and it's confirmed that the Geographyfanatic and Polscience accounts are connected. Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 07:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was surprised that he had no sleeper socks this time. Usually checkusers reveal a whole bunch of them. He must be getting rusty. :-) Regards, Húsönd 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is related or not, but today same IP started to vandalize the exact same page. Please help in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/202.128.34.205 since I am not sure if what I did is the right to do or not. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You did the right thing. The IP has now been blocked for one month. That IP account now has a poor history, it is highly likely if that IP account comes back to do more damage in a month's time that the account will get a long term block. SilkTork *^YES! 07:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Silky

How have you been.....check out my talk page....that person is back...editing...again...contrary to policy... I"m thinking of calling it quits...too busy at work....and ...well whatever... My best Luigibob (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you knew that Luigibob and I were in conflict about The Paradine Case. You knew that I've been trying to get him to discuss it, and your response is to go to the article in question and just revert my edits, without any discussion? My impression from our previous interchange was that you were a reasonable person with whom a discussion can be had - was I wrong in that evaluation?

In any event, go ahead and revert me again, I'm just giving up. I worked pretty hard to expand that article, and make it better, but it's not a film that's particularly dear to my heart, and I don't not infinite amounts of energy to expend on beating my head against brick walls. I do wish you folks didn't see the need to walk in lockstep with the sacred MoS quite so much, and were willing to give a serious look to things which might, just might, be better. But... so it goes.

Since you didn't see the need for discussion before, there's really no need for it now, either, so you needn't bother to reply. But, also, please don't come presenting yourself to me again as an honest broker willing to mediate in a dispute, because that's clearly not the case.

Ciao. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 11:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have restored my edits. If you wish to talk about it then I'm willing to listen. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would not post to my talk page again. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 11:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I appreciated your encouragment and efforts on my behalf in a minor but contentious dispute in June 2008 with a notoriously malevolent editor named User: Rollosmokes. This user, as was expected, carried on his ways and edited in an even more recklessly arrogant manner; such use has led him into an unpleasant corner; he has been indefnitely blocked and, as of this week, has vowed to leave Wikipedia. This is sad to see, but your assurances that common sense, civility, and consensus eventually prevail have been uplifting. Cheers, Nick Lantana11 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey !!

SilkTork, thank you very much for all that you have bestowed upon me. Your friendship has been very important, especially at a particularly crucial time. I trust that our Wiki-paths will cross in both the near and distant future. It's just before seven on this long summer evening, and I'm off for my run. I'll be thirsty when I get home, and as I take my first sip of beer I will lift my mug to you. Nick Lantana11 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation British Isles

The issue is still festering and has spread Talk:River Shannon. I've been trying to stay calm, but have backed away from the task force for the moment as its not possible to engage there without confrontation. If you are able to look at the exchange and provide some advise it would be appreciated (happy to take said advice on the chin). I've worked with Matt on other articles before (and worked well) but this time I am afraid its not working. --Snowded TALK 14:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Snowded still wants to continue this. I don't particularly, and I think it could potentially cause mayhem now, but I did originally open it I suppose, and I'm certainly not going to be publically told that I've guiltily 'backed out'. So it has to be re-opened - can you do this? Sorry it's in such poor faith, but I'm afraid it simply is as far as I'm concerned. I won't be pulling any punches about any non-neutral who involves themselves. I've always been open and honest as an editor, and when there's no good faith left, there's no good faith left. If nothing much happens in it (and with any luck this will be the case - the original argument is pure policy as far as I'm concerned now) maybe it can just stay open? I don't want me ending it 'too soon' to be an issue again.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll re-open the case. It looks interesting, and what you are doing with creating the taskforce will be of immense help. When I was first on Wikipedia in 2006 I did encounter some of the problems regarding the terminology of the British Isles when dealing with creating categories, so I am aware of the issues, if not exactly familiar with them. What I have read so far looks promising. SilkTork *^YES! 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I am currently frantically packing and then driving to LAX to get an evening flight back home to the UK, then out for a weeks holiday. I will get a basic statement into you this evening or tomorrow. Thanks for engaging--Snowded TALK 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

As the issue for me is primarily a policy one now (per my reasons to initially close), I'll wait for Snowded's lead here - whenever he has the time, before going into any detail. What I actually want is simply a fair and open guideline. I strongly feel that if it is 'chiselled' in anyway by either 'party' it simply won't either pass/ or be worthwhile - as it just wouldn't be used. It is actually almost impossible to make it all "add up" when adding in too many 'structural' provisos, I've found. The structure we currently have provides us with a fairly in-depth guideline. We have as many actual 'guideline' provisos as we can without failing censorship, IMO. In my experience, 'No censorship' is one of the strongest Wikipedia policies: it often surprises me what I see on here from time to time, in fact. "Censorship" is a strong word, and when I use it I don't mean to sound too 'accusatory' to anyone I'm arguing with: it's simply a Wikipedia policy. It's our job to use the English language to make as tactful and sensitive a guideline as we possibly can, IMO.

I think any outstanding policy issues will naturally get worked out on a technical level via the later stages of the guideline proposal (village pump etc), and what we currently have at the proposed guideline seems to be getting at least enough support to go through to that stage (even if some of the 'support' is cautious and/or implicit) - though we haven't quite got there yet, IMO, re issues of accuracy in certain niggling parts, like flora. That situation can always change of course, but most people seem to be 'waiting for something to happen' at the moment.

I honestly can't see either the "geography/political cross-over" (perceived inconsistency) matter, or the "ROI/British Isles together" (perceived unfairness) issues Snowded has raised are actual 'policy points' that should warrant holding us up. Both can pass via WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:CENSOR, IMO, and they are subjective issues I haven't been able to agree with. I know it's not all just about me, but I've argued my point and I don't feel I've been counter argued, so I've kept things moving on. Unfortunately, 'possible prejudice' and 'ownership issues' come with the job on that - so I'll certainly take those on the chin (though I would argue I haven't unreasonably transgressed). If I'm wrong about the policy matter (and I don't think I am), the Village pump can filter it. I've got the usual other wp stuff I need to address before it piles up, so I'll leave it here for now. I'm happy to just keep moving on.. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My response

I decided it was better to put up something now (even if it is quick) as I will be holiday this week in Italy and may or may not have internet access.

What, in a nut shell, would you like to happen that you feel is being prevented from happening? Firstly I would like us to engage a range of editors in seeing to resolve a range of issues relating to the use of British Isles and other language around the various articles that deal with difficult issues relating to the history of those islands, and the political loading that applies to language. Secondly I would like Matt to stop attributing political motives to other editors without evidence, insisting that a particular solution is the only way forward and refusing to countenance alternatives. I would also like him to resolve ownership issues on the article (for example editing language after it has been agreed to - the change if Ireland to ROI in the table is the prime example).

Who or what is responsible from preventing it from happening? In order to get to a solution we need to engage in a broad discussion with editors from different positions in this subject. In particular we need to resolve key issues on language and other matters of principle before drafting a guideline. This has to be handled in a neutral way with patience if the result is to stick. At the moment we have one prime editor driving a solution based on a controversial premise without providing time for issues to be properly discussed. I should say that I think Matt's motivations are not in doubt, not his energy to get things done. However his attacks on other editors and insistence that he has discovered the only way forward will not result in a sustainable solution.

Why do you feel it is being prevented from happening? I think I have covered this in part above. However the abuse has escalated, not just on the dispute page here, but also on the BI site itself and on Matt's talk page and his responses on other people's. He has got himself stuck in a hole where he sees conspiracy theories everywhere. He has driven one editor to say that he finds the environment toxic and is retiring from the articles (Matt accused him of some conspiracy with me which is groundless). We also get the nonsense of a previous agreement by ten out of eleven editors being dismissed as some form of nationalist conspiracy.

When Matt is good, he is very good and I have enjoyed working with him on many articles (recently the UK, before that Wales). However he lets his enthusiasm get away with him.

I think we need a neutral party to drive the task force. Matt is despite his protestations not neutral and has a declared position on much of the politics. Few editors are engaged and the invective you get if you attempt to disagree with Matt discourages participation. --Snowded TALK 10:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have some further questions and comments arising from this, however I'll wait for Matt's response. SilkTork *^YES! 14:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply

It's easy to repeat the same things so often when you don't go into detail isn't it? The above is full of plain exaggerations: "Attack on other editors" etc? What does that mean? Some of it is simply inaccurate too..

• This got heated from the start because you accused me of changing text in the Usage Table from what "people agreed to" (there was no other incidence - despite the suggested 'ambiguity' in your above comments) - I didn't change any meaning all. You simply misunderstood it - I simply made it conform to the rest of what I myself had written, based on where we all were so far. Nobody initially complained but you (though some people rather generally backed you up in MEDCAB). Those two tables (which I happened to create) were ALWAYS defined by ROI, not Ireland the island. In response to my edit on them, you yourself changed a legitimate "ROI" in the second table to "Ireland" and linked the ambiguous two un-linked "Irelands" (which I had changed to ROI for clarity) to now be linked to "Ireland" (ie the island article)! In other words - if anyone cheated it was you. (and I've not put it like that before).

• I can do without you dumping on me and then slipping in that I can be very good when I want to be. I do a lot of work on Wikipedia (by my own standards anyway) and I can do it well sometimes - so what? - it's irrelevant and doesn't quite sound like genuine flattery to me at all.

• At the start of this, you were pushing for the admin DDStretch (hardly a neutral!) to run this, and even otherwise refused to join in, until he backed off when I protested that he was too involved. How on earth you can argue that he is neutral is beyond me - he had only just been challenged by other admins for incorrectly blocking someone over British Isles, for a start.

• You say "despite my protestations" regarding my own neutrality? I never once said I was neutral, but I am 'in the middle' (which I've said a few times), and I'm willing to do the 'donkey work' (and that is all it is - hours of my time). I've accommodated all of other people's suggestions into the guideline text (or let them stay in) and all I've done is put my foot down your attempt to prejudice the structure from the start - push it backwards, in fact, when it was moving forward. A geography-only structure isn't going to work - and I've tried on your behalf. Your plan, I'm certain, was to join DDStretch in fighting Tharcuncoll (mainly) to achieve a very simplistic geog-only, ref-only, guideline. What a flawed approach - we need to all be happy with something. Tharcuncoll would have simply and easily 'beaten' you both on what he has always shouted so loudly about - CENSORSHIP!! And I would have had to argue on his side. His victory was acually in his leaving the guideline, in the full knowledge that you cannot censor Wikipedia. A number of people haven't returned to it - the damage there was done early on - and not by me! I think there is a lot of implicit approval of what we have so far.

• Isn't it ironic that this particular heated argument between us stemmed from confusion over one single un-linked word, "Ireland"? I maintain that I obviously meant it to be the state - I simply doesn't work out if it isn't - and I spent hours trying to make it work for you too, after you initially complained about the "geography element". And you complained by suggesting a few times that I had pulled the rug from under people, despite you said you didn't complain in that way: Either you are accusing me of changing agreed text or you are not. You can't have it both ways. And I wrote the two "Ireland"s - so why would I change their meaning anyway? You just tried to stop the guideline from moving forward in a way you didn't want by bringing it back to the beginning. So I wouldn't bring my first draft back. That would always look "non-neutral/over involved/owning" etc - there is nothing I can do about that: I tried hard to amend it, as I've said - it wouldn't work.

• As for Snowded's reply to: Why do you feel it is being prevented from happening? - it is simply trying to make me look a fool (and actually says very little), so I'm not going to address it in detail, apart from saying that "conspiracy theories" is only Snowded's reply to any heated accusations of bias towards himself and the now-detatched admin DDStretch. Everyone around this issue knows where Snowded comes from. To be honest I find the way you and DDtstretch protest it is getting unseemly - how can you continue to keep hiding from what has been obvious for a while? You are the only two who won't admit to having a wished-for eventuality, and it's as clear as a bell that you both do. You were a simply daft to say to DDStretch that he 'has your email' - as many editors like myself don't like people using them, for pretty obvious reasons: especially editors with admin. It matter that you say it was just about a sock-puppet before - you clearly are still happy using it.

• The "10 out of 11" 'vote' at British Isles was basically an example of Snowded unfairly changing my suggested proposal into a meaningless vote - and circumstances surrounding it lead to me retiring from Wikipedia (though only for a month in the end) - Snowded knows exactly what buttons he pushing with that one. I have fully told him several times now what I feel about it. And I might remind you Snowded, that however "rude" you say I can be, these pages are littered with your provocations (very often 'counter-provocations' I admit), and your refusals to fairly address the points. I can't allow the guideline's progress to be stonewalled to the point where things break down: right now I think it's in a relatively 'healthy' place, and that is partly down to me keeping it on track.

• By the way, I wouldn't really do anything differently if somebody else did the 'donkey work' (ie I'd share it with them as much as possible, as I've worked on this issue all year) - so I see the 'driver' issue as a moot point. HighKing is doing a lot on the topic at the moment (and he's broadly 'in the middle' on the BI matter too, funnily enough). I'd need a lot more protest to move back a bit (I don't believe I'm OTT with the guideline itself anyway): and I've had a lot of encouragement to counter any negativity too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for using first/second person - I find this highly personal, I must admit. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Next step

In most disputes there is a fair degree of personal issues. It is part of the human condition and is quite normal and quite understandable. You both have issues. You've voiced your issues. You both seem to respect and admire each other and both say you've worked well in the past and are willing to work together again in the future. Regardless of what has happened in the past, or who is to blame for what, we now need to move on. You both know this. From this point all personal issues are left behind - we comment only on content. Nobody needs to apologise for anything they have said or done, or for they way they have behaved. All that needs to happen now is both of you to agree to put past behaviour behind you, to avoid pinning blame on anybody, and to concentrate on how we can move forward on what appears to be a very useful tool for the Wikipedia project as a whole. I'd like to see you both commit at this point to ignoring PAST behaviour, commit to not making any more personal comments, and commit to working together under my moderation until the end of September. Allow me as an independent third party to observe and make judgement on the behaviour of each of you, and to make suggestions as appropriate. You both have much to offer, and are able I feel to offer more by working together and sharing your skills, knowledge, enthusiasm and intellect. Differences of opinion are important and should be respected as opportunities to harden the guidelines you are setting up to make them workable now and for the foreseeable future. The guidelines are too important to get bogged down in personal issues. I need you both to sign and agree to this statement. SilkTork *^YES! 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned the past is the past, very happy for you to comment on any edits. I have been doing my best to avoid personal comments, but if you feel I have made any point them out. Always willing to learn. I will not be editing actively this week as I am on holiday (although I have some internet access) --Snowded TALK 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

: A tentative 'OK', but I have to say I'm struggling to find time at the minute, and my 'things to do' list needs attending to. We should postpone things anyway if Snowded is on holiday. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - count me out. The guy's a proverbial chimney sweep as far as I'm concerned- and this would just be a complete waste of time I don't have. We are not going to agree on things we haven't agreed on already (they are too close to heart), and I believe that steady progress is being made on the BI guideline regardless. You are wrong about the mutual respect, alas: Snowded's a single-minded editor in my eyes, and always has been - even on UK. If he publically calls me a "back out" over this again, I'll simply say why it isn't fair. What prompted me to reopen this was basically my pride on that point - not the best way to approach something like this. I'll take it on the chin for opening MEDCAB in the first place (again more out of frustration than any desire to re-hash the already over-expressed arguments).

Thanks for the time reopening (and anything else you've put in) - but without any question I don't have the time or inclination for what I'm sure will ensue. I just can't see how it can be productive, but I can easily see what an enormous wind-up it will be. When certain things have stabilised I have countless other interests on Wikipedia which won't cross Snowded at all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I am surprised (and I see Matt has used the MEDCAB threat elsewhere). Pity really my comments on Matt's good points stand despite the new set of inaccurate comments above. BI guideline is a one man show at moment but I will engage again shortly. Any comments still welcome as even with a temperamental editor one has to take some of the blame if a conflict arises and if there are areas where I could have handled it better I would like to know. --Snowded TALK 00:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Where else have I ever used the 'MEDCAB' threat? If you mean this guy, he's a stalker and a troll. He keeps goading me to take him to "Wikiquette alerts" because he called me liar for saying I was confused by a misspelling - no joke. He's just been through my edits, and has attacked both HighKing and Sarah777 now via his stalking of me - he'll probably turn up here too. Why don't you have a look before slagging me off? And how about you and I try not to speak to each other? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the one, you started it here as part of a demand for an apology and he has asked you to back it up with action. It just shows a pattern Matt (and I did try and understand what had so upset you). We edit the same pages so we will talk to each other. In that context I really think its a pity you were not able to bring yourself to proceed to mediation, especially after you started it. As I said, when you are good you are very good (witness today's proposal on ROI) so I am afraid I will continue to deal with you in line with SilkTork's advocacy above --Snowded TALK 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You really are a piece of work. You've had another unnecessary pop at me in my suggestion at ROI. No need for it all, and I don't care if your digs are hidden in supports etc. You sound like a school kid to me above. That guy it a obvious troll on my back and you are using him wind me up? If you are "in line" with SilkTorc's advocacy why are you behaving like this? You must have some ego not to see your own crap. I backed out of this mediation because of this edit by you here: after all the work I did in saving HighKing's "Questions", you were determined to try and keep the table turned over. What a child you are. There are two types of Wikipedian - the ones who try to represent matters, and the ones who try to shape or disrupt them. There is no doubt in my mind which category you come under are. Ironically I've come up with a naming solution at ROI that enough people may support, and could help a number of issues. Do you think that can happen with all these flying toys, ganging-up's and board tossings? I don't think so. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Your "troll" may be a newcomer Matt, deserves cutting bit of slack. As to the diff, you really can't edit questions in the middle of a poll, however well intentioned so I have backed out of that until it stabilises. The naming solution at ROI is a good one (see above), please note I supported it, I also supported another editor's comment that it was nice to see you throwing water not oil, that was in context a complement. The whole idea of mediation was to allow a third party to observe edits and comments. I think that might have broken an entrained pattern of thinking which is not helpful. However it takes two to tangle. --Snowded TALK 21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, as Sarah has just pointed out, the guy has made only 200 edits - off and on - over 3 years. I'll have to deal with him when I have the time. I don't know who he is, but he's no newbie. As for this, I'll be wasting SikTorc's time here as much as my own as he won't be able to help, and I have far too many things on the go just to humour a process. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No further comment Matt, I'll aim to stay calm in my edits, hopefully you will do the same. SilkTork - thanks for being prepared to attempt something here, I think you could have helped, sorry you won't get the chance. See you on line. --Snowded TALK 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

People ganging up to disrupt an article

Hi,

I found you at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. If you can spare a few minutes of your time helping out at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil, I would be thankful.

I am developing an article on words borrowed by Tamil from Indo-Aryan languages. I am citing a standard authoritative lexicon from which I find the words that are borrowed before including them at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil. There are a few people who seem to be intent in damaging the article by adding "cite" tags, "disputed" and "dubious" tags for the article and threatening to delete it within 24 hours.

Could you please help?

Thanks. ­ Kris (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)