User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 44
 | Hi! This is part of SilkTork's archives of past talkpage discussions.
Feel free to wander around and browse at will. Old archives from 2006 to 2012 are here. More recent archives are indexed here. Tea and biscuits are available on request at my talkpage. |
| ← Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 → |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Although I !voted "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Schwartz (public figure), I am thankful for your lengthy and well-reasoned closure to "delete" this article. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
- Thank you. It was a close that did require some consideration, and I can well understand why some were voting to keep, as there was an appearance of notability in the amount of coverage of his role in the Obama presidential campaign. But it was shown that that coverage was largely self-generated, and our practise is not to give weight to such promotional and temporary coverage. It may be that he does become notable later on and an article can be created then. If you or anyone else wishes to use the deleted material to create a new article, please let me know and I will userfy it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
War of the Pacific arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Schwartz deletion
Hello! I'm writing regarding the deletion of Mitchell Schwartz's page. It appears that I should make this appeal to you based on the edit history and the instructions for disputing deletion, before taking other steps. I am an advisor to Mitchell's campaign, and I am concerned that a non-neutral editor is going out of the way to impugn our entry when Schwartz does meet general notability guidelines. We're not heavy Wikipedia users and as this deletion was litigated over the holiday, we did not mount a defense. In addition to the issues brought up in the discussion prior to deletion, Schwartz was sought out as an advisor to Bernie Sanders' California campaign because of his stature and prominence in California political circles. In addition to the news articles cited in the original entry, Schwartz was featured in the Clinton campaign documentary "War Room" (IMDB credits), and is a regular CNN commentator, +, and +. Not only is Mitchell notable in his own right, he's one of only two candidates for Los Angeles mayor - deletion of his entry does a disservice to Wikipedia and to the people of LA. Adrielhampton
- Thank you for raising the issue. I closed the discussion as delete because of the weight of argument brought forward as to the subject's suitability for meeting our inclusion criteria. There was also a general consensus by simple vote counting. While the subject may have notability in other areas, such as for those interested in the candidates for Los Angeles mayor, which would include the local media, the discussion found that he has no lasting global significance at the moment. He may well acquire significance - particularly if he becomes mayor, but at the moment he is a candidate, which under our guidelines is not quite enough. See WP:POLITICIAN. You may raise the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review, though it is worth reading the criteria for opening a review at WP:DRVPURPOSE. If you simply disagree with the close, that in itself is not a valid reason for opening a review. If you feel I have misread the consensus of the discussion, that there were more valid arguments for inclusion than deletion, especially when considering our inclusion guidelines and policies, then please say that now to me, and I will look again. If new reliable sources have come to light which indicate notability, then please bring them to my attention - imdb is not regarded as a reliable source as it is user generated, and appearing in a newsclip is not considered note worthy - see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:JOURNALIST. If the subject had gained a significant reputation as a journalist, such that people were writing about him and his journalism, then we would consider including him. We do not have articles on every journalist nor every electoral candidate. I would suggest that if you do go ahead and open a review, that you don't make comments about any editor whose vote you disagreed with. If you have cause for concern regarding the activities of any editor, then Deletion Review is not the place to discuss those. You are welcome to email me privately with concerns you have, and if I agree that your concerns are justified I will either take action myself or indicate to you what stages you need to follow. Please do not make allegations against another editor without first discussing it in private with me or another admin, as you may get blocked for making personal attacks if the allegations are unfounded. Also, while personally I don't fully subscribe to all that it says, it is worth reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as you are linked to the subject, and some users have a negative attitude toward users editing in relation to subject's they are linked to. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you
|
The Socratic Barnstar | |
Your recent comment of Dodger67's RfA demonstrates that one can disagree eloquently but without malice and should serve as a reminder to all users that disagreeing with someone does mean you have to forget about being civil, no matter how heated an argument has become. For that, please accept this Barnstar.  Regards SoWhy 13:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.
Obituaries
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
|
Enjoy! Bri39 (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC) |
Proposed deletion of Kwangmyŏngsŏng
I believe it was better as a redirect to the program overview page, rather than listing the individual entries in the program alongside the program itself. The program overview article contains subsections and links to all other articles listed in the disambiguation, and therefore the disambiguation doesn't actually disambiguate anything and is redundant Spartan S58 (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
pre-disambiguate
Hi, thanks for the comment. You have added confusion by moving the St. Columba's URC, Oxford page to St. Columba's URC - to my knowledge, there are St. Columba's URCs in Cambridge, Gosport, Coventry, North Shields and possibly elsewhere. They may not have articles at the moment, but your move sets up the possibility for confusion. I hope you will agree that your change should be reverted. Sjoh0050 (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- On the whole we don't pre-disambiguate (the only time this happens is with ships). When new articles are created which share the same name, that is when we look at the question of disambiguating, and we make the assessment of the best approach at that time. Sometimes a title may be the primary topic, and so is not disambiguated, but has a hatnote added linking to the other articles; or we may decide to create a disambiguation page. We cannot go around second guessing what may happen, so our policy is to create articles with a precise name, and to deal with issues which may arise later, assuming they do, which they may not! I hope that makes sense? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
ANI
There is a ANI here about my edits on Siouxsie related articles that may interest you. thanks for reading. Carliertwo (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Can I have your assistance, please?
You have written that you are happy to provide assistance in editing issues. I'm having problems with the page Bank_of_Ayudhya.
The company was rebranded as "Krungsri" in 2014, and that's how it's marketed everywhere (logo, URL, ATMs etc.). The company only uses its old name behind the scenes, for legal purposes. However, one user won't accept the rebrand to "Krungsri", as is evident in recent edits. Aikclaes (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Need advice on an editing dispute
Hello, I'm looking for advice and suggestions on an editing dispute I've gotten into. I apologize in advance if it runs long or I do something wrong. A few days ago I attempted to add Swiss professional wrestler Claudio Castagnoli (ring name of Cesaro) into the 'Notable People 1950-today' section of the city of Lucerne, Switzerland since he was born and raised there. The next day I noticed that my edit had been reversed so I looked at the history of the article page and found that I had not been the first person to attempt to add him to the 'Notable People' section just the most recent to have my edit reversed by a single user. I read through the users edit notes to try and glean why he/she was constantly reversing these edits, "totally unknown", "irrelevant", "self-promotion?". I took to the User's talk page to ask why he/she was consistently removing this edit and to state why I believe he is notable enough to warrant placement on the page. To avoid any confusion I'll just copy & paste the conversation I had with the user.
You keep removing Claudio Castagnoli from the Notable People section and I believe this is totally unnecessary. You've once flagged the edit as "Totally Unknown" and "Irrelevant" but that is gross ignorance. Claudio Castagnoli (ring name Cesaro) is a big name in professional wrestling and is currently signed to the largest pro-wrestling promotion in the world, WWE. He is a multi time champion, Pro Wrestling Illustrated named him the 13th greatest singles wrestler of 2014, Wrestling Observer Newsletter award him the "Most Underrated Wrestler" award a record four times (2013-16), and he appears on a successful internationally broadcasted television show weekly. - Me
This might be true, but is totally irrelevant to be listed on the notable people list of Lucerne. First of all your wrestler is totally unknown not only in Lucerne but the entirety of Switzerland, secondly, wrestling is hardly known in Switzerland, if not fully ignored, and thirdly, the very tiny list is about people with an profound (cultural) impact on Lucerne. There would be literally ten of thousands other people with more relevance to Lucerne than your wrestler. Just to be born in Lucerne is simply not relevant. - The User
According to Google trends Claudio Castagnoli (under his ring name Cesaro) is on average more popular within Switzerland than every other person listed in 'Notable People 1950-today'. Also "wrestling is hardly known in Switzerland, if not fully ignored" is wrong as Zurich & Geneva are regular stops in WWE's European tours with the events drawing thousands of spectators. - Me
LOL. Hey, anonymous from Canada! You are a funny guy. Not. By any chance, are you the wrestler by himself, trying to promote yourself in wrestling desert Switzerland!? That would indeed be laughable.
Well, your wrestler seem to find the one or other click currently (12 searches a day? Wow, that's even laughable for Swiss standards). But that is not the relevant factor. And accordings to the survey by the Federal Sports Ministry (BASPO) the factsheet from 2014 lists 56 different prominent sports in Switzerland, but wrestling does not even appear on this list! Yes, you will always find a few people to watch any sport. And finally, the most important aspect: his impact on Lucerne is NIL. So please calm down, play with your toys, and let the adults do their work. - The User
While yes I am from Canada I am not Claudio Castagnoli. It was at the accusation of self promotion and the condescension of the final line that I decided to stop responding. I am looking for advice on moving forward, as of right now Claudio Castagnoli remains off the page. Thanks 50.69.36.66 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
people from Lucerne
Please, SilkTork, instead of filing any useless 'warnings' on my talk page, I would rather expect from a sysop that he is able to follow an argument. Please, react to my arguments on the Talk:List of people from Lucerne pages and provide any reasonable counter arguments, if there are any. Nothing can convince me more than rational thoughts and facts. I kindly ask you to do so instead of an edit war between a sysop and a normal editor. thanks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to beta-test IABot
Hello SilkTork! I would like to invite you to help beta test the interface for InternetArchiveBot. IABot is a bot designed to help mitigate link rot on Wikipedia. Users can control the bot by using a Management Interface that was designed to be integrated with and similar to Wikipedia (For example, only autoconfirmed users can run the bot; on-wiki administrators have admin access on the tool; user permissions on the tool are flag based; logs are kept; etc.)
If you'd like to help out, feel free to give the interface a go to check for bugs/anomalies/other weird things and send your feedback to Cyberpower678, the bot operator. Again, the interface is at http://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/ (If it's down for maintenance right now, it'll be back up shortly). If you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
TDSTM
tiding = remove archiving ? really, why ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)