User talk:SilkTork

Archives

General archives are here: /Jan 2006 - March 2006; /April 2006 - Dec 2006; /Jan 2007 - March 2006; /April 2007 - Dec 2007;/Jan 2008 - June 2008; /July 2008 - Dec 2008

/Beer Archive - archive runs from April 2006 to Dec 2007. Archive now closed.

/AMA Archive - please note I am no longer taking on AMA cases.

/Dispute Archive - Assistance with Disputes

/Image message Archive

Current messages

WP Food WP Beer integrated template

The issue you reported has been corrected. Please review the changes which can be seen as Talk: Narragansett Brewing Company. We ask that you please refrain from using the new template until it has been approved by the WP Beer members. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Breweries (buildings)

The existence of this category was the result of a discussion on a CfD months ago. It is for articles about the buildings and not the ones about the companies. If it does not belong in Category:Beer then that is a different issue. Simply removing everything from a category is against policy since that in effect sets it up for speedy deletion and category deletions need to be discussed before acting. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a cat for which sort of brewery buildings? Would you link me to the CfD discussion. Also, would you link me to the policy that says that a cat should not be depopulated. I have never known depopulating a cat to be against a guideline let alone policy. A depopulated cat is sure enough a target for a discussion on deletion. But it may also be repopulated so the act of depopulating a cat does not in itself speedy delete it. What is generally frowned upon is somebody depopulating a cat and then bringing that cat to CfD with the reason: Delete - empty cat. SilkTork *^YES! 08:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, just waiting for some quiet time to do some digging. Been busy with real world stuff. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Beer banner

I read your message on the talk page, and I must say it's far better worded than mine. :) The banner and tagging is well-intentioned, but I think that its creators haven't yet done a great deal of inter-group collaboration, so they approached it less cautiously than they should have. We're going to have to put it up for a vote pretty soon, but I think the writing is on the wall. Besides that, I'm doing well. Busy, of course, but that's a good thing. How about you? – ClockworkSoul 13:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What will we be voting for exactly? To keep our own tag, or for the exact wording on the shared F&D tag? I'm as yet still unsure of the benfits to the articles, the general reader, or the Beer project of a shared tag with F&D. I would appreciate an explanation of the potential benefits. And, like you, I am very uncomfortable with the manner in which F&D have done this - though that in itself isn't a barrier to future collaboration.

How am I keeping? Like you, often busy. I nibble away at beer articles, though not as much as I used to. And I don't participate as much in engaging interest in beer projects as I used to. There have been comments made about the augumentative and fragmented nature of the project, and sadly it is true. Healthy debate can produce some excellent results - but not all debate is healthy! Let's hope this tagging issue can bring people together in harmony. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more: this entire endeavor, though well-intended, cannot end well and needs to be started from scratch. The vote would be whether or not to accept the "omnitag", which I suspect will tend firmly to the negative. I'm writing a reply on the FOOD board now to Jeremy's reply to your reply to that effect. – ClockworkSoul 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol by volume

Please see a message for you at User talk:Wahrmund. Wahrmund (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Silky

No, I'm actually quite fine. You've actually taught me a lot, by tryng to keep cool, calm, and collected. I've just been so busy with work these days that I do not not seem to have the time to edit Wiki articles. I just check in on my watch list and make sure the articles I've contributed to are still in good shape and that folk editing are following the guidelines. I did run across of a bit of a disappointment recently. I had been promised a Sen. Obama photo shoot next week-end, but his campaign folk have their own photog, one who has been vetted by the US Secret Service. Oh well, them are the breaks. My best -- ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 08:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and linguistics: congruent but not identical

Hi, can only pop in for a sec, but nice to be here.

Point for your consideration, regarding "the pedia I love to edit" not being seen as a sentence: this pedia-thingy is viewable by a lot of non-native speakers of English, and so, it needs to hew to a careful standard of written English. In my view, of course.

Looking fwd to further discussion over there,

the one who is fond of listening to language as she is spoke, and writing it keeping in mind that future unknown audiences shall have a fair chance of easy comprehension, __Just plain Bill (talk)

Public houses

Got your messages re pubs, Steve, and have noted. Many thanks. (I like your style.) As for joining the task force, I am not sure whether I know enough about the subject. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Dieter Simon (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's interest and enthusiasm that matters more! You clearly have some interest. The knowledge comes from doing the research - and that's the fun part. By working on Wikipedia articles we discover more ourselves! Please join! SilkTork *^YES! 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have only just seen your page. I am very glad you re-integrated the "country pub" article/section into the main "public house" article. It was my original gripe in the discussion page of the "country pub" article at the end of 2007, that I intimated that the country pub as we might have known it is very rarely so nowadays. I will look into this and write the section out properly, but I fear it will not be in the idealised version but in the version as is. What with the motor car bringing the so-called country pub into the urban scene much more than it used to be the case and it being much more difficult for country publicans to maintain the C. P. status. It appears, country pubs disappear at the rate knots up and down the country for one reason or another, and to that effect there are some websites stating what the problems are. Though I haven't got that much time I will do my best. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Brewery categories

SilkTork, thanks for making me aware of the discussion. I haven't had a chance to review the whole story yet. In the meantime, however, I enabled your "rollback" right. I know you are making good use of Twinkle, but thought you may benefit from the "native" button as well. If you need any help retrieving deleted material, deleting pages to make way for a move, etc. just let me know. Keep up the good work! Owen× ☎ 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. Thanks Owen. SilkTork *^YES! 07:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey again

SilkTork, good hearing from you. I too have been fairly quiet on the beer project for a while, as I'm sure you've seen -- also just a light touch here or there when I see the opportunity. Life's busy, eh? Well, the project's certainly had some excitement lately, and it was nice that things didn't totally blow up! People seem to have adopted a comparatively more patient, empathic approach to WP, although of course human nature lives on. Anyway, it's great as always to chat with you and ClockworkSoul and everyone else.

I thought you made some wise additions to the recent beer discussions, and the new pub taskforce looks great. Thanks for writing, and I wish I had more time to chip in with this stuff right away, although I'm sure I will eventually have lots more time. For now I guess I'll continue to help out where I can, but down the road I hope to make larger changes again.

Hope everything's well with you.

Cheers! --Daniel11 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Human nature! And I agree with your comments on F&D talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Our Lady of LaSalette Catholic School

SilkTork, you seem to have incorrectly merged Our Lady of LaSalette Catholic School into Grand Erie District School Board#Closed_schools as it belongs to the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board (as indicated in the infobox). The BHNCDSB article was deleted many months ago so I cannot move the school there and thus I am considering reverting your edit to Our Lady of LaSalette Catholic School. I am just looking for your opinion on this before I go ahead and revert. Thanks. - Mmn100 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've requested that Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board be undeleted. When that happens I'll redirect the disamb page to the new target, and move the relevant contents of Our Lady of LaSalette Catholic School from Grand Erie District School Board to Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board. SilkTork *^YES! 21:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Working together on Beer cats

Thanks for the offer. I answered your comment on my talk page. Better to have the discussion in one place. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 30 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)

All Saints Church, Bakewell move

Done. Owen× ☎ 00:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Downing Case DYK

On 26 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Downing case, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Beer categories

I won't object to their recreation if there is in fact a consensus to recreate them (which a quick glance at the discussions you linked me to looks like there is). I actually was going to delete them as C1 (empty) but noticed they had been deleted via CfD before and didn't see a deletion review overturning that so figured I would just select G4 as the deletion reason. I will say that bringing this to deletion review to make it "official" is probably a better idea before recreating to ensure someone else won't come along and do the same thing though, since a consensus on a talk page is not a substitute for that and someone who made the same observations that I did may re-delete them. I personally won't delete them as G4 again though per your request. VegaDark (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, and one I will take up. Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 10:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Beer style chart

Your beer style chart is brilliant. It shows the real relativity that definitely exists in the differing accounts of beer styles. Great job! — goethean ॐ 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SilkTork/Apetito

Done. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard

Thanks for your silken words about the moves to give editors the power to choose whether or not to blue-splotch the dates in their text! There's a script for removing DA that works throughout the main text of an article, and in a limited number of those pesky citation and infobox templates, most of which are going to have to be converted to evolve with changing attitudes towards DA in the main text.

If you're interested in running the script, this should be done on a limited basis, and preferably a few days after posting a notice of intention on the talk page of the article. I've stopped using it for the moment, pending my gathering of data on users' responses to the notice over the past few weeks. Then we'll see where to take it. MOSNUM talk does look encouraging, I must say.

To acquire the script, simply go to your monobook page and paste in:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js')

Refresh the monobook page. Go to an article, click "edit this page", and you should see a tab at top-left called "all dates". Click it, wait for the diff to be automatically created below, scroll down, check for glitches, and save. See? Easy-peasy. Tony (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deptford

Hello. I put a note about it here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#London_sub-district_categories. We had some discussion at WP:London about categorisation by locality a while ago and decided to use London boroughs only as they have definite boundaries. Then, to subdivide the categories, we use features such as Category:Buildings and structures in Lewisham and Category:Churches in Lewisham. The reasoning for not using sub-categories such as Deptford is because there are over 600 London district articles and there should not be a similar number of small categories. Secondly, the category scope will be different and inconsistent between editors. Some will consider everything in the SE8 postcode district to be part of the category and others will consider everything that was part of the Metropolitan Borough of Deptford to be part of the category. If this is expanded for further locality names in London, the result will be a too granular, overlapping and poorly-defined mess. MRSC • Talk 05:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a look back and found this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_26#Category:Marylebone. Reading the discussion I see the point about ill-defined boundaries of some areas, though I don't follow the reasoning that that in itself is a decisive reason not to have a cat. Not all categories can be finitely specific, and there will be enough smudging that articles will at times appear in neighbouring and related cats. However, I can see that there is a consensus on this, and I don't feel strongly enough about the subject to drag people through a debate. Thanks for your explanation, I'll leave the cat alone! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Community forum

A Community forum has been set up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Article guidelines for the various Food and Drink projects to develop a set of Manual of Style guidelines for use in articles under the auspices of all the related Food and Drink WikiProjects and task forces. This would be similar to the MoS guidelines for biographies or legal articles.

Please feel free to comment.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:47, 16 August 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)

AfD nomination of Philippines beer

I have nominated Philippines beer, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines beer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated Philippines beer for T:TDYK. Hopefully you could it expand it to a better article in the next days. Good luck!--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating! The article has gone from being proposed for deletion to being proposed for the main page, and it's still not yet five hours old! Yes - I'll take a look at tightening it up over the next few days - though I'll be out most of Sunday and Monday. SilkTork *^YES! 23:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine naming conventions

Could you please modify your proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (cuisines) so that it looks more like a self-reliant suggestion for a guideline rather than argumentation for a certain viewpoint. I tried to rewrite it to be more descriptive myself, but I came to the conclusion that I had no idea how exactly what you had in mind for cuisines of cultures, time periods, etc. Could you also try not to give your own suggestion the most prominent position?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I have updated the proposed guideline from Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article guidelines, which incorporates your suggestions.

There are various methods of writing articles, essays and guidelines - the most common one is a communal edit of the project page, with suggestions, debates, votes and discussions on the talkpage. That is the method I am most familiar with, and the one I have used on other guidelines I have taken part in. I am aware that sometimes an essay/guideline when starting out may have some discusion on the project page, but that soon gets moved to the talk page to allow the project page to develop properly. I moved the straw poll to the talkpage as that is the normal convention. SilkTork *^YES! 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Harar label

FYI, "Harar.jpg" is now Image:HararBeerLabel.jpg. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

...canal tunnels...

Hi Silktork, I've responded on my talkpage. Sorry, no time to stop for tea....perhaps another time  :-) Renata (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Philippine beer

On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philippine beer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wish I could say "Cheers" in filipino, but I can't...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

== Obnosis == Editor Harrassment from MovingBoxes in what appears to be a Church of Scientology misinformation agenda This user MovingBoxes is editing the obnosis page with tags that don't meet Wiki's policies. Using projection to state that my agenda is commerical or COI (no commercial site or affiliation exists with the page) to forward or clean up documentation that would prove the Church of Scientology "owns" the word Obnosis. The obnosis.com domain owner has long endured this since the UseNet Alt scientology wars in the 1990's through their fair game campaign. None can even edit the page without getting DoS flooded.

My protection tags are removed and replaced with consider for deletion after multiple small edits to make the page look inconsequential in subject. Please Assist to place permanent editorial protection on this page. LisaKachold (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)