User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty stuff

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

Regarding the moderated discussion

Silktork, Am finding it difficult to pull out time for wikipeida at the moment. I'd like to request if the moderated discussion could be suspended for a while. Meanwhile, as KM Reports is an article other editors might also be interested in taking up, and as I do not want the creation of the page on Wikipedia to be delayed for reasons having to do with me, I raise a mention of it on the talk of a closely related article[1]. I'd be much thankful if you could share your perspective there. Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Silktork, I'd like to request if the process could be sped-up so that myself and Jayen may directly work on the articles. It would help a lot as I can put the research I have done to best use in the limited time I get to work on wikipedia. If at any point there is any conflict, we could resort to moderated discussion mechanism which is in place.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've not had much chance to spend time on Wikipedia matters recently, and I'm not sure how much time I'll have to look into your current inquiry. I'll see what I can do, though if you are looking for something speedy at this time, it may be a case of having someone else handle the matter. SilkTork *^YES! 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And why was Dilip allowed to recreate the article, when you specifically stated that you will monitor its creation and initiate an AFD? The article is a complete copy+paste from his preferred version [2], absolutely disregarding the prior consensus [3].--PCPP (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Silktork, the entire section pertaining to the KM Reports, teh central portion of the article, and the intro was compiled by me yesterday, taking a day off from work. I had gone ahead with creation of the namespace and planned to leave it for other editors to work on. I had made a mention of my decision to do so in a response to you on my talk.

Jayen has also apparently reviewed the article:[4]. I am waiting for a response from him. I have discussed this with him on his talk as well. I mention creation of the name-space on Talk:Persection of Falun Gong as well. Particualrly, I'd like to point out that PCPP's claim of the article being a copy-paste of an earlier version is baseless.

I request you to kindly review the content. I'd also like you to note hat PCPP has a history of blanking all content related to Chinese human rights abuses and editors have repeatedly raised concerns on his behaviour, and the 50 Cent Party pattern seen in his activities on wikipedia.Dilip rajeev (talk)

I agree with PCPP that it was inappropriate for you to create the article. That was against the conditions upon which the moderated discussion was set up. There has been little activity from you, and when you do wish to move forward you do so with inappropriate haste, and with knowing that I am particularly busy off-Wiki and cannot attend to matters closely. This doesn't look good for you. My email is activated, and you could have contacted me by email. You could at the very least have let me know what you were intending to do. My intention here, however, is not to get involved in personal issues, but to develop a useful article. I have, with that aim in mind, created in my user space the article as it currently stands - User:SilkTork/Kilgour-Matas report. I would like to develop this article, along with JN and any other editor who has an interest in this topic. As you have an interest in this area, and useful knowledge, with awareness of good sources, it would be helpful for you to be involved, but I am unsure if you can be trusted. Other editors express concerns about your behaviour, and in your dealings with me you act inappropriately. What assurances can you give that you would not act inappropriately in future? SilkTork *^YES! 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Silktork, I sincerely apologize for having gone ahead with the creation of the page. It was not my purpose to circumvent the moderated discussion process, but was attempting to make the most of a day's time I managed to pull out. Researching the topic for a while had led me to have concerns on why a human rights topic of urgent importance as this was not having its space in wikipedia. My hastiness was driven by concerns along those lines.

I acknowledge it was inappropriate on my part to have created the page without your permission, and I assure you , that, from hereforth, I will work with you on this, strictly adhering to the terms of the moderated discussion process. Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• I had a sense of déjà vu when I saw the article, down to the structure, layout and images. Am I getting it right that Dilip rajeev couldn't wait to do take a day off work, do a copy and paste? The report has been in existence for four years, and all of a sudden it has become urgent? On top of that, he launches another vicious attack on PCPP, accusing him for harassment, and 'sincerely apologises' to SilkTork (and, I note, not to PCPP) within 24 hours. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Move: Tree shaping to Arborsculpture

Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Silk, you removed the word arborsculpture from [Axel Erlandson]'s bio. here are 9 academic sources describing Erlandsons work as arborsculpture. Any chance the word can be use in the bio ? *Master Gardeners *.edu*American Society of Landscape Architects*Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California pressSlowart (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So, are we to understand that the word arborsculpture should not be used in the article? Should only be used in certain sections? Should only be used to describe one artist's work? Should only be used to describe the work of those artists who do not object to the use of the word? Why should or shouldn't any or all of the other alternate names be used in the article? I seek understanding. How does this compare with usage of alternate names in other Wikipedia articles? Please explain the distinction. Could you please respond to this on the Talk page, at your convenience?Duff (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have been slow to respond to both these queries - I am on Wiki only briefly at the moment, and usually to do some research for off-Wiki work I am doing. I had hoped to withdraw myself from the Tree shaping article and allow it to develop organicaly. I am on the whole in favour of the work Duff has been doing, though slightly concerned about Duff's interest in using the term arborsculpture in place of tree shaping, as it is the arborscupture term which has been the primary cause of disputes. There was a period of discussion and research conducted into the term. A summary of that would be that the term was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with that person. Reames has used the term when talking about tree shaping, and so the term has been adopted by neutral commentators as a generic term for tree shaping. I have said right from the start that I feel it would be appropriate for an article to be created on either Richard Reames or Arborsculpture, which deals with Richard Reames' tree shaping/arborsculture work. But that the article we now know as Tree shaping should be about tree shaping in general, including its history before Reames' involvement, and to include mention of and links to other known forms of tree shaping, such as Bonsai and Pleaching. As the arborsculture term has an association with one person, then prominent use of the term can gain that person some commercial/prestige advantage, which would be against the spirit and the policies of Wikipedia. As we have an acceptable neutral alternative, which also has the advantage of being more descriptive for the general reader, of "tree shaping", that is the term to be prefered. This is not to say that the arborsculpture term is banned - on the contrary, I feel it is highly appropriate to use the word in both describing Reames' work, and also as part of an explanation that there are alternative terms in use. Also, I don't wish for people to get into an edit war over the term, so if there is a long term use of the word in an article, that use should remain. But if arborsculpture has been used to replace tree shaping, or has been inserted additionally into a sentence without adding any meaning, then it should be removed, as such use can be construed as looking for commercial or prestige advantage. I made a comment on this earlier, which can be found in the archives of the Tree shaping talkpage:

I think it would be disruptive to engage in an edit war on other articles over which term to use, "tree shaping" or "arborsculpture". I would favour "tree shaping" as that is the term we have agreed is the least problematic however, if arborsculpture is currently used appropriately in an article I feel it can be left there. Where there is an example of both "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" being used in the same or consecutive sentences to no meaningful effect, then "tree shaping" is to be preferred. I have amended Axel Erlandson to remove arborsculpture.

The above explains, I think, the removal of arborsculpture in the Axel Erlandson article. The history of that article shows that the term arborscultpture was introduced needlessly, and the article worked well then without the term, and works well now.

I think this also explains why I recently ammended a use of the term arborscupture in the Tree shaping article. WP:Promotion and WP:Promotional give some loose guidance on this. SilkTork *^YES! 10:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Category repopulating

Just out of curiosity why did you depopulate Category:War novels set in Anglo-Saxon England‎ and then redirect it? Sadads (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the question. I merged Category:War novels set in Anglo-Saxon England‎ with Category:Novels set in Anglo-Saxon England‎ to assist navigation. See WP:OC#NARROW and WP:OC#SMALL. The War novels cat only held a couple of books and was an unnecessary split as the main cat is not large anyway. At some point if the cat becomes overpopulated a split would be worthwhile, and consideration given to the best way of doing that. Most novels set in Anglo-Saxon England‎ tend to involve a war as that was the nature of the times, so that may not be the most useful way of splitting the cat. There is some value in having a cat for war novels, though that could overlap with cats organised by time-periods, and be organised by specific wars and protagonists. SilkTork *^YES! 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP Essays in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Essays for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC: July 2009 Ürümqi riots

I am co-editor of an article at FAC. This is the third attempt - it died for lack of interest last time.

Please help me if you can. Any comments will be welcome. Pass or fail doesn't matter. I just don't want a replay of the slow death by suffocation, like last time. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Irony article

Hello. I wonder if you, or someone else could help with the section in this article to do with Verbal irony and sarcasm? The discussion is getting very long, and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I added some dictionary definitions and suchlike, in an attempt to set out the way authorities have sought to differentiate the terms. The editor responsible for the original text (which I have hardly touched) objects to this on the grounds that all these definitions are wrong in some way. His original text dealt only with the way psychologists have studied the way people understand irony and sarcasm. He wants to remove my definitions and replace them with more psychology citations. I do not understand what is going on here. I hope you can help. Myrvin (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have come to a close. Myrvin (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Closing the discussion on No original research

Hi,

Thanks for taking up the challenge of closing the discussion on the rewrite of the lead of the No original research policy.

I'd like to ask you to reconsider your conclusions. Changes to policy pages should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus that the proposed changes are an improvement, they should not be made.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't follow the discussion, I'm just sticking my nose in here. Consensus does not equal "everyone agrees the change is right". Consensus equals "everyone agrees to allow the change to be made, even if they don't think it's the right choice". consensus means you agree to put your objections aside when you see you are vastly outnumbered - but it can also mean that a single dissenting voice can stop everything from happening. Practicality overrules the latter, and consensus ends up being supermajority wins. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It sometimes happens that a discussion has points of dispute so that when closing, somebody is not going to be happy - as when a page is protected, for somebody it will be m:The Wrong Version. My summary of the discussion indicated that in general the principle of rewriting the lead was accepted, and the initial move toward the rewrite can be found here, which - if looking back at what initially propelled it - can be seen to be a little more involved than what currently appears on the talkpage. However, while in general the principle of a rewrite was seen as positive and needed, I did note that there were particular concerns with the actual wording of the rewrite and I highlighted some of those. Given that there is no clear support for either version, and putting the page back to before the rewrite would not be advancing the situation, and would in principle be stiffling attempts at improvement, it seemed to be appropriate to suggest that people continue to work on improving the lead along the lines suggested. My recommendation is that you make some of the ammendments that I highlighted, and if there are objections, that you discuss those on the talkpage. If you need further assistance on this, please get in touch. If it's urgent, please use my email, as I am not currently spending much time on-Wiki. SilkTork *^YES! 14:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You wrote in the summary that "it may not be fully clear what overall advantage has been gained by the rewrite given the concerns raised;" Doesn't that mean there is no consensus for the rewrite?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My comments were designed to indicate that there was no prefered version, but that it would be more positive to move forward on the existing version than to roll back to the previous. I had hoped to encourage and support people in moving forward on improving the current version along the lines indicated. As there is potential dispute and I got involved as an impartial commentator it would be inappropriate for me to directly edit the page and retain the role of impartial commentator in case of the need to arbitrate a dispute. I would again recommend that you edit the page along the lines suggested and refer to the discussion and my closing comments. That might be a progressive use of your time. I would be willing to comment on any dispute arising from such editing. SilkTork *^YES! 08:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Are you saying that there was no consensus, but because of other considerations it would be better to use the rewrite?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My comments were that there was in general a favourable response to the rewrite, but that concerns were raised about some aspects. I summed up by saying that in general neither version had in their entirety full support, and so, to encourage development, I suggested work should be done on the most advanced position, which is the current version. There would be a loss, both of momentum and content, in disregarding everything that had been done, so that therefore it made more sense to move forward on the points of concern. Sometimes things are not completely black or white. I am willing to assist you through this situation, though I am unclear what it is you are asking me. I am suggesting you edit the page along the lines indicated in the discussion, and that I would be willing to support such editing in case of a dispute. Instead of that you appear to want me to keep explaining my actions as though I should have declared the entire rewrite as being inappropriate and out of consensus. I do not read in the discussion that the entire rewrite was being rejected. I see favourable comments to the whole rewrite, and some specific concerns raised about some of the wording. Again, all I feel I can do is suggest you make those edits that were identified as being of concern - such as adding back "or original thought", and moving the Paris example to the main body. I would do them myself, but as I closed the discussion I feel I should not be directly involved in editing the page - there is a long standing convention about such matters! SilkTork *^YES! 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that there is consensus for some aspects of the rewrite but not others?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that you should edit the page. I am unsure what value you are getting out of this conversation, nor what you hope you get out of it. If I have failed to make myself clear at this point, then I doubt that continuing to rephrase that "the rewrite was generally seen as a move forward, though aspects of it were challenged and that those aspects should be edited going further forward" is going to make it any clearer. I apologise that I have failed to communicate with you. What exactly is it you'd like me to do at this stage? SilkTork *^YES! 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope to understand how you reached your conclusion. I think a "Yes" or "No" answer to the questions I've asked above would help me.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• You wrote in the summary that "it may not be fully clear what overall advantage has been gained by the rewrite given the concerns raised;" Doesn't that mean there is no consensus for the rewrite? No.

• Are you saying that there was no consensus, but because of other considerations it would be better to use the rewrite? No.

• Are you saying that there is consensus for some aspects of the rewrite but not others? Yes

As you feel yes or no responses are more helpful to you than my fuller explanations, there you are - I hope that provides clarity. I don't think I can help you further than this, and I feel that if I continue to answer your questions I will be prolonging this to no good effect, and may generate frustration. I am willing to help out on development of the page in relation to the discussion I closed, though I will not respond to more enquiries designed to get me to change my mind. If you wish to pursue the issue of my close, then I suggest you ask an impartial admin to look over my close, as this line of questioning is going nowhere. SilkTork *^YES! 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

High traffic on History of beer

The template was initially intended as a short term alert so editors could be aware of likely vandalism. It was not intended to remain on a page for ever. It now marks an historical incident that belongs in the archives. SilkTork *^YES! 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed your page notice as I was saving. I don't watchlist people's talkpages, and tend not to come back, so if you only reply here it's unlikely I'll see it. Up to you, but if you do have a reply for me it's best to leave it on my talkpage otherwise I might miss it. I find it helps to cut and paste the whole conversation so everything is kept together. SilkTork *^YES! 16:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There actually seems to have been some confusion around whether or not {{High traffic}} is a "temporary" template subject to removal.
The original template was Template:Slashdotted and was a short term template intended to be placed directly on the article page and not the talk page. At that time the template looked like this.
In November 2005 it was nominated for TfD, the outcome of which was to turn it into a generic template instead of being Slashdot specific, and use it on the talk page instead of the article. User:Phil Boswell converted it to a talk notice template [5] [6] and updated the transclusions: [7] [8] [9] [10] etc.
Unfortunately this note on Template talk:High traffic was never updated, nor was it removed when {{High traffic/doc}} was created. It seems to have caused some confusion in that some people still thought {{High traffic}} was still a temporary template, which was originally only the case because it was used on the article page instead of the talk page.
We do not remove {{Press}} (intended for print articles which mention the Wikipedia article) and we do not remove {{Onlinesource}} (for use when a print article uses the Wikipedia article as a source) so there is no reason to remove {{High traffic}} which is used when a high traffic (usually news) website links to a Wikipedia article.
Moving {{High traffic}} to an archive page also breaks the template, as can be seen when you moved it to the archive page here.
As you probably noticed, I've also been working on improving the {{High traffic}} template itself. I recently added support for stats.grok.se (which was somewhat of a challenge). stats.grok.se unfortunately does not have complete data for everything and while it works for some articles which were linked in 2007, the datasets for 2007 seem quite spotty and random. From about 2008 onward the datasets are much better and are almost always available. I plan to eventually rework the |page= parameter, which will allow for more flexibility for the template to be placed on a page and link to a different page, but for now that does not work. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You could try to gain consensus to retain the template permanently on talkpages, though I would not support such a suggestion as the template is a low-value one. That an article gained momentary attention several years ago is of little interest today, and such information belongs as part of the history in the archives rather than being visible as something that requires someone's attention right now. We archive much more pertinent discussions about articles in order to free up talkpages for what is currently important. What value do you feel is being gained by having such information on current display? And do you feel whatever value is gained overrides the imperative to keep information on the talkpage current and pertinent? If a page becomes too crowded with templates there is an information overload and the value of ALL information on the page becomes diminished. SilkTork *^YES! 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There has never been any consensus for removing this template either. "What value do you feel is being gained by having such information on current display?" It is a historical record. Being able to link to stats.grok.se now makes it even more valuable. From a research standpoint, this data is actually quite valuable but if you remove the template there is no way to track and find it.
We also don't remove the DKY, main page, or in the news notices from talk pages...
What would be the point in even having any of these templates if you remove them? It made perfect sense to remove the original template in 2005 when it was used the way it was on the article page ("Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism."), but it makes no sense to remove the current template from the talk page today. The template does not take up very much room and it is collapsible (defaulting to collapse when 4 or more sites are included in the template). This sort of support alone shows that this template is not intended to be a "temporary" template. Again, we do not remove {{Press}} and {{Onlinesource}} so there is no reason to single out {{High traffic}}. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a look to see if there was any prior discussion on the issue of templates on talkpages that might provide some guidance. The two most useful I found are: Wikipedia:Talk page layout and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, though neither address our concerns of when (or if) to move a template to the archives. That we are in disagreement and are unable to find a solution might suggest that others may also be unclear on what to do. I will start a general discussion on archiving templates on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, with a link from Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout. SilkTork *^YES! 16:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

True, I can certainly see how others might end up in a similar situation. In thinking about this further, I think the concept of a "low value template" is subjective though. What might be considered "low value" to one individual or project might be considered valuable to another.
With {{High traffic}} specifically, it does allow a WikiProject to tell at a glance if other sites consider the article to be of high value by way of linking to it. We already use basic hit data for WikiProject Popular pages (see WP:COMP/PP for the Computing WikiProject's data) and being able to say with some degree of accuracy that "site x linked to article y on 1 Jan 2009" in order to show where that traffic came from can be quite useful. For example, see Talk:Walter Gropius and the May 2008 stats. Another example is Talk:Logan's Run. [11] We know that Slashdot linked to it on May 15, but which high traffic site linked to it on May 6?
It is also always possible to do something like what I did on Talk:Malamanteau with {{CollapsedShell}}, [12] which I did specifically to shorten the top of the talk page due to all the incoming traffic. [13] [14] It seems to be an acceptable solution when collapsing multiple {{Press}}, {{High traffic}}, etc templates but I'm not sure that this should be done on a regular basis. It certainly is helpful for an extremely active talk page such as that one though. Ordinarily I would have used the multiple options of {{High traffic}} instead (see Talk:Tsar Bomba and Talk:Gullibility), but the way the template is currently written that wasn't an option because I wanted to handle each of those 3 cases very differently. I also find {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, {{WikiProjectBanners}}, and {{Skip to talk}} helpful in some of these cases.
Another template commonly seen which I meant to mention before is {{ArticleHistory}}. I also noticed that {{High traffic}} is shown on Wikipedia:Template messages/General#Timing-related messages but others such as {{Press}}, {{Onlinesource}}, etc are missing. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)