User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty archives

Modern clean archives

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

To remove the sandbox link add #pt-sandbox { display: none; } (or li#pt-sandbox {display: none;} for MonoBook users) to your common.css page.

To prevent the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent site notices add #siteNotice { display:none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent the MediaViewer follow these instructions

Use {{Reflist|30em}} instead of {{Reflist|2}}

Advice

If this an inappropriate question on your talk page, I apologize. I am confounded regarding the effort to prepare the Vagina for GA review. If you have advice, I am ready to hear it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 23:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

SilkTork, I know we have been discussing via email, but see this section and the one immediately above it. All Axl and I are suggesting is that substantial changes be discussed before being added. And we have suggested this for valid reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look. SilkTork (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 12:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Please check "As a non-expect I am relying on those who are expects" at Talk:Vagina#Proposed content. That has a typo, should be "expert" (twice). Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the heads up. :-) SilkTork (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Good cop bad cop?

I'm fine with it. I hope it works. I'd be interested to know why User:HJ Mitchell decided to downgrade from a previous two week block to a 72 hour one, all of two weeks after the fact. Mitigating circumstances? GMG^talk 01:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops. For context re: HJM. GMG^talk 01:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that editor is not going to be around for long. I'm idly going though their contributions and not seeing much that is useful while there is plenty that is unhelpful and disruptive. SilkTork (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I just got back on desktop, where I can actually look into things, but this isn't encouraging. Appears they've been having similar problems on zhwiki. GMG^talk 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Greene King

Hi. What's the naming convention you've applied when moving Greene King to Greene King Brewery? The company's name is Greene King, and as far as I'm aware it's commonly referred to as such. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Brewery name. It was set up because a beer can have the same name as the brewery - Heineken, Guinness, Foster's, etc. The idea is to avoid confusion, and introduce consistency. Also, Greene King Brewery is a WP:Common name for the company - [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. SilkTork (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

But there is no such beer as "Greene King". I also dispute that "Greene King Brewery" is the common name. The BBC calls it "Greene King" [5], as does the Guardian [6], the Telegraph [7],The Times [8], and local newspaper, the East Anglian Daily Times [9]. "Greene King Brewery" tends to refer to the actually brewery buildings rather than the company (which is what is referred to in the first link you cite).Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your points. The convention was set up by the then much more active Beer WikiProject. Though not all breweries have beers with the same name, the thinking was to introduce consistency as that is a part of our naming policy: WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. While there are examples of just Greene King, there's also Greene King plc, Green King brewery, and Greene King Brewery in use. Something I have wondered now and again, and perhaps we can raise the issue at the Beer WikiProject, is if the titles of our brewery articles should be "Foo brewery" rather than "Foo Brewery". Having the word brewery with a initial capital letter does give the impression that it is a formal part of the name. Shall we start that discussion? SilkTork (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have started the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Change_brewery_titles?. SilkTork (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:COMMONNAME is the main policy to follow. If disambiguation is needed, wouldn't the usual format be "Foo (brewery)"? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've started a move request for this page - Talk:Greene_King_Brewery#Requested_move_10_May_2018. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Vagina article

Ready. Pulled it until you're clear you're ready. I'll also go ahead and email you about it. I would have started sooner after the ANI stuff if I hadn't been busy, needed a break, and got caught up with the Jessicapin stuff regarding the Clitoris article. I'm still dealing with her on that, but I want to go ahead and get on with the Vagina GA. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Catching up on my big watchlist today and possibly having to deal with other contentious topics, plus the real-life stuff I have to tend to, I don't think I'll have time to take on the GA stuff today. Because I'll be tempted to reply to you and do things you've requested, I haven't yet read your latest replies. But I'll get back to the matter tomorrow. Just try to hold off on posting more inquiries or requests until then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

you made the best comment ever

Please read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia carefully and work your way through the tutorials. Try editing some less sensitive articles before returning to Clitoris. 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:9F (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   22:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

WP:INCOMPETENCE and WP:HARASS demonstrated by O1lI0 again following a one-month-long block

Hey, SilkTork, in the past months, I know you had dealt with O1lI0 for his annoying behaviors and he/she had got a one-month-long block. Nevertheless, it seems that O1lI0 hasn't learnt from this lesson. According to the contribution history, O1lI0 has recently removed an OR tag from an article without any legitimate reason. More severely, O1lI0 has removed a totally descriptive sentence which basically says It is a Chinese Ministry of Education Class A Double First Class University. from a number of Chinese university articles (see his/her most recent contributions) claiming that the sentence introduces link spam. The fact is, however, the source that the descriptive sentence cites is a government document of the Chinese Ministry of Education (i.e. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe_843/201709/t20170921_314942.html, and as you can see, the URL includes www.moe.gov.cn which further indicates it is a government website rather than a so-called spam link.). He/She has also discouraged the editor who added those information by leaving a warning message in the talk page.(see this diff). I would appreciate it if you can deal with such behaviors again. Thanks!--221.13.92.137 (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look. SilkTork (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

He has changed his IP, a few days ago it was 221.13.92.178, now is 117.158, anyway, he will continue to change, I will continue to stop the sock puppets to destroy wiki. I also want to know how many accounts he can register.--117.19.64.109 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? And who are you? SilkTork (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppets of O1lI0

Hey, SilkTork! Thank you for your patience while dealing with O1lI0. Yet judging from the history of Communication University of China, 101.13.192.0/20, 115.82.64.0/20, 101.15.144.0/20, and 49.215.160.0/20 are all possibly sockpuppets of O1lI0. --123.161.170.160 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: 49.218.0.0/17 and 101.15.128.0/20 could also be. --123.161.170.160 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I saw enough reason to run CU, and while the IPs are certainly edit warring (I blocked one of them) I can confirm there is no socking from what I can tell. I'll leave the IPs to you, SilkTork. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at some of the activity, and I don't think I have the time to find out what is happening. It may be that we need to semi-protect all articles related to China as that IP and new account activity is destabilising a lot of articles. SilkTork (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure you saw this...

I think it very important to note that I completely reject the idea that my opposition to Article 13 as currently written is in any way involves "supporting the notion that other websites... may steal other people's work". That's a pretty outrageous take on the matter. Badly written laws proposing measures which are not likely to help, while at the same time imposing burdens on innocent people, can be opposed even when the alleged goal is noble. We might as well say that opposition a law mandating mandatory breath tests before getting behind the wheel of a car is supporting the notion of drunk driving.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Considering that thousands of people die every year from drink-driving related accidents, I don't think you've chosen a good analogy. We totally accept airport checks to prevent a terrorist attack, but we are somehow more blase and liberal when it comes to individuals causing random deaths when driving intoxicated. The chances of you or I being killed by a drunk driver are something like 1,000 times more likely than us being killed by a terrorist. So I would support mandatory breath test, and I would see objections to such tests as supporting the notion of drink driving. People need to take a bit more responsibility for their actions.

And, yes, I do see objection to Article 13 as unreasonable because artists are currently being ripped off by people who are a bit blase and liberal about using other people's material without their permission. We should be supporting it, not opposing it. That is the decent thing to do. The right thing. I assume you've seen Paul McCartney's letter?

Dear Members of the European Parliament,

I write to urge your support for the mandate on Copyright in the upcoming plenary vote this week.

Music and culture matter. They are our heart and soul. But they don’t just happen: they demand the hard work of so many people. Importantly, music also creates jobs and economic growth and digital innovation across Europe.

Unfortunately, the value gap jeopardizes the music ecosystem. We need an Internet that is fair and sustainable for all. But today some User Upload Content platforms refuse to compensate artists and all music creators fairly for their work, while they exploit it for their own profit.

“PLEASE VOTE TO UPHOLD THE MANDATE ON COPYRIGHT AND ARTICLE 13. YOU HOLD IN YOUR HANDS THE FUTURE OF MUSIC HERE IN EUROPE.”

The value gap is that gulf between the value these platforms derive from music and the value they pay creators.

The proposed Copyright Directive and its Article 13 would address the value gap and help assure a sustainable future for the music ecosystem and its creators, fans and digital music services alike.

Please vote to uphold the mandate on Copyright and Article 13. You hold in your hands the future of music here in Europe.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Sir Paul McCartney

If you can outline your objection in realistic terms rather than the vague "imposing burdens on innocent people" (such as checking that they are not taking someone's work without their permission), I will of course apologise. But at the moment I can only see that Article 19 is the right thing to do. Something I would have expected you to support. SilkTork (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This letter is also useful:

Dear Member of the European Parliament,

We are writing to you ahead of tomorrow morning's JURI shadow meeting on Article 13.

n the past months, and more vehemently in the past few weeks, a lot of disinformation has been spread deliberately about this article to deceive the public opinion.

Let's be clear from the start: nothing in the original Commission proposal or the latest compromise amendment proposed by MEP Voss will lead to "censorship", "blocking of all content", or the "ability for rightholders to decide what we read and watch on the internet".

Our members, thousands of independent music companies across Europe, and the artists they work with, want to have their music as widely available and accessible legally as possible, at a fair rate. To be able to negotiate fair rates for the use of their artists' music, they need to be able to license where and when it makes commercial sense. For that to happen, a simple rule is needed: if you are in the business of distributing music, you are covered by copyright and need a licence.

For a licence to be effective, measures need to be put in place by the platforms to ensure works can be identified and attributed to their rightful owner so he/she can share in the value created by the use of his/her creation.

Our members, micro, small and medium-sized music companies, want their artists' fans to be able to upload their works. Revenues from works uploaded by users represent on average 80% of our members’ revenue from user-uploaded platforms where agreements are in place. If the rates were fairly negotiated with platforms, this would be a winning situation for all: fans, creators, rightholders and platforms. But today this is not the case.

Article 13 is about making opportunities equal for all. Right now the rules are completely tilted in favour of user-upload platforms which get away with carrying all the creative works in the world, as long as these works are uploaded by users - platforms claim that all they should have to do is take down the works notified to them and hold absolutely no responsibility. Imagine the weight on the shoulders of small creators or rightholders having to scan the millions of hours of videos uploaded to those platforms every day!

This is not about big copyright holders wanting to silence creators and their fans. Just think of who we represent: small but passionate record labels who invest their energy in money in helping artists break through, accounting for 80% of all new releases. A few years ago the main user-uploaded platform tried to silence us by threatening to take all of our music off when we did not agree to the terms they offered - please remember that when you hear claims of censorship.

"Censorship machine", "upload filter", "robocopyright". These misleading terms are being used by professional anti-copyright and pro-tech campaigners to help the biggest and most powerful companies in the world, giant online platforms, to avoid having to take any kind of responsibility for the content accessed through their platforms.

This #fixcopyright campaign is not about protecting citizens - how are citizens protected when they are exposed, "unfiltered", to fake news, terrorist propaganda, inappropriate content for kids, etc? And how are creators supposed to make a living when they have no recourse to get their fair share of the value created by the use of their works on platforms?

The false information disseminated online about Article 13 is intentionally misleading citizens and decisions into thinking that supporting Article 13 is supporting censorship.

Ironically, these methods of disinformation are very close in style to the "fake news" propaganda which has been plaguing the internet in recent years, and which the EU says it is committed to fight.

The copyright proposal is a unique opportunity to help remove some of the friction in the licensing market, level the playing field and allow creators and their partners to reap their fair and well-deserved share of the benefits of the rapid growth in music listening online.

Let's not waste this opportunity. We call on you to support a strong and simple Article 13 and avoid creating a second safe harbour.

Helen Smith, Executive Chair, IMPALA - The Independent Music Companies Association

As much as I love the idea of a free exchange of ideas and art, unless the art and idea creators are remunerated so they can spend their time and energy on creation rather than working as car mechanics, social workers or accountants in order to live, then creativity will die, and all we will be exchanging is old ideas. SilkTork (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request for List of breakfast drinks

You have participated at List of breakfast drinks. Therefore, you might be interested in the deletion nomination of the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI

I've opened an ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_re_Barbara_(WVS). EEng 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Hi there, I had a page deleted before I even had time to put it up properly. I had a long argument with the deleting editor. In short (very short!), it appeared that by declaring a conflict of interest, I had doomed myself to immediate deletion - no quarter given, no questions asked. I feel this is unfair, there was no interest in the content or suitability of the article, the only stumbling block was my own conflict of interest. I have subsequently learned that - despite Wikipedia asking you to do so - declaring a conflict of interest leads to immediate deletion with no discussion. This is really bad. What made it worse was that the deleting editor was rude, insulting and contemptuous, there was no attempt to discuss the merits of otherwise of the article, it was all about attacks on me personally and my own ethics and honesty. I felt as if I had been caught selling crack to pre-schoolers. It was a horrible experience. I still feel, however, that the article has merit as an encyclopedia entry. How do I fix this? Obviously you are going to want more information, but I really just wanted to get the conversation started. PS - Thanks for the cup of tea. It is just roundabout that time of day! Niki Moore (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)