User talk:SilkTork: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 25: Line 25:


Did you mean to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACasenav%2Fdata&diff=551723747&oldid=550474089 make yourself inactive] on the Sexology or the Tea party case? Your edit summary says Sexology, but you made yourself inactive on Tea party. Incidentally, if you are going to move yourself inactive, you also need to update the numbers in [[Template:Casenav/data|Casenav/data]], or the majority calculations won't tally up. --[[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 11:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACasenav%2Fdata&diff=551723747&oldid=550474089 make yourself inactive] on the Sexology or the Tea party case? Your edit summary says Sexology, but you made yourself inactive on Tea party. Incidentally, if you are going to move yourself inactive, you also need to update the numbers in [[Template:Casenav/data|Casenav/data]], or the majority calculations won't tally up. --[[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 11:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks. It was Sexology. Could you do it for me? I had mentioned a little while ago to the Committee that I was withdrawing from the case because I felt that because the result I was expecting wasn't there, that I might be biased toward finding that result, but I had neither actioned it, nor let the Clerks know. Then as time went by it seemed as though the case would close without me needing to recuse. But after the weekend there was a feeling that it might be clearer to everyone if I went publicly inactive - especially as I am rather inactive at the moment anyway. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:purple; font-family: Segoe Script">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<font color="#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></font>]]''' 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:00, 23 April 2013

Old dusty archives
Modern clean archives


I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.



Tea Party

I've become a little involved at the TPM page over the past week or so, but I just write to say that I am now butting out. There is some serious POV pushing going on, where a couple of users are advancing ludicrous interpretations of policy that basically set WP:NPOV out of function. The strategy is classic civ-push where the movements' own writings are seen as the only authentic unbiased description and every outside analysis is rejected as biased against them, to the degree that academic sources are being rejected with arguments such as "there are often errors that go unnoticed in academic books whereas news media have fact checkers that filter out most errors so they are more reliable", or "500 news articles describe them as grassroots so that outweighs the analysis by the academic expert writing that it is hotly contested whether they are a true grassroots movement". So I am unwatching now, just wanted to let you know my perspective as a reasonably uninvokved editor who has only participated briefly in the page. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that there are other matters going on which has delayed the ArbCom case, and also my involvement in the discussion page, so I am unable to monitor it as closely as I would like. But I will try to get over there later today. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say "I told you so," but I gave you a heads-up about this several days ago. There are two words, "grass-roots" and "anti-immigration," which have attracted an enormous amount of heat and barely sufficient light. Civility and WP:AGF are wearing thin. I asked for you to close these two discussions as a previously uninvolved admin and, with all due respect, I'm asking again. Please have a look at the "Help template" at the bottom of the article's regular Talk page, and close these two discussions with a finding regarding consensus. We simply aren't going to be able to move on until these two issues are put to rest.
Thanks, and best of luck with your marathon run tomorrow. By the way, they did catch the two creepy cowards who bombed the Boston Marathon. Two brothers from Chechnya. The 26-year-old was killed just after midnight on Friday morning local time. The 19-year-old was wounded, and last night they found him hiding in a boat in someone's back yard, and he surrendered without further incident. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be the fastest to respond at the moment due to other commitments. But I will take a look later today to see what is happening. Though I have a couple of other things to finish off with regards to the Tea Party which should have priority on my time. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the news on the Boston bombings. I have been keeping up to date with it. It's big news here in the UK, and the London Marathon organisers and runners showed their respect in various ways. Most of us wore black ribbons, and there were a lot of placards and banners - my favourite, about two miles from the end: "Run if you can, walk if you must, but finish for Boston!" SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How lovely. Thanks for posting that. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a photo of that banner with my mobile phone - I was going to upload it, but just did a search online, and found loads of stories which mention the banner, and have much better images. Here's one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My two other favourite banners were: "Mo Farah never ran a marathon" and "Who needs toenails anyway". SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive on Sexology or Tea party?

Did you mean to make yourself inactive on the Sexology or the Tea party case? Your edit summary says Sexology, but you made yourself inactive on Tea party. Incidentally, if you are going to move yourself inactive, you also need to update the numbers in Casenav/data, or the majority calculations won't tally up. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was Sexology. Could you do it for me? I had mentioned a little while ago to the Committee that I was withdrawing from the case because I felt that because the result I was expecting wasn't there, that I might be biased toward finding that result, but I had neither actioned it, nor let the Clerks know. Then as time went by it seemed as though the case would close without me needing to recuse. But after the weekend there was a feeling that it might be clearer to everyone if I went publicly inactive - especially as I am rather inactive at the moment anyway. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]