User talk:SilkTork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Edmund Blair Leighton - A flaw in the title.jpg


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}}


Leo Frank GA[edit]

Hi SilkTork, I wanted to ask if you could give a second (really first) opinion on the GA page of the Leo Frank article. I had one person who signed up to be reviewer, but has not given a full review after several weeks. Furthermore, that user initiated a content dispute just hours before volunteering as reviewer, and has not been responsive despite me posting on his talk page. This article also has a history of disruptive users, in which one user was blocked indefinitely and the article is now on indefinite semi-protection.

This article was recently featured on the Main Page for the centennial of Frank's lynching by a mob, in which it got 30,000 views in one day. Although I hoped to have it promoted before then, I'd still like for the article to be reviewed for GA and wanted to see if you could be of assistance. User:Jaguar mentioned you and I think you'll have some good insight for it. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks interesting. Yes, I'll do a 2nd opinion review. It's not uncommon for volunteer reviewers to become busy elsewhere or simply lose interest in a review, and we don't expect anyone to do something they haven't time or interest in any more. The initial reviewer, User:Meishern, is fairly inactive on the project at the moment, though has logged on twice since message were left, so is likely aware of the situation, but too busy to get involved. We'll see what happens, but it would be acceptable at this stage for someone else to close the review, though I would prefer if you wished me to do that to leave Meishern a note letting them know, and seeing if they wanted to get back involved. There's no rush, after all. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Initially after reading it over a few times and making a couple of reasonable suggestions regarding how to improve it, an editor who I believe is exhibiting most of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and who acts as a WP:BULLY, immediately tried to disqualify me unfairly (as another editor commented even) and (without it seems even reading the minor tweaks that needed correction). So I WP:DISENGAGE from the article, which when facing unreasonable and irrational behavior is the best course of action IMHO. Currently the article can not pass GA in my opinion, as long as even the smallest attempt to balance the heavy WP:POV slant of the WP:OOA editor gets reverted and attempts at compromise are rejected (and here I am refering to another editor's attempt please read for yourself comment by Bataaf van Oranje. So in essence there is an edit war on the page, a one way edit war, but nonetheless it's there. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Meishern. Thanks for the info. I agree with you about disengaging from activities that are liable to be stressful. We are all volunteers, and shouldn't have to put up with any stress. In this situation, as you have indicated that you have disengaged from the review, I could delete the review page and start again from scratch, and that way the GA bot can keep the records straight. Would that be OK by you? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There is also the option of you closing the review as fail, and it being immediately renominated, and I will start GA3. I'm easy. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork for your help and nice to see you again Meishern. Either one of the above is fine to me, and while two failed GAs won't look good, it will at least give a more accurate history of the GA process for the article. I also agree with SilkTork's assessment that the article is "active and lively" and not unstable, as while Tom is opinionated, there aren't any significant content disputes, but merely a large amount of discussion on minor points about Meishern's neutrality. Perhaps it would be best for SilkTork to be the reviewer, and Meishern could give supplemental feedback in the "General comments" section, as it seemed that he had some good feedback on the way in his initial GA comments. I'll also work on the image caption issue as I agree that the length could be more consistent. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless Meishern has an objection, I will delete the current review in 48 hours, moving the conversation to a subpage, and start a new review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

SilkTork, you posed some curious discussions on the talk page of Leo Frank. The Internet Archive has almost all the secondary and primary sources of the Leo Frank case. I thought you might be interested to know that Leo Frank actually changed the time that 13-year-old Little Mary Phagan allegedly had had entered his second floor window-front business office at the National Pencil Company a total of four times! 1. On Sunday morning, April 27, 1913, standing in his office, Frank told first responders that Phagan had had arrived in his office at 12:03 p.m. (see: People v. Leo Frank documentary by Ben Loeterman and Steve Oney; Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913). 2. On Monday morning, April 28, 1913, at the Atlanta stationhouse in an interrogation room, surrounded by police detectives and witnessed by his elite attorneys Luther Rosser and Herbert Haas, Frank said Phagan had had arrived in his office between 12:05 p.m. to 12:10 p.m. maybe 12:07 p.m. This unsworn statement was stenographed by Gay C. Febuary and became State's Exhibit B at the Leo Frank trial (Atlanta Constitution, August 2nd 1913). 3. On Monday, May 5th and Thursday May 8th, 1913, Frank told the Coroner's jury that Phagan had had arrived in his office between 12:10 p.m to 12:15 p.m. (Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Georgian & Atlanta Journal, May, 1913). 4. On Monday, August 18, 1913, Frank mounted the witness stand at his trial, made an unsworn oral statement to the jury and said that Phagan had had arrived in his office between 12:12 p.m to 12:17 p.m. (Leo Frank's statement to the jury on August 18, 1913, trial brief of evidence, 1913). AviBoteach (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In the GA review there is a link to a more detailed earlier version of the article. I am just about to take a look at that, and compare it to the current version. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you happen to have that link handy? Could you re-post it here? AviBoteach (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
[1]. I mention it in my most recent comment on the review. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that AviBoteach's writings are extremely similar to GingerBreadHarlot, a user that was blocked indefinitely, and I have opened a sockpuppet investigation into the user. If you look at the archives, GBH has had three other investigations.

As far as the GA review goes, I appreciate you putting it on hold and will work on the points you raised. Thanks again for the help and time. Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the GingerBreadHarlot user so I cannot comment on that, though I have noted that AviBoteach's comments are advocating a personal point of view on the topic rather than assisting in building a comprehensive and neutral article. Such is the nature of Wikipedia, people do like to give their opinions now and again; provided this does not become too digressive or disruptive, a personal opinion here or there is tolerated. Where I am a little uncomfortable with AviBoteach is the comment on the GAN that bordered on personal attack ("People would be called out of the woodwork by the gate keeper"). I note a recent addition by AviBoteach on the same issue, though have not read it closely. I am not too interested in past editing history as this is a GAN not a content dispute, and what I am looking at is the article under review rather than the past behaviour of editors. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Buddy Holly GA[edit]

Hey SilkTork, thanks for taking up the nomination, I always considered you a detail reviewer and appreciate your participation. I recently returned and assessed a few of your concerns. I'll keep on working the following days and try to move as soon as possible to round up this one.--GDuwenTell me! 18:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as there's some progress, I'm not that fussed about speed. Take the time you need. I'll see if I can help out - there tends to be more motivation if others are working to the same end. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Potential Admin[edit]

I have been on Wikipedia for many years. I would love to get more involved. I have a strong passion for this platform I have an understanding of how it works, we need to have articles written with reliable secondary references.

Everything I have learned has been through trial and error and have worked with some admins/mods in the past on my article to wikify articles.

I would need some tutoring to be a strong Admin.

Thanks & Regards, Bilal Zia--Cube b3 (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Let's talk here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Admin suggestion[edit]

I would love to be admin, I really do but the problem is I just started and I wanna wait a while until I get things right. --Bigteddy1 (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential Admin[edit]

Hi, I notice you're on Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. Wikipedia would benefit from more admins. If you have been editing for more than 12 months (preferably 24+ months), and have been editing fairly consistently for the past 6 months (preferably 12+ months) with at least 100 edits a month (this tool will help) - or an explanation for any gaps, and haven't been blocked in the past three years - or a good explanation for a recent block, don't have a recent history of edit warring or arguing with other editors, feel you can explain why you wish to be an admin, can demonstrate some understanding of Wikipedia's procedures and processes, or know where to go for guidance, and are confident enough to go through a RfA, please get in touch with me. We can talk about it some more, and if all looks OK, I'll nominate you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by RfA? I would appreciate a clear and detailed reply from you. Yours Faithfully, Wizzy011 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I've just checked your contributions and see you've only just started contributing. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you still wish to become an admin in 12 months time, get in touch and we can talk again. In the meantime, if there's anything you're unsure about on Wikipedia, and you're not sure where to look, you can try clicking on the Help link in the left hand column on every page, or putting in a search in the search box for the term you are unsure about, but putting "WP:" first - so, in this case, you would search for WP:RfA, and that will take you to a page where you can learn more. You'll also find this page helpful as regards how to use Wikipedia formats when communicating with others: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I have reformatted your message as an example of the standard format we use. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Admin hopeful[edit]

I would LOVE to be an admin! I don't do 100 edits a month EVERY month, but in recent months, almost every month. I have not been banned from editing since 2007 (I used to abuse Wikipedia), and I don't have a history of edit wars. I also earned a barnstar for constant editing in 2012.The simple reason I don't do 100+ edits EVERY month is because my social life doesn't always allow me to do that. But MOST months in recent years I HAVE had 100 or more edits a month.

Dpm12 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2015 (PDT)

Potential admin[edit]

In case you missed the reply on my talk page:

"thank you for your post. I had honestly forgotten I was there. lol. I think I meet all the criteria, however, the only part I would have an issue with is the procedures and processes and I don't, that I know of, know an admin to learn from. If I knew one, I'd be more than willing to learn and do my best." Crash Underride 05:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)