Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:46, 15 September 2009

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

"I will listen to you, especially when we disagree."
Barack Obama Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

Kraków as GA

Thanks for your help in getting this done! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's done? Great. I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork * 20:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street

Hi ST, this article has had three (3!) reviews for GA. Is that unprecedented? ;)

Anywho, User:Geometry guy has completed his review, and has stated that it's up to the original reviewer to decide if the changes made after his review are enough for it to pass to GA. That be you, dude! Would you mind looking at it? I appreciate all your assistance. I'm looking forward to moving to the next stage of article development, the peer review/copyedit. Thanks again! --Christine (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Christine. It is not uncommon for several people to be involved/consulted during a review, especially if there is some uncertainty. Some aspects of the GA criteria are open to interpretation - which is why we also have the WP:GAR process.

I've had another look, and I feel that the issue regarding broad coverage and use of sources prevents me passing this. I'm also aware that this is a matter of interpretation, and that you disagree with my assessment. I don't wish to press you to do something that you feel would not be right, but I can't in good conscience pass the article feeling the way I do. It's a close call, and another reviewer may pass it with no problems; because of that, rather than hold matters up any longer, I am closing the review as a Fail, and leaving the way open for you to decide what you wish to do next. You may, of course, decide to simply skip GA and go straight for FA. An article doesn't need a GA to be accepted at FA. I mention other options on the GA review.

I'm sorry not to be able to help you more with this. I'd much rather Pass an article than Fail one! Good luck. SilkTork * 09:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Would like your opinion again

Just wanted to get your thoughts on my latest revisions of this article: User:Ebonyskye/Sandbox. Also, please read my talk page for the last (encouraging) words from the DRV admin, Stifle, for my reasoning, and for what has been added. If you have no objections, I'd like to place this article in main space. I know we went through this already, but I added more info, and I really thought more stuff would be included in the merged version, then it all got removed a bit at a time. So I'm starting over. I've also been re-working the author article on Michelle Belanger to get that one looking more like a respectable author bio. If I recreate the album page, I'll remove redundant info from the author page and clean up the music section to be more balanced and give equal weight to the other albums she co-wrote. Ebonyskye (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that as it stands it would pass an AfD as it doesn't have reliable sources to support notability. What you do with it is your decision, as you have gone down a route that no longer involves me. But I would advise finding some credible reliable source before putting it into mainspace. It doesn't help if you put it out, someone takes it to AfD and it gets deleted. You will then have a much harder time getting it out there a third time. If you put it out there, and it does go to AfD, then don't bring it to my attention, as I would vote against it.

Are there no credible mainstream sources at all? I should think that at least one of the main music papers reviewed it. I have a friend who manages local bands in Portsmouth, and he manages to get their locally produced records reviewed by NME and mentioned on BBC Radio 1 just by sending copies to them. Without a review by a credible source people will think that the album is simply not notable. The band themselves will know if they got a review - if you have contact with them get in touch and ask them. The source may not be online, but if it was published, then there'll be a copy in a library somewhere. Good luck! SilkTork * 02:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't considered reviews at all. Probably because another editor seemed to think that was too promotional. They also wanted an online source that could be readily checked. Side-line magazine is a popular music magazine out of Belgium and is distributed worldwide, and they reviewed this album. Another music magazine, Extreme, in Argentina reviewed it as well. I would think both are reliable sources in that they are well established music reviewers and obviously not affiliated with a band from the US. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on Extreme magazine on a quick search, but I did find Side-Line. I was uncertain at first as it has a low circulation (it helps to be realistic in your description of things - "popular" is not an appropriate description for a narrow focus magazine with a limited circulation!), but after some searching found an academic publication which cited Side-Line, thus giving it an appropriate status as a specialist magazine for electro-goth music. So a review in Side-Line would be acceptable, and could form the basis of an argument to say that the album is of specialist interest, and has been reviewed by one of the notable publications in the field. If you could find another review or significant mention in such a magazine (one that has a credible claim to notability) then I would support moving the article into mainspace, and I would stand by it in an AfD. The review is online: SilkTork * 13:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the review in Side-line, which has a rather good sized subscriber base and is distributed in the US, UK, France, Germany and elsewhere, was already posted in the infobox, along with the review from Music Extreme (Argentine). Ebonyskye (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll wait a while before trying for a new album page. I can't find a second magazine that you'll approve of (and I take your silence as a "No"). I've requested my userSandbox be deleted per userreq. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft Draught

It's not the spelling. Let's say you buy Domestos bleach in the shop. The brand is Domestos, the product is bleach even though it seems like they only do bleach sometimes they are the Domestos brand, not the Domestos Bleach brand. You might hear the Ford car company refer to themselves and by others as Ford Motoring Products dozens of times but they are still just the Ford brand. I can only tell you so many times, go and look at their website. Do they seem to call themselves Guinness or Guinness Draught. I did not say "Go look at a bar tap" or "Go read the national vinters website". I said go look at Guinness brand itself. Then come back and tell us all what it is called. There is a website listing registered Irish companies. If you can't settle I will root it out and find Guinness on it, OK? Sorry for reverting all the edits you made but they were interlaced with this rewording of "It's Guinness Drauight brand". All best, ~ R.T.G 11:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have joined in your mediation request ~ R.T.G 12:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you are keen...

<copied from WP:Good article reassessment/Squab (food)/1>

...to keep some form of separation of GA from the overall class ratings; however, there is a relationship. An article that is GA becomes GA class on the ranking scale; as such, at times it can be helpful to look at where an article is on that scale to indicate how close (or far) the article is from being GA class - or just simply to indicate to editors what work needs to be done to generally improve an article. My point is that this particular article is not GA class according to GA criteria, and further, that it needs some work to lift it up from C class, where it more appropriately should be placed for the reasons given above. The aim of the class rankings is the same as FA and GA - to improve the quality of articles by both giving guidance as to what can be done to improve, and to reward the effort put into improving an article by giving a ranking. We maintain the quality of that incentive by maintaining the quality of the whole ranking system from stub up to FA - including GA. SilkTork * 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

According to which WikiProject? "My point is that this particular article article is not GA class according to GA criteria, and further, that it needs some work to lift it up from C class". Already a confusion! The GA criteria define what is a good article: GA-Class is a matter for WikiProjects. "Lift it from C-Class" according to whom, which WikiProject, whose criteria?

Each WikiProject can facilitate article improvement in its own domain. However, over several years, no consistent interaction with encyclopedia-wide content review has emerged, much as a sensible interaction would be welcome. You speak of a ranking system. Whose ranking scale? Which WikiProject has the right to say what C or B class requirements should be in place before an article can be a good article? Many articles come under the scope of several WikiProjects, and some WikiProjects are very small. Should miscellaneous projects and minorities determine Misplaced Pages-wide standards?

There is no such single ranking scale which you seem to believe in: it is a myth created by a widely regarded historical mistake to include GA-Class in the WikiProject assessments. While WikiProjects and GA have similar aims, for GA there are and have always been only the GA criteria, period. Geometry guy 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for such a long response Guy - I have been very busy recently. I don't understand your argument - there seems to be a suggestion that there are clearly defined groups of people here who wish to do different things. I suspect you are dealing with the vestiges of some internal Wiki-politics that most of have no idea about and don't care to. A WikiProject is a meeting point for people to discuss, share and store ideas for how to improve a certain aspect of Misplaced Pages. It is no more than that. The Projects have no authority, though the members may join together as in a union to collectively push their ideas - this being a consequence of any group of people getting together with similar interests. An appropriate use of the Projects is that a person may go to a WikiProject forum page to get an opinion from other editors experienced in working on articles within that Project's sphere of interest, or may suggest that people work to get consensus on an issue related to that Project's sphere of interest. A person may register their interest in a particular Project so that other editors know they have some knowledge and experience of editing in that field, or they may not. I know people quite active in some Projects who have never put their name on a list, and I have known others to put their name on a list and put a userbox on their page, and then do very little. A WikiProject as such is not actually a body of people - it a meeting place.

The notion that somebody owns the ranking system, or even that there should be some form of ownership is not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Any person may review an article and decide it is GA quality. Any person may read an article and decide it is B class quality by the criteria linked to in the appropriate boxes on the talkpage. The criteria being arrived at by consensus of those interested enough to get involved in creating the criteria. As such the GA criteria are no different to any other WikiProject's criteria: the GA criteria were created by a bunch of Misplaced Pages editors - the History article criteria were created by a bunch of Misplaced Pages editors. Who ranks the criteria? We all do. I do. Other users do.

You may continue to fight that fight within GA quite successfully as you are the main person within GA and highly respected for the work you do there. You are one of the good guys, and you do a bloody good job. I respect your opinion. However, I do not agree with you regarding the placement of GA within the overall article ranking. Unfortunately what that means is that occasionally I will article a view that you do not agree with. I will not do it deliberately to provoke you, and I welcome you also voicing your view so a balance is presented. I somehow doubt, though, that we will agree on this, and my aim is not to change your mind, but I would be uncomfortable suppressing discussion of the ranking system when it appears appropriate to mention it. Regards as always SilkTork * 18:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded briefly on my talk page (where the discussion was interrupted). I will respond in more depth either here or there in the next few days (let me know if you have a preference): sorry for not being able to respond sooner. Thanks for getting back to me and for your care and thought for the interests of the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Integration

Is this active? Fences&Windows 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware. I'll mark it inactive. SilkTork * 10:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up questions

Hi, and thanks again for your note. I'll take the opportunity to ask you a couple of the questions I had initially posted at User Talk:Mattisse. In particular, I was interested to know how you conceive of your role as mentor, and how you might approach a hypothetical situation in which Mattisse returns to some of the behavior that has been problematic in the past (I have in mind specifically making insinuations and swipes in pursuit of old grudges). I'll emphasize that I haven't seen any such behavior from Mattisse since returning from the recent block, but I do think that it would be worth discussing how such a situation might be dealt with should it occur, and what might be done differently to achieve a better outcome. If you'd prefer not to respond, that's fine. If you'd prefer to respond off-wiki, feel free to email me; anything you say there will be kept completely confidential, though I can't promise to respond by email. Thanks again. MastCell  17:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if you haven't read it already, then this is useful. It clarifies some of the points. To give a quick summary, as I think the plan and mine and other's role in it has been somewhat misunderstood: Mattisse was requested by ArbCom to submit a plan to govern and guide her editing. As part of that request the notion of mentors or advisors being involved to help shape the plan was raised, and it was considered how these people could continue to give assistance. The idea of the plan was that Mattisse should reflect on those situations which cause her stress and to consider ways of dealing with that stress. My involvement is to be available to give Mattisse honest advice when requested, and - if needed - to urge her to cease activity in a certain area, and block her if she does not respond positively.

I want to make it clear that the plan as accepted by ArbCom was to give responsibility to Mattisse for her own actions. And that includes her own decision as to when to call on me and the others for advice. Within the plan was also the freedom of myself and others to give advise to Mattisse as and when we felt appropriate, but we had no responsibility to overlook Mattisse's edits or her behaviour.

Mattisse has historically not responded well to some interactions on Misplaced Pages. There are differing opinions on Mattisse's own responsibility for this, though there is an acceptance that Mattisse has been stalked and goaded. One of the outcomes of the ArbCom case was looking at how Mattisse could deal appropriately herself with actual or perceived negative interactions. The outcome was not that Mattisse should be monitored.

I do feel that people should revisit the case and acquaint themselves both with the outcomes and the discussions leading to those outcomes. A good understanding of the case should answer any queries about the role of myself and others.

I also feel that a good study of the plan is helpful. Mattisse is responsible for herself, but can call on us for advice. If she decides not to do this (as was the case with the recent alternative account behaviour which led to her block) then that is her responsibility, and she must face the consequences. She allows in her plan for any admin to warn and block her for inappropriate behaviour.

In the blocking incident it was clear that Mattisse acted inappropriately, and - as with any editor who acts inappropriately - she attracted attention and was blocked.

My involvement in this was to look into the issue and on the one hand inform Mattissee that I found her behaviour unacceptable, and on the other to speak with the blocking admin as I felt that a 2 week block was harsh in the circumstances. I did not, however, reduce the block myself, nor insist the blocking admin unblock Mattisse.

I have been disappointed but not surprised by some of the negative comments left on Mattisse's talkpage. I am uncomfortable with your own line of questioning as I feel it is inappropriate and unhelpful - and answers to your questions can be found with careful reading of the cases notes.

In short: Mattisse is responsible for her own actions. She acted inappropriately and received a block. We wait to see if Mattisse will act inappropriately again. If she does, then ArbCom - who retain jurisdiction over the case - may reopen the case and seek other remedies. The mentors/advisors are not responsible for monitoring - we are here to be consulted by Mattisse. SilkTork * 18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)