Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayen466 (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 10 July 2012 (→File:Kristian Digby 2009.jpg: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

To do

Question

Hi, can I ask you how the score on the article lists such as this one: are calculated? Thanks Farrtj (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea. Try Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, they are the folks who organise that. SilkTork 08:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

MKUltra

Hi, could you change the title case of the page Project MKULTRA to "Project MKUltra" please? This is the correct casing according to The Times and The Independent etc. Farrtj (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There are also sources which show Project MKULTRA, and that is also what appears on the original documents. When sources show two different names, we tend to default to the name already on the article. However, if you feel there is a good cause for changing the name then you could start a discussion on the talkpage, and present your evidence and reasoning. If there is consensus on the page move you can do it yourself - see Misplaced Pages:Moving a page. SilkTork 09:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Holding Back (the/The) Years

Hi, I'm more than a little befuddled by your page move at Holding Back The Years. The text about capitalisation at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (music) says among other things *not* to capitalise articles like "a", "an", and "the", as is general practice in most English-language titles. Graham87 01:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My bad, I misread that as capitalize articles. I could see that there was inconsistent usage (including in sources), and checked the guide and misread it. I will undo the move, and reword the guide to make it clearer. Thanks for pointing it out. SilkTork 08:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Randumb Show listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Randumb Show. Since you had some involvement with the The Randumb Show redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...

Hi SilkTork: Regarding this article: Joy Davidman, I'm wondering if by using your experienced and expert WP eyes, you might be able to evaluate whether the section headings on her life are as they should be: Early life, William Lindsay Gresham and C. S. Lewis. The last two are describing her life during the two relationships and marriages, when she was not as active writing (esp. during the C. S. Lewis years, but she did have a huge impact on his life and writings). I can't come up with a different way of doing it. Any suggestions? I am thinking of listing it soon at WP:GAN. Thanks so much for any help. Agadant (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems appropriate, both sections are about her life with those two people; like you, nothing else obvious comes to mind. My only offering would be to wonder if "Life with XXX" might be clearer? SilkTork 14:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Yes, I think I will change it to Life with XXX - gives their names a link with hers. And thanks for your other corrections - very much appreciated! :) Happy Sunday! Agadant (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Tetley's article(s)

I am somewhat perplexed about the merger of the Brewery and Bitter page. Sometime ago I split the articles as they were about ingerently different concepts. I would like to see them split again and wish to persue this. You have stated that you wish to see a standalone article for the brand which I agree with. I can find no evidence of a discussion regarding the merger. Do you know anything r.e. this? Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion was brief - it took place mainly here. There had been an awkward split which resulted in some loss of history and duplication of material so we had two articles on the same brewery, with one called Tetley's Brewery and one called Tetley's Bitter, there was also one called Carlsberg UK brewery, but that had been sorted out. User Farrtj, who has already done some very good work on brewery articles, asked for some assistance in sorting out the situation. What we have done is restore the Tetley's Brewery article, redirecting Tetley's Bitter to that article until enough material has been built up on the brand to split it out per WP:Summary style into a standalone article, using the Tetley's Bitter title. I've had a look at the history which is held in the server, and I don't think it would be worth doing a history merge, as the history contains no new material, mainly a copy of the material that already exists with appropriate attribution in the history of Tetley's Brewery. Farrtj appears to be doing more of his excellent work on the Tetley's Brewery article, though I'm sure would welcome some assistance on researching and building up material on the brand within that article ready for splitting it out as appropriate. I hope this answers your question - if not, let me know and I'll expand. SilkTork 14:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case note

Did you mean to put this in the section directly below? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. I've moved it now. SilkTork 22:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• According to your votes, you want to admonish Deacon, but if that doesn't work out, you'd prefer to desysop him over advising him. I think that defies all logic, particularly in a context where he did not wheel war, while two of the other admins wheel-warred and were involved too. If there is not enough support for admonishment and you think nothing will come of advising him, despite his response to Philknight's proposed remedy in the workshop (as well as your own comments regarding the quality of his contributions), surely you could consider another proposal more appropriate than desysopping him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I based my consideration on the histories and relative involvement of all those involved in the case. Because of both Deacon's involvement and prior history I felt that an admonishment was most fitting, but that an advisement was not enough so a desysop would be next. I feel that Deacon has done some very good work on Misplaced Pages both in the field of medieval Scotland and in titling of articles, and that he hasn't previously been a genuine cause for concern (disputes he has been involved in have been minor, and are par for the course for any active Wikipedian, and he hasn't handled himself badly), so a desysoping wouldn't be my preference, but I wouldn't rule it out because his action was the one that precipitated the whole incident, and he has on occasion displayed an arrogant attitude that isn't appropriate with the admin role. SilkTork 19:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which instances you are referring to in relation to the attitude, and how recent those displays are and if he has been given feedback which he can use to work on. Still, I respect the view that some people are not suited for the role. However, would I be correct if I said that your stance would remain unchanged in relation to desysopping him at this point in time, even if it did mean losing any further contributions from him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Desysopping is not banning, so I'm not sure how that would result in the loss of contributions. My impression is that he works mainly on content and page moves - more on page moves and less on content these days than he used to. Anyway, my preference at the moment is not for a desysopping so this is a mute point; and I am only one person in the Committee, so the decision is not mine. SilkTork 21:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee

Hi SilkTork. As an arbitrator, would you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee? Would you clarify whether any administrator can close Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee? If you have the time and inclination, would you close the RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Cunard. I've started a discussion with the rest of the Committee. SilkTork 21:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the implications?

Hi, you stated "I am also concerned about the implications of lifting an interaction ban because one party is currently blocked" over at Amendment Requests. What implications are you referring to? NewYorkBrad mentioned the committee having received an email, but he mentioned no action or inaction would be taken until I had a chance to respond to its contents. It appears that you have made your decision after the fact of this email without me knowing what the content of this email is. So for the sake of transparency could you more fully articulate what you believe the implications are? --Nug (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. It has nothing to do with any emails or discussions elsewhere, nor even with any specifics of this case - I was referring in general to the position of two people arguing over a piece of cake, and being warned to stop arguing, and then one of them to told to leave the room, and while they out of the room, the other is told they can eat the cake. The implications arising out of that - both in practical terms of what happens when the person out of the room returns, and also what it says about the way Wikipedians conduct ourselves. Do you feel I need to go back and rework what I have said? SilkTork 12:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is we don't freeze things and time stands still until if and when the banned party comes back in 3, 6, 12 months time or if ever, the caravan moves on. With regard to that specific article, I created it, it was sprayed with tags and nominated for deletion, classic battleground stuff for EE. We agreed to put that behind us and he removed some of the tags with the expectation that once our mutual iBan was lifted we could discuss the remaining tags, but that never happened as he was subsequently banned for continuing to battle with others. That wasn't not my responsibility. From where I'm standing if the iBan is lifted and I remove those remaining tags, if he comes back from his ban and puts those tags back we will discuss it, so what's the problem? On the other hand if he flips his lid then that is his issue, not mine. --Nug (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not frozen. Somebody else can remove the tags. Your suggestion is implying that only you can remove the tags. Remind me which article it is. SilkTork 13:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You have evidently not read my reply to you on the Amendment Request page. And the reason for not allowing me to remove a couple of tags in deference to someone indefinitely topic banned is? --Nug (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think I have read the reply yet. Are you aware I've started a discussion on Talk:90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic to see if there is a consensus for keeping the tags. Given that the AfD on that article closed as no consensus, I think it's worth getting a few more views on the matter. I think in this specific case, regardless of who placed the tags, simply removing them would be unwise without further discussion. SilkTork 22:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks for attempting to reactivate a discussion that has been dormant for almost a year, which in itself is a valid reason for removing tags per Template:NPOV#When_to_remove. How many more months of dormancy is required before a tag can be removed, in your view? --Nug (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That's OK - I thought it was worth doing as you seemed concerned about it. Perhaps we can get some satisfactory consensus one way or the other as to if the topic is notable enough to be a standalone article, and if there is such consensus, remove those tags. SilkTork 23:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but you didn't answer my question. Template:NPOV#When_to_remove states there are three instances where removing a tag is possible:

1. No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.

2. Discussion about neutrality issues is dormant.

3. There is consensus in the discussion that the problems have been resolved.

You seem to be focusing only on the third instance, but in the absence of any discussion, what is a reasonable period of dormancy? --Nug (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think what is important is getting some consensus about the notability of the topic - I am less concerned about the POV issues, and haven't yet looked at that. SilkTork 08:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that's okay, Template:Notability#Removing_this_tag is quite clear on the criteria for tag removal: "If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag." Says nothing about consensus, just that one needs to be satisfied that verifiable reliable sources exist.

But with regard to the other POV tag, could you opine as to what period of time would constitute dormancy per Template:NPOV#When_to_remove? This isn't just some kind of pointless rhetorical question, I would really value your considered opinion on that matter. --Nug (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally remove tags after inspection of the issues and provided there is no current or recent discussion. But I wouldn't remove a tag purely because time has passed - I would look into the issues first. For me, it isn't that time has passed, it would be that the concerns are not appropriate or no longer appropriate. When I looked at 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic I only gave it a quick glance, but did note that a number of the source links are dead, and that an AfD closed as no consensus, so there wasn't an obvious and immediate outcome. I felt a discussion would help. The matter has been lying around for a while, a few more days to consider the matter wouldn't hurt. SilkTork 09:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc 22:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for letting me know. SilkTork 08:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination)

Hi SilkTork. Because you closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Commented. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork 09:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

Unfortunately, there is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated.--andreasegde (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Have already been informed. SilkTork 13:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Maxviwe

Hey. You said that the BASC usually doesn't take requests unless community avenues of appeal have been exhausted. I'm just wondering what the community is supposed to do in CheckUser-block appeals. The only admins who should review in such a case are presumably CheckUsers, and I'd assumed that the fastest route to a CheckUser review would be the BASC, even if it's not meant as an "official" BASC review. Is it better to just ping a CheckUser in these cases? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, pinging a CheckUser would be appropriate. I think what happened in this case was that a Committee member blocked the user, so it gave the appearance of being an ArbCom action. If the block was a specific CheckUser block (usually indicated by {{checkuserblock}}) then the first stage is to contact the CheckUser who made the block. The Committee are reluctant to step in to any situation that is still within the management of the community. Also, on a purely practical level, the Committee are part time volunteers from different time zones who are quite stretched by the assorted requests that come our way, so to investigate and come to a consensus decision on a block can take quite a while - a month is not uncommon (depending on what is happening it can take a week for us even to acknowledge receipt of an appeal); as such we prefer not to deal with unblock appeals on short blocks as they are not an effective use of our time, and are not the quickest way for the user to achieve a decision. A short block combined with little evidence of community discussion, is highly likely to get returned to the community. We do return several requests a month either because they are short blocks or because the user hasn't allowed the community enough time to make a decision. SilkTork 08:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Camerons Brewery

Hi. Could you merge the Lion Brewery (Hartlepool) and Camerons Brewery pages please? Pretty much for the reasons you list here in 2010: (Talk:Camerons_Brewery). The Lion Brewery page just needlessly replicates the limited information already found on the main page. Of course it may be split somewhere down the line when it warrants it, but for you it is confusing and unnecessary. Farrtj (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Kristian Digby 2009.jpg

Hi SilkTork, I want to comment on your statement at the arbcom case regarding Fæ: The source of this upload is this Flickr image and we had so far no doubt that this one is genuine. The only confusing thing was Fæ's upload history where the crop was first uploaded to Flickr (with a proper attribution), then transfered under the account of Ash to Commons. I worked with Fæ through some of these old uploads where we fixed some of these confusing uploads which were transfered from Flickr (see ticket:2012061710003771). In this case, Fæ re-uploaded that file to have it as upload of Fæ and it properly refers now to File:Kristian Digby, Pride London, July 2009.jpg which is the unaltered Flickr image, also properly attributed and reviewed. As I do not have reason to believe that Matt Crockett's Flickr account is involved in Flickr-washing, I do not see this case in any way related to Flickr washing. It just had a confusing upload history. I went through some of the other uploads, too, and found some cases which had to be deleted as has been done in the past. Some of these cases are subtleties of derived works and freedom of panorama, in some cases the permission was not documented through OTRS, some could be saved through a late confirmation, but nowhere I have found yet so far a case where Fæ has set up a case of deliberate Flickr-washing. Evidence for this is still missing and I am following this case closely as Commons admin. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful. Have you mentioned this on the case talkpages, because it would be useful there. SilkTork 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't dared yet to enter the holy halls of the arbcom :) Honestly, I do not know where to post such comments at a stage where the evidence section has already been closed. Please feel free to refer to my comment at your talk page on the arbcom pages as it seems appropriate for you. And I am open here and preferably at Commons for questions in regard to Fæ's contribution at Commons. Independent from this, I invite everyone with evidence to post this at the appropriate admin board at Commons. Then we will take care of this. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this, Andreas. One case that was mentioned offsite and on the Workshop talk page was this one:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Barrowman_and_Gill_-_30_June_2007.jpg
• http://webcitation.org/68LKlAOWB
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=John_Barrowman&diff=183227701&oldid=182881262

Apparently, Gayspunk was Ash's Flickr account at the time. It appears that Ash took the image – a still from someone else's YouTube video – uploaded it to Flickr, made it available under a free licence there, put it on Commons on the strength of that licence, and then added it to Misplaced Pages. The image was deleted by Russavia as non-free last month, during the present arbitration case; it was in use on eight projects at the time. --JN466 17:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)