User talk:SilkTork: Difference between revisions

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 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}}

September

Dahlias in Walsdorf

I like today's Main page, with the TFA on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast: matching colours music to the Dahlias, "brute loud and secretly quiet". There's a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers about navboxes that may interest you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Essays articles has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Silk Tork,

I've got a concern about a case concerning me. Could you take a look at it ? Administrator GiantSnowman had asked an user to (re)post their case about my edits on ANI main page here but I have just realized today that the user went against GiantSnowman's recommendation, and reposted their case at another board, which is called AN. It appears that AN is a far more confidential noticeboard than ANI; and so it it is less visited by the community, how convenient. Meanwhile, two users already said that this case should have been registred at WP:DRN. This worries me because AN is far away from most of the users who actually take time to read all the replies in full, especially the defenser's, contrary to administrator GiantSnowman who was caught asking a ban without waiting for my defense, and then when I posted it, told me (in what I consider a haughty and uncivil way), "Too long I didn't read" about my reply. This worries me because I read user Dimadick saying in their first sentence, I am not an administrator before giving their opinion about my edits. Carliertwo (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carliertwo. My suggestion is that you work with User:JG66 to find wording and citation that you can both accept. I think the result would be beneficial to Wikipedia and to yourselves. Taking a minor editorial dispute to AN or ANI is too strong. Neither of you need to be sanctioned for editing an article in good faith. And appearing there would be stressful for both of you. If you both find it absolutely impossible to talk to each other over this matter without getting too angry then I am prepared to mediate. But, please, give it a go yourselves first. SilkTork (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The situation has changed, user PaleCloudedWhite is back and they suggest a topic ban, it is not said as such but their call is obvious. Carliertwo (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is exactly the same - approach User:JG66 to find wording and citation that you can both accept. If you both attempt that and it breaks down, I will come and mediate. But if you both don't attempt it, then mediation is not going to work. You have to both show that you are willing to make the attempt to work together. SilkTork (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Findnote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My last post at Talk:Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire#Tottenham House section (or wherever the page is now...) refers. I'm not going to say much - User:Lobsterthermidor's (Lt) continual complaints that I'm harassing him make me unwilling to go into too much detail here. I hope I won't have to defend myself against his unwarranted accusations (I'm very aware of WP:HA etc). For transparency you'll want to see this, which was posted in response to this (which, incidentally, ended up at WT:MOS with a clear consensus against Lt).

The main area of concern I see in Lt's edits is the persistent addition of original research. It's a difficult area to make much of since each individual infraction seems so unimportant, yet to my mind they are highly significant because of WP's vast influence. Yesterday I discovered one in his recent edit to Kings Langley; explained on his talk page here, just above your post. It's hard to see how this change can have been anything other than intentional: I really cannot understand his motivation for doing it. Original research like this is common in his work and I often discover it when I browse through his edits, as I admit I do on occasion. However with thousands of edits and over 630 articles created, mostly on subjects that get little attention, there must be a large quantity of OR still lying undetected. User:Agricolae first alerted him to the problem ten years ago, here. He has been advised/told/warned many times since - a recent one from Ealdgyth is at Talk:Charles II of England#No original research.

There are other problems too, but in fairness, I must mention that he has also contributed much of value, especially the thousands of photos and images on Commons It really is a difficult case, but something needs to be done.  —SMALLJIM  00:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have found many of Lt's pages on manors to include family history built on a combination of WP:SYNTH and some seriously dubious sources, or by cobbling together various passing mentions, and frankly, it is always too much family history. There have been instances where a family that acquired a manor in the 1500s is traced all the way back to Domesday, highlighting remote family connections that had nothing to do with the manor in question. That and a tendency to include heraldry used by other members of the families that never held the property in question. Basically doing exactly what was done on the Tottenham manor page, using it as a pretext to present detailed family histories well beyond what is relevant to the actual topic. And they produce way too much of the material of this type to keep up and clean up. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for the information. I'd like to hear from Lt before deciding what action to take, though I have to admit I am a little concerned. Not that I think Lt is a trouble-maker - far from it; but that Lt is, in good faith, inserting insecure material into articles which diverts those articles and makes them rather problematic, and that despite explanations, Lt does not understand how problematic this is, and rather than clean up articles, has continued to insert problematic material onto other articles. I was somewhat disturbed when I came upon what Lt had done to Tottenham House, but these things happen sometimes. To find that Lt has recreated the same situation at Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire causes me concern. And reading the history of Lt's editing - that concerns have been raised several times, yet Lt continues to make the some problematic edits, makes me feel that some sanctions may be needed. However, I am hopeful that with some discussion, that Lt will understand the issues, and will voluntarily refrain from inserting lengthy and dense Decent of the manor material into articles. I note in a 2013 discussion it was agreed that Lt could create Descent of the manor sub articles. I'm not entirely convinced this is the right solution as I'm not sure that Descent of the manor material is notable enough for a standalone article. If such material is, as you suggest, original research, then such material is certainly not going to meet our inclusion criteria. I feel that more in keeping with our editing guidelines would be a short summary of the important details of the Descent of the manor, which mentions only the notable people (generally those who have a Wikipedia article). SilkTork (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that 2013 discussion, I raised the issue of manorial descents again at WP:NOR/N this May. Opinion tended towards not including them unless they were already published in some form. I didn't follow up on this discussion though.  —SMALLJIM  16:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My thinking at the moment is that we (or I, if Lt is not comfortable discussing matters with you) discuss the situation with Lt. Absent an adequate explanation, I would suggest that Lt desist from adding dense Descent material onto Wikipedia in any form (standalone or inset), though may add brief Descent details of prominent members of the manor. In addition, that Lt cleans up the existing Descent material they have introduced onto Wikipedia. If Lt is unwilling to do the clean up, that we do it instead. If any significant problems occur during this process, that I take the matter to AN/I to seek consensus for imposing appropriate sanctions on Lt. SilkTork (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly won't engage with me in any discussions: I've tried various ways of re-engaging with him, e.g. here, here. If it might help I could commit to not commenting during any discussions about his behaviour, unless asked. Clean-up would be a huge job if the offending articles were not to be just deleted and there's plenty of evidence that suggests that he wouldn't help.  —SMALLJIM  19:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smalljim has been MUTED from posting to my talk page. Due to long-standing and ongoing (entirely) uni-lateral harassment, chronic (entirely) uni-lateral edit-warring (10 years duration), giving of master-classes, didactic tweaks, notifying me of trivial errors (full-stop in wrong place). I interpret his behaviour as severe stalking designed to make me wish to stop editing on wikipedia. Examine his obsession with posting to my page - and look at his own contributions log, much of which shows his obsession with editing articles created by me or with major input by me. I have not communicated with this user since 2013 (Wikipedia:Don't feed the troll) and that's how it's going to remain. As advised by a very wise admin (User:Kim Dent-Brown) in 2013, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818, section 41(31 October 2013 - 9 November 2013): The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing. I have followed that advice to the letter. He's crafty, tries to draw me into new rows incessantly, as here. Doesn't matter what the issue, he wants to argue and make my time on wikipedia very unpleasant in the hope I'll go away. I took a mini break earlier in the year, and just like the classic creepy stalker, he "welcomed me back" on my talk page. He watches every edit I make, and notifies my talk page with every single error, debateable point, incorrect grammar, typos. It's tiresome beyond belief. And he uses and manipulates other people as surrogates in his long-term war. Just a heads up and background info as to why I don't respond to the big rows he brews up.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the circumstances it would be best if Lobsterthermidor and Smalljim refrain from talking "about" each other, insinuating motives etc, and simply commented neutrally on article edits and solutions moving forward - as in Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. I have noted that engagement between you two can swiftly descend into a slagging match which helps neither of you achieve your ends, and puts off other people from helping out. As Smalljim has knowledge of this situation going back some years, it will be useful to me for Smalljim to remain involved, though you two need not talk directly to each other, and certainly should restrict your comments to the edits rather than anything personal. If I notice personal attacks from either of you after this, I will issue a final warning, and if it continues after that, I will give escalating blocks. I really hope that will not be necessary. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree readily and I greatly appreciate your efforts to resolve this.  —SMALLJIM  13:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can this progress if Lobsterthermidor doesn't respond?  —SMALLJIM  09:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, but adequate time must be given, especially when progress is being made. There would be no support for sanctions while discussions were in place and making progress. If Lobsterthermidor were to edit Wikipedia for, say, one or two weeks with no attempt to continue discussing the issues and/or were to introduce lengthy Descent of the manor material inappropriately into articles, then I would alert Lobsterthermidor that the matter would be taken to AN/I unless they re-engaged positively with the discussion and/or refrained from insert Descent material until the discussions were complete.

I note that Lobsterthermidor has not re-engaged since you made a comment on his talkpage. I also see that he has made a comment on his user page that he has "Muted" you from his user page. I think Lt has misunderstood the purpose of WP:MUTE, which is to silence notifications (apart from talkpage notifications); though I think it is clear that Lt wishes you not to edit their talkpage. Per WP:NOBAN, you may leave important notices on their talkpage, however it is expected that you would refrain from leaving notices there that could be easily left elsewhere, and that continuing to needlessly edit someone's talkpage after they have requested you not to could be seen as harassment. In the circumstances it would be more appropriate and helpful if you left comments regarding this matter on my talkpage, and if you wish to ask Lt a question, that you go via me. I think this would more likely ensure we achieve the most appropriate result. Does that sound reasonable? SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]