| Revision as of 09:35, 18 May 2010 editTothwolf (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,326 edits →High traffic on History of beer: Moved from User talk:Tothwolf, Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:07, 15 January 2025 edit undoSilkTork (talk | contribs)Administrators104,150 edits →January music | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{nobots}} | ||
| {{busy|image=Information icon4.svg|descriptor=sitting on the dock of the bay}} | |||
| ] ]] | |||
| ] | |||
| <center>] | |||
| {{quote|I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.|]}} | |||
| {{Notice|I am unable to accept any requests for assistance at the moment. I will try to deal with those issues I have already accepted when I get time. If any matter is pressing, please email me, and I will see what I can do}} | |||
| <center> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| ]{{search box}}]]]{{search box}} ]] | |||
| ]{{clear}} | |||
| <br> | |||
| {{divbox|green||'''''Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.'''''<br> ]}} | |||
| {{quote|I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. ]}} | |||
| {{divbox|red||'''''Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.'''''<br> ]}} | |||
| {{quote|Our text should arise as a summary of the reliable sources, rather than editors first deciding what they want to say and then looking for sources. ] }} | |||
| I am open to recall, using ]'s wording from their ]:<br> "if editors I trust and respect are telling me I should not be an admin, then I would voluntarily resign as an administrator." ] | |||
| </center> | </center> | ||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#Ryl}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Merry Christmas!== | |||
| <nowiki></nowiki> | |||
| {| style="border:1px solid 3px; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}}; padding: 5px;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="center" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: center; height: 1.1em;" | '''A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!''' | |||
| == Regarding the == | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="centre" padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| Silktork, Am finding it difficult to pull out time for wikipeida at the moment. I'd like to request if the moderated discussion could be suspended for a while. Meanwhile, as KM Reports is an article other editors might also be interested in taking up, and as I do not want the creation of the page on Misplaced Pages to be delayed for reasons having to do with me, I raise a mention of it on the talk of a closely related article. I'd be much thankful if you could share your perspective there. | |||
| |- | |||
| ] (]) 12:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| |style="vertical-align:top; border-top:1px solid gray"| | |||
| <br /> | |||
| Silktork, I'd like to request if the process could be sped-up so that myself and Jayen may directly work on the articles. It would help a lot as I can put the research I have done to best use in the limited time I get to work on wikipedia. If at any point there is any conflict, we could resort to moderated discussion mechanism which is in place. | |||
| <big>Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!</big> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| ] (]) 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <big>Cheers</big> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| :I've not had much chance to spend time on Misplaced Pages matters recently, and I'm not sure how much time I'll have to look into your current inquiry. I'll see what I can do, though if you are looking for something speedy at this time, it may be a case of having someone else handle the matter. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <br /> | |||
| <big>] (]) 08:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</big> | |||
| ::And why was Dilip allowed to recreate the article, when you specifically stated that you will monitor its creation and initiate an AFD? The article is a complete copy+paste from his preferred version , absolutely disregarding the prior consensus .--] (]) 14:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| Silktork, the entire section pertaining to the KM Reports, teh central portion of the article, and the intro was compiled by me yesterday, taking a day off from work. I had gone ahead with creation of the namespace and planned to leave it for other editors to work on. I had made a mention of my decision to do so in a response to you on my talk. | |||
| Jayen has also apparently reviewed the article:. I am waiting for a response from him. I have discussed this with him on his talk as well. I mention creation of the name-space on as well. Particualrly, I'd like to point out that PCPP's claim of the article being a copy-paste of an earlier version is baseless. | |||
| I request you to kindly review . I'd also like you to note hat PCPP has a history of blanking all content related to Chinese human rights abuses and editors have repeatedly raised concerns on his behaviour, and the ] pattern seen in his activities on wikipedia.] (]) | |||
| :I agree with PCPP that it was inappropriate for you to create the article. That was against the conditions upon which the moderated discussion was set up. There has been little activity from you, and when you do wish to move forward you do so with inappropriate haste, and with knowing that I am particularly busy off-Wiki and cannot attend to matters closely. This doesn't look good for you. My email is activated, and you could have contacted me by email. You could at the very least have let me know what you were intending to do. My intention here, however, is not to get involved in personal issues, but to develop a useful article. I have, with that aim in mind, created in my user space the article as it currently stands - ]. I would like to develop this article, along with JN and any other editor who has an interest in this topic. As you have an interest in this area, and useful knowledge, with awareness of good sources, it would be helpful for you to be involved, but I am unsure if you can be trusted. Other editors express concerns about your behaviour, and in your dealings with me you act inappropriately. What assurances can you give that you would not act inappropriately in future? <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Silktork, I sincerely apologize for having gone ahead with the creation of the page. It was not my purpose to circumvent the moderated discussion process, but was attempting to make the most of a day's time I managed to pull out. Researching the topic for a while had led me to have concerns on why a human rights topic of urgent importance as this was not having its space in wikipedia. My hastiness was driven by concerns along those lines. | |||
| I acknowledge it was inappropriate on my part to have created the page without your permission, and I assure you , that, from hereforth, I will work with you on this, strictly adhering to the terms of the moderated discussion process. | |||
| ] (]) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *I had a sense of ''déjà vu'' when I saw the article, down to the structure, layout and images. Am I getting it right that Dilip rajeev couldn't wait to do take a day off work, do a copy and paste? The report has been in existence for four years, and all of a sudden it has become ]? On top of that, he launches another vicious ] on PCPP, accusing him for harassment, and 'sincerely apologises' to SilkTork (and, I note, not to PCPP) within 24 hours. ] ] 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposal to Move: Tree shaping to Arborsculpture== | |||
| Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page and ] has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on ]. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture ] ]</span> 08:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Silk, you removed the word arborsculpture from 's bio. here are 9 academic sources describing Erlandsons work as arborsculpture. Any chance the word can be use in the bio ? *'''' *''''*''''*'''' *''''*'''' *'''' *''''] (]) 13:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::So, are we to understand that the word arborsculpture should not be used in the article? Should only be used in certain sections? Should only be used to describe one artist's work? Should only be used to describe the work of those artists who do not object to the use of the word? Why should or shouldn't ''any'' or ''all'' of the other alternate names be used in the article? I seek understanding. How does this compare with usage of alternate names in other Misplaced Pages articles? Please explain the distinction. Could you please respond to this on the Talk page, at your convenience?] (]) 08:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry I have been slow to respond to both these queries - I am on Wiki only briefly at the moment, and usually to do some research for off-Wiki work I am doing. I had hoped to withdraw myself from the ] article and allow it to develop organicaly. I am on the whole in favour of the work Duff has been doing, though slightly concerned about Duff's interest in using the term arborsculpture in place of tree shaping, as it is the arborscupture term which has been the primary cause of disputes. There was a period of discussion and research conducted into the term. A summary of that would be that the term was coined by Richard Reames, and is associated with that person. Reames has used the term when talking about tree shaping, and so the term has been adopted by neutral commentators as a generic term for tree shaping. I have said right from the start that I feel it would be appropriate for an article to be created on either Richard Reames or Arborsculpture, which deals with Richard Reames' tree shaping/arborsculture work. But that the article we now know as ] should be about tree shaping in general, including its history before Reames' involvement, and to include mention of and links to other known forms of tree shaping, such as ] and ]. As the arborsculture term has an association with one person, then prominent use of the term can gain that person some commercial/prestige advantage, which would be against the spirit and the policies of Misplaced Pages. As we have an acceptable neutral alternative, which also has the advantage of being more descriptive for the general reader, of "tree shaping", that is the term to be prefered. This is not to say that the arborsculpture term is banned - on the contrary, I feel it is highly appropriate to use the word in both describing Reames' work, and also as part of an explanation that there are alternative terms in use. Also, I don't wish for people to get into an edit war over the term, so if there is a long term use of the word in an article, that use should remain. But if arborsculpture has been used to replace tree shaping, or has been inserted additionally into a sentence without adding any meaning, then it should be removed, as such use can be construed as looking for commercial or prestige advantage. I made a comment on this earlier, which can be found in the archives of the Tree shaping talkpage: | |||
| {{quote|I think it would be disruptive to engage in an edit war on other articles over which term to use, "tree shaping" or "arborsculpture". I would favour "tree shaping" as that is the term we have agreed is the least problematic however, if arborsculpture is currently used appropriately in an article I feel it can be left there. Where there is an example of both "tree shaping" and "arborsculpture" being used in the same or consecutive sentences to no meaningful effect, then "tree shaping" is to be preferred. I have amended ] to remove arborsculpture.}} | |||
| The above explains, I think, the removal of arborsculpture in the ] article. The history of that article shows that the term arborscultpture was introduced needlessly, and the article worked well then without the term, and works well now. | |||
| I think this also explains why I recently ammended a use of the term arborscupture in the ] article. ] and ] give some loose guidance on this. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 10:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Category repopulating == | |||
| Just out of curiosity why did you depopulate ] and then redirect it? ] (]) 15:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi. Thanks for the question. I merged ] with ] to assist navigation. See ] and ]. The War novels cat only held a couple of books and was an unnecessary split as the main cat is not large anyway. At some point if the cat becomes overpopulated a split would be worthwhile, and consideration given to the best way of doing that. Most novels set in Anglo-Saxon England tend to involve a war as that was the nature of the times, so that may not be the most useful way of splitting the cat. There is some value in having a cat for war novels, though that could overlap with cats organised by time-periods, and be organised by specific wars and protagonists. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == WP Essays in the Signpost == | |||
| "WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Essays for a ''Signpost'' article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, ]. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -] (]) 07:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == FAC: July 2009 Ürümqi riots == | |||
| I am co-editor of ]. This is the third attempt - it died for lack of interest last time. | |||
| Please help me if you can. Any comments will be welcome. Pass or fail doesn't matter. I just don't want a replay of the slow death by suffocation, like last time. ] ] 14:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Irony article== | |||
| Hello. I wonder if you, or someone else could help with the section in this article to do with Verbal irony and sarcasm? The discussion is getting very long, and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I added some dictionary definitions and suchlike, in an attempt to set out the way authorities have sought to differentiate the terms. The editor responsible for the original text (which I have hardly touched) objects to this on the grounds that all these definitions are wrong in some way. His original text dealt only with the way psychologists have studied the way people understand irony and sarcasm. He wants to remove my definitions and replace them with more psychology citations. I do not understand what is going on here. I hope you can help. ] (]) 14:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems to have come to a close. ] (]) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Closing the discussion on No original research == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Thanks for taking up the challenge of closing the discussion on the rewrite of the ] policy. | |||
| I'd like to ask you to reconsider your conclusions. Changes to policy pages should reflect consensus. If there is no consensus that the proposed changes are an improvement, they should not be made.--] (]) 11:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't follow the discussion, I'm just sticking my nose in here. Consensus does not equal "everyone agrees the change is right". Consensus equals "everyone agrees to allow the change to be made, even if they don't think it's the right choice". consensus means you agree to put your objections aside when you see you are vastly outnumbered - but it can also mean that a single dissenting voice can stop everything from happening. Practicality overrules the latter, and consensus ends up being supermajority wins. - ] ] 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It sometimes happens that a discussion has points of dispute so that when closing, somebody is not going to be happy - as when a page is protected, for somebody it will be ]. My summary of the discussion indicated that in general the principle of rewriting the lead was accepted, and the initial move toward the rewrite can be found ], which - if looking back at what initially propelled it - can be seen to be a little more involved than what currently appears on the talkpage. However, while in general the principle of a rewrite was seen as positive and needed, I did note that there were particular concerns with the actual wording of the rewrite and I highlighted some of those. Given that there is no clear support for either version, and putting the page back to before the rewrite would not be advancing the situation, and would in principle be stiffling attempts at improvement, it seemed to be appropriate to suggest that people continue to work on improving the lead along the lines suggested. My recommendation is that you make some of the ammendments that I highlighted, and if there are objections, that you discuss those on the talkpage. If you need further assistance on this, please get in touch. If it's urgent, please use my email, as I am not currently spending much time on-Wiki. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 14:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::You wrote in the summary that "it may not be fully clear what overall advantage has been gained by the rewrite given the concerns raised;" Doesn't that mean there is no consensus for the rewrite?--] (]) 19:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::My comments were designed to indicate that there was no prefered version, but that it would be more positive to move forward on the existing version than to roll back to the previous. I had hoped to encourage and support people in moving forward on improving the current version along the lines indicated. As there is potential dispute and I got involved as an impartial commentator it would be inappropriate for me to directly edit the page and retain the role of impartial commentator in case of the need to arbitrate a dispute. I would again recommend that you edit the page along the lines suggested and refer to the discussion and my closing comments. That might be a progressive use of your time. I would be willing to comment on any dispute arising from such editing. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 08:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. Are you saying that there was no consensus, but because of other considerations it would be better to use the rewrite?--] (]) 08:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==High traffic on History of beer == | |||
| The template was initially intended as a short term alert so editors could be aware of likely vandalism. It was not intended to remain on a page for ever. It now marks an historical incident that belongs in the archives. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == January music == | |||
| :I just noticed your page notice as I was saving. I don't watchlist people's talkpages, and tend not to come back, so if you only reply here it's unlikely I'll see it. Up to you, but if you do have a reply for me it's best to leave it on my talkpage otherwise I might miss it. I find it helps to cut and paste the whole conversation so everything is kept together. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 16:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| | image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg | |||
| | image_upright = 0.8 | |||
| | bold = ] · ] · ] | |||
| }} | |||
| Happy new year 2025! Today, ], ], in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author ]. -- ] (]) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Happy new year Gerda. ] (]) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There actually seems to have been some confusion around whether or not {{tl|High traffic}} is a "temporary" template subject to removal.<br />The original template was {{noredirect|Template:Slashdotted}} and was a short term template intended to be placed directly on the article page and not the talk page. At that time the template looked like .<br />In November 2005 it was ], the outcome of which was to turn it into a generic template instead of being ] specific, and use it on the talk page instead of the article. ] converted it to a talk notice template and updated the transclusions: etc.<br />Unfortunately on ] was never updated, nor was it removed when {{tl|High traffic/doc}} was created. It seems to have caused some confusion in that some people still thought {{tl|High traffic}} was still a ''temporary'' template, which was originally only the case because it was used on the article page instead of the talk page.<br />We do not remove {{tl|Press}} (intended for print articles which mention the Misplaced Pages article) and we do not remove {{tl|Onlinesource}} (for use when a print article uses the Misplaced Pages article as a source) so there is no reason to remove {{tl|High traffic}} which is used when a high traffic (usually news) website links to a Misplaced Pages article.<br />Moving {{tl|High traffic}} to an archive page also breaks the template, as can be seen when you moved it to the archive page .<br />As you probably noticed, I've also been working on improving the {{tl|High traffic}} template itself. I recently added support for stats.grok.se (which was somewhat of a challenge). stats.grok.se unfortunately does not have complete data for everything and while it works for some articles which were linked in 2007, the datasets for 2007 seem quite spotty and random. From about 2008 onward the datasets are much better and are almost always available. I plan to eventually rework the {{para|page}} parameter, which will allow for more flexibility for the template to be placed on a page and link to a different page, but for now that does not work. --] (]) 09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:07, 15 January 2025
 | This user is sitting on the dock of the bay in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
SilkTork
I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama
Our text should arise as a summary of the reliable sources, rather than editors first deciding what they want to say and then looking for sources. Agricolae
I am open to recall, using Whpq's wording from their RfA:
"if editors I trust and respect are telling me I should not be an admin, then I would voluntarily resign as an administrator."
"Ryl" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Ryl has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14 § Ryl until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | 
|
|
|
|
January music
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Happy new year 2025! Today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Happy new year Gerda. SilkTork (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)