User talk:SilkTork/Dispute Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Drax

[edit] Dispute Assistance

I saw your page amongst those who offer assistance with editor disputes. So after reading your page, I first got myself a nice cuppa, and then wanted to write to you in the hopes you might be willing to assist me with a matter which I am finding rather upsetting. While I have been a user of Wikipedia for some time, but admittedly I am fairly new when it comes to contributions. One subject that I am very interested in is the programme Doctor Who, and recently added a page about a character who has appeared in four separate works. One series, and at least three other books. (As this character was the antagoinst in two of these works, I felt he was worthy of his own page consistent with the precedents established for other characters.)

After posting the page I had a few folks pop by to make edits or corrections, which all made the article better. But one user, known as Digby Tantrum, has been keen to delete rather than to make things better. While I may have made errors, I feel that helping me correct them is more helpful than deleting my work. I went so far as to drop him a professional note to tell him how I feel, and that if he would be a bit more supportive instead of destructive that it would help those of us who are new to learn.

Apparantly he didn't feel that his behaviour was unprofessional, and went back in and put a flag on the page that indicated that it had questionable "notability." (In that there are four sources of work cited, I don't believe that this was a warranted behaviour.)

I don't really want to have a "war" with anyone, but having already contacted this person as the dispute page suggested, the problem does no seem to be getting any better. So I am looking for any help you can offer.

My thanks in advance for your help.

RobHoitt 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rob. I hope you enjoyed your cup of tea! It often helps just to share concerns with other people, and to know that you are not alone. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that sometimes people agree on how an article should proceed, and sometimes they don't agree. When we agree with each other there are no problems - but when there are disagreements this can be frustrating. It's happened to all of us at times - and it will happen again. The best way is to acknowledge to yourself that the edit conflicts are not personal. The other editor is not making judgements about you as an individual, but it simply working on a collaborative article, and has a different way of doing it to you. The best way of dealing with any such dispute is to discuss it, and to discuss it in as friendly or at least as neutral a manner as possible, and to assume that the other editor has good intentions. In my experience most edit disagreements when conducted properly result in a stronger, better article. An article only written by one person with one point of view can end up unbalanced and possibly biased. So, uncomfortable though it can be, an edit disagreement can be a Good Thing! I've looked at the discussions you've had with User:Digby Tantrum, and I can see that he is providing full explanations for what he is doing, and he is using a respectful tone. He has concerns about the article, and he is giving some suggestions for how to progress it. I would say that the initial contact could have been friendlier, but that is not a criticism of Mark - messages about copyright material and fair use images are left on many user's talk pages, and they do tend to be factual and blunt. I have now left you a big, friendly welcoming message with a number of useful links. I hope that will compensate. As for the Drax (Doctor Who) article itself. Well, as the notability tag indicates, some references would help. I have added a reference section and put in one reference as an example. There are more advanced ways of showing references, but the way I have done it is real easy, and is quite acceptable. I wouldn't be able to comment on the notability of this particular character - however, I have noticed articles within Category:Time Lords that also deal with Time Lord characters. Perhaps take a look at those and see how much information they contain in relation to the Drax article. Though, be warned, just because those articles are there, doesn't mean they would survive a discussion on deletion - they could be there because nobody - as yet - has questioned them! I hope this has been helpful to you. If you need any more help or advice on this or any other matter, please feel free to get in touch again. Good luck! SilkTork 10:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for writing back, I am in the process of researching additional resources to add more "meat" to the article, but I was able to add to the reference box you've added. Over the last couple days, Digby has been a busy person adding and revising the article, albeit nothing was really negative, so perhaps the communication to him to state I was concerened about deleting things without explanation was enough.
Seeing you have an interest in beer, should you ever come across the pond, I would encourage you to visit the Washington DC area. I have recently migrated here and find myself near several microbreweries. one of note that I visited recently is the Red Brick Pub in White Marsh, Maryland. They make all of their own beer, and quite respectable IPA's and ales. Should you make it over, I'll have to get a round. Anyways, thanks for the advice and the help. RobHoitt 16:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I just found this online, It seemed most appropriate. Thanks again!!!

The Minor Barnstar
For showing me how to add reference boxes RobHoitt 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps I spoke too soon.

It appears that the individual has elected to revisit the previous problem... The individual made a point of scolding me on my talk page for casting him in a bad light in my commentary above, so when you have time, take a gander at the talk page for the article I spoke to you about earlier. I am wondering if the point I have made to him twice (both there and on his talk page) about the substance of his commentary is appropriate. Many thanks. RobHoitt 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Re: A round of drinks

Nice one. I have been meaning to visit the US of A. I have a few beers I am interested in! I'll give you a shout if I come over and we can buy each other a round. Regards. SilkTork 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anytime, it would be my pleasure. Which American beers are you interested in? I am often amazed at just how abundant the variety is here. I found myself at the local grocery store which devotes a whole aisle to beer and "coolers" and another just to wine. A wayward six-pack of Tecate (Mexican, from the Cerveceria Cuauhtemoc Moctezuma in Monterrey.) found its way into my cart. (Tecate reminds me almost of Molson's Canadian [maybe slightly sweeter], in that it appears to be a very crisp pilsner-type.) The local store offers beer from all over North and South America. I would be very willing to conduct any research for you on this topic, provided that it includes subsequent taste testing. :) Cheers! -RobHoitt 19:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have an interest in Bert Grants, especially Bert Grants Scottish Ale as that defined and began a style. Sadly the brewery closed a while back so supplies of Bert Grants in people's cellars are diminishing all the time. Another one is Yuengling Porter as that has a long history. My son was in New York last year, and he was running out of money, so I wired him $400. He was very pleased and asked me if there was anything I wanted bringing back - I said a bottle of Yuengling Porter would be nice. He gets me a bottle of Yuengling Premium! $400 for a bottle of boring pale lager! SilkTork 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I just checked. I haven't had Tecate. You can check out ratings for that and other beers on RateBeer - [1]. Cheers. SilkTork 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tecate was rather good. I have some Leinenkugel's Summer and Yeungline Lager in the fridge now. The Leinenkugel's Summer actually used coriander as a flavoring, very curious, but it works!!! RobHoitt 15:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Coriander is a popular flavouring in wheat beers. Was is Leinenkugels Sunset Wheat you had? SilkTork 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ummm... (Quickly sneaking into the trash to check the empties...) Yes, that is exactly right. I have had several wheeat beers and hefeweisens over the years, (I even have homebrewed up a couple...) but either they have been "plain" or flavored with honey or cherry. Generally when I think of coriander, I think of cilantro, which in my house is often purchased, and usually goes into a nice homemade salsa or other random "tex-mex" dish... I had never seen it in a beer before, but it made for a very crisp, and tasty libation. RobHoitt 04:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Re: Forgive me

I see you are doing good work on Wiki, and you appear to be a solid and respected editor - just the sort of person we need on Wiki. You have done nothing major wrong, however this comment [2] has been drawn to my attention. It's a a shame, because it's not helpful. It's in public, and it's a matter of record. RobHoitt is trying to make Drax (Doctor Who) a better article. He is keen, and needs to be encouraged and helped. You both share an interest in Dr Who and should get on. We have no cabal here - we try to create a community where everyone helps each other. Such a comment, following RobHoitt's comments to you that he found your tone to be hurtful and alienating, doesn't look good. I'm sure you didn't mean to be hurtful, however that is the way that RobHoitt is seeing it, and that is the way I would see it if the same thing was said to me in the same circumstances. As you have some knowledge of Dr Who, and you have some months of Wiki experience, could I ask that you work with RobHoitt, and give him some support, encouragement and helpful advise. He is a friendly, co-operate person who responds very well to friendly communication. If you take him under your wing I'm sure he would be able to improve the quality of his article writing. Regards. SilkTork 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However, I'm afraid I don't share your optimism regarding RobHoitt's potential as an editor. I've seen no signs that he's willing to learn about the encyclopaedic coverage of fiction, despite being pointed in the direction of the relevant guidelines, or that he has the emotional resiliency to cope with the simplest of disagreements — something understandable in an editor yet to see their twenties, but, frankly, worrying in someone past thirty.
Wikipedia is not operated by a cabal, true. But we're also not a haven for the incapable.
It's possible that I'm wrong about Rob. Maybe, with the right kind of mentor, he'll get his act together. But I'm damn sure I'm not that mentor. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with your response. SilkTork 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm not aiming to become Wikipedia's first living saint. I prefer to deal with the realities of the editing process. Oh, and this? Well funny. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it gave me some amusement on a wet Monday! ;-) SilkTork 08:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Mark elected to redirect the page into another, see: [Talk:Drax_(Doctor_Who)] and took the page down altogether. As he seems to have a personal issue with me as noted in his previous commentary including earlier in this thread. However his commentary above is the third public comment that I would consider inappropriate he has elected to make, and when combined with what I would take as destructing a page for the purposes of getting even, I really am wondering if something a bit more formal is in order. You have more experience in this arena, so I am curious what your opinion about this is. Also I wanted to thank you again for your help and support. Perhaps I will be owing you a six-pack before too long. RobHoitt 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)




[edit] AfD nomination of Drax (Doctor Who)

Drax (Doctor Who), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Drax (Doctor Who) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drax (Doctor Who) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes '~~~~'. You are free to edit the content of Drax (Doctor Who) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 10:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the article has been listed for a wider discussion on the issue of its notability, and where and how it should appear on Wiki. Regards SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 10:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, might as well. There isn't any content left in it now anyways. I dare not say how I really feel on the matter for fear of getting publicly flamed again. RobHoitt- 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC) - comhrá/talk
I forgot to restore the text when nominating for discussion. It's back now. Not that I think it will have a significant difference, but at least people now have an opportunity to see what is being discussed! Cheers. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 07:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SigBlock

I like the signature block you are doing, you've inspired me... cheers! :) RobHoitt- 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC) - comhrá/talk

Y'alls signatures are horrible to look at. Really. Deiz talk 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There's always a critic... RobHoitt- 20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC) - comhrá/talk
Well, more than one.. check Riana's talk. Choose whatever sig you like, but don't be surprised if others aren't impressed with editors who feel the need to use garish / large / quirky signatures to identify themselves while editing an encyclopedia. Deiz talk 00:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] My comment on User:SilkTork's page

FYI, I guess things have worked out. See below- Rob

Looking at your recent contributions, I was wrong to be so pessimistic about your potential. Allow me to apologise for that: I'm sorry. People who create free images are always welcome on Wikipedia.

Regards. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, it actually means a lot. No doubt it would also please you to know that I prefer to use software from a British company called Serif Software for my graphics work. The Serif folks opened up their US operations near my old home in New Hampshire, and were very kind in giving several software packages to a local Radio Club with no requirement of advertising or being repaid in any way. The software worked great, and I've been a loyal customer ever since. Cheers! RobHoitt- 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC) - comhrá/talk

Though I am damn right in saying both your signatures are eyesores. So there. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 22:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


That's good. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request For Help In Edit War

I have been having edit wars with UtherSRG, in that, when I try to post reconstructions of prehistoric animals, he accuses me of "original research," and removes the picture, sometimes even deleting them. However, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia Policy on Original Research makes an exemption for self-made images provided they are made with an attempt to be accurate, but, UtherSRG disregards this interpretation. In fact, he scoffs at whatever excuse or reference I or others provide, as, apparently, my reconstructions are incredibly offensive to his scientific sensibilities. The only reason why he does not harass other artists who post self-made reconstructions is, apparently, they do not edit articles he has claimed to protect. If it is a problem of accuracy, other Wikipedians have either given me more accurate references, or they have replaced my pictures with more accurate ones. I want to be able to continue to use my pictures to help improve Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, UtherSRG is immune to reason, and consistantly ignores consensus. I don't understand why I must be afraid to post my reconstructions for fear of offending the impossibly hypersensitive scientific sensibilities of a single Wikipedian, while other artists are free to post without interference. Is there any way resolving this?--Mr Fink 14:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look and get back to you. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is UtherSRG allowed to disregard consensus and flout the various rules at Wikipedia?--Mr Fink 02:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Okay

Thank you! Everything has been fine: I have had no further problems with UtherSRG.--Mr Fink 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user created images

Compare Mr. Fink's works with the image at Thylacoleo. Can you see why I don't think Fink's images are up to snuff? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't like the backgrounds? Anyway, I think the main issue here is that the images are both popular and acclaimed within the community that is most involved in creating the articles in which the images appear. By a broad consensus they are wanted on those articles. Wikipedia runs along by consensus, so that even when you or I or the Queen of Sheba do not agree, we have to accept. It is right to challenge something that you don't agree with. But if, having put forward your best argument, consensus is still against you, then you have to stop the challenge - no matter how painful that is! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah... then I find other people to put forward *their* best, such as the creator of the Thylacoleo image.... If he's willing to create images to replace Fink's.... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's sounds like a good solution. I've often found that disputes end up making an article better as people look for alternative solutions which are acceptable to everyone. Well done. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pedro Malan

[3]

Can I ask why you delisted that? It doesn't appear that an opinion was given. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As per procedure. I am looking into the case, therefore I remove the listing so that somebody else doesn't need to do the research. Currently I am looking into how to create a succession box as that appears to be the main problem with the article. If creating a box is easy I will explain how it is done to the two editors. Thanks for your concern. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll put in an infobox to resolve the situation. --Dali-Llama 20:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just put in an example of how to create a succession box. You can use that or create your own infobox. Good luck! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello SilkTork!!

That looks GREAT! Thank you so much. I´ll do my best to make this box available. Lulu Margarida yes? 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pleased to help! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Tks again! Well, I did my best, here. Lulu Margarida yes? 22:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done. I have tidied and expanded the article a little bit. Regards. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That looks good. Lulu Margarida yes? 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Opinion Diavlog

Yes, thank you very much for your help. Pdelongchamp 15:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent surgery on the Korea University thread

I found you have performed a huge surgery on the Korea University hread. The first thing I'd like to ask to you is if it valid to remove any contents supported by reliable references, though they are written in languages other than English. I am kind of confused by the recent observations showing as if Wikipedia only cares the stipulated styles, and looks away from the genuineness of contents.

The second question, I would like to ask is there are lots of other Korean universities thread filled with similar contents you just removed. They are also underpinned by references written in Korean. Will you do the same surgery on them, like you just have done in the Korea University thread? If you need, I will search those thread and give a list for you. In addition, I will keep trying to improve contents in the KU thread in accordance to wikirules.Patriotmissile 19:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Patriotmissile. I removed a chunk of text from the lead section of Korea University which was very problematic for a number of reasons, and was the main cause of the conflict between yourself and Epthorn. As I explained here, the reason was to enable editors, yourself and Epthorn included, to work on the text in a collaborative manner and cure the problems before reinstating the text in the article. The problems are largely to do with poor quality writing, incorrect grammar, inappropriate tone and biased selection of material. It is questionable how much of the text should go back into the article, though I leave that to other editors to sort out. It may be decided that after a clean up all of it should go back in, but certainly if in goes back in without any editing then the problems will remain. Is it valid to remove poor text? Yes, always. Is it valid to correct bias? Yes, always. The text is still there, and is there to be worked on. It is quite common for problematic or questionable text that may be useful to be moved to the talk page for discussion. It is a better way of dealing with controversial text than simply deleting it. It is up to you and the others to now work on improving the text in a cooperative manner. As for content over style - no, we always prefer to have good content. The question here is how much of "Korea University has striven to recast its old somewhat conservative image to global and future

-oriented figures, and efforts for the recast have been fruited successfully so far" is actually worthwhile content, regardless of sources for the statement. It's a matter of carefully selecting which bits of information to use out of the many bits that are available. If you find a 50,000 word account of KU it wouldn't be appreciated if you used all 50,000 words in the article and defended your action by saying there is a source. It's about making careful choices. That's your task as an editor. And your decisions will either be supported by other editors or not. When your decisions are not supported then it is considered appropriate to discuss the reasons with the other editors in a respectful manner, and to accept the decisions gracefully if the reasons are valid and reasonable. I hope this helps. If not, please ask me for a clearer explanation. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As for your second question. I am not looking at the other Korean articles. I have concerned myself with this one because a third opinion was asked for. If you'd like me to look at another article I will do. Which one would you like me to look at? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

SilkTork, Thanks for the helpful intervention. Because I had been one of the two editors involved in a bit of a tussle over the page, I was hesitant to make the changes in tone myself as it might cause a revert. As to the citations and non-English references, that's a sticky problem with no good solution. Frankly, I think the way you edited it dodges the issue though (in a good way), since the important point (that KU is regarded as one of the top three universities) is still there and has a source in English from a known paper... it's not really necessary to have 9 sources for one statement. Some of the other statements that had sources were a little too POV/advert anyway. I think the page is now a good place to start from to carefully add information and make it similar to other institutions in terms of information. Thanks, Epthorn 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Silktalk,

It seems that you're the right person to ask this question. I am concerning to remove the thread completely from Wikipedia, and would you explain proper procedures for it? In addition, I am planning to remove all my info donations I have made from English Wikipedia, so let me know if such act is considered as violation in Wikipedia.Patriotmissile 19:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

An article can be nominated for deletion. Information on this can be found on Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. People then discuss if the topic of the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, and if it has sufficient sources to confirm the topic's notability. Korea University would pass such a discussion and would not be deleted. You would need to have a good reason for nominating an article for deletion. People may not be happy if an article was listed for deletion for personal reasons, such as being frustrated at the way an article was progressing. As for removing all your contributions, you have agreed to license your contributions under GNU Free Documentation License so they no longer belong to you as such. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
Contributing to Wikipedia can be very frustrating and most of us have had bad experiences from time to time. It can feel personal when someone else starts to edit an article that one has worked on for a while. You could give Korea University a break for a while. Try editing in some other area of Wikipedia. Or even take a short break from Wikipedia for a few days. It can work. It can help to put things in perspective. The nature of Wikipedia is that it is collaborative, so people will work on the article anyway. Sometimes articles go backwards with poor editing, but in most cases they go forward in a positive manner. There is no need to feel that without your attention any article will go bad. Because every change is stored on Wikipedia you can take a break for a month, and come back and restore the article to an earlier point if that is what you wanted to do. There is no need to worry. Take a break from KU and perhaps upload some pictures, such as Image:Seoul daylight.jpg, which is truly beautiful. You have a real talent for photography. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up tag on Korea University

SilkTork, I found you put a clean-up tag in the Korea University thread, and would you let me know what exactly you want it to be ameliorated in my box? Is it referring to clean-up dead hyperlinks or else?Patriotmissile 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The tag is on an internal list. See the guideline Wikipedia:Embedded list and the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Laundromat. As an example of how to present information, see Oxford_university#Notable_alumni_and_faculty. If the number of KU alumni grows large, then would be the time to split out into a standalone list - as it is at the moment, the amount of people can be dealt with appropriately as a prose paragraph, with some information as to who the people are. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Opinion on The Cardiff Team

Hi you kindly gave a measured 3rd opinion on The Cardiff Team. The article has onw been deleted after, following your recommendation, I edited and moved brief descriptions on 3 Davenport works of fiction to the Guy Davenport page. This material has now been deleted by user SocJan after a limited discussion with one other user and regular contributor to the Guy Davenport article. Can I ask for your opinion again please Tony 12:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Tony

[edit] Flash Gordon

Hi SilkTork,

Thank you for taking this on. I will try to be brief. This is a matter of ruling on the principle of using tags over a disputed section or erasing the section altogether. If you look at the diffs on the Flash Gordon talk page this section was completely removed from the article by a previous user and I restored it, albeit shorter, a long time after and only at the suggestion of another user. The question is: Do we erase sections that displease us or do we tag them so other users can clean them up. See here the user tags the section. Later the same user changes his mind and erases the section as in here remarking in the edit summary whole section not encyclopedic. If someone would like to come up with a BRIEF overview and not just spoiler insanity for no encyclopedic purpose, please try. The question is how do you try to improve a section if a section is not there?

Further he does something similar to the Gorgon article recently as in here. Then I invite him to discuss this and he replies: Sorry, but the discussion was in the edit comment: and he erases it again after I restored it as in here. Then he tells me I don't understand how Wikipedia works. I thought consensus was an important principle here.

Please also note that these two edits happened immediately after I edited both articles. Anyway the principle I am trying to establish here is that instead of annihilating whole sections it would be best if they were tagged first and people got the chance to repair the faults in situ. If you erase it how can people see its faults? Thanks again for your assistance in this matter. Please help because it is not fun edit warring with people that don't even want to discuss things on the talk page. Other than this dispute very few other times have been as disappointing to me as dealing with this present dispute. Take care. Dr.K. 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. This is a dispute about how much plot should appear in the article. I'll come over and give some links. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I may be as bold as stating that they don't call you Silk for nothing. Your abilities as an interlocutor are in direct proportion to the promise of this adjective. Excellent guideline, flawlessly and tactfully rendered. Thank you very much for the great time and effort you put into this eloquent work. It shows me the depth of ability and fairness available within this great project.
Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope that makes matters easier for both of you. Now go forth and edit! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It sure works for me. Thanks again. Dr.K. 16:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Help with dispute

Hello SilkTork, I got your name off the dispute resolution page. I'm having problems with editor User:Susanlesch‎. I first came into the conflict after an anon registered complaints [4] that her edits at Star Tribune didn't make any sense. Essentially she's added sections to the Star Tribune and New York Times articles about their headlines over the course of days and weeks. I guess the idea is to give the reader a sense of each newspaper's online "style" but none of it made much sense to me and I didn't think it added anything to either article. I expressed my concerns on the Star Tribune Talk page [5], and in an edit summary on the New York Times [6]. She responded to my concerns and the concerns of the anon with responses that did not address the substance of the complaints levied against her and in a tone that displayed an aggressive unwillingness to engage in discussion, as if the meaning of her edits was self-evident. I've found her communications with me in particular to be condescending and dismissive [7], [8], [9]. I've tried to evoke WP:Consensus, but she repeatedly asserts no desire to discuss her edits. Please help! Regards, --Beaker342 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Beaker342. Greetings again. Hello, SilkTork. Nice to meet you. I am really sorry but I am not feeling well. Beaker342 is escalating his or her whatever. I can only add that he or she didn't answer any of my questions on the Star Tribune talk page where whatever this is started earlier today. May the best man, woman or child win. I really am not concerned about winning this one. Again, Beaker342, if you would like to contribute to the article about the Star Tribune newspaper I encourage you to add your idea, which I thought was neat. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, SilkTork. Sorry but I am really not well. Whatever this is has gone on for over the space of six hours today and I am not feeling well. Could you kindly close the above issue if possible? I will check back a bit later on and see if you are online. Thank you in advance if you can, and Beaker342, again information about the "format i.e." whatever of the Star Tribune would be a wonderful addition to Wikipedia, in my opinion. Best wishes to you both. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. I have no dispute with anyone on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia. SilkTork would you kindly confirm here that this issue is closed? Beaker342 sent me an apology on my talk page (his or her first post there was a couple hours ago and no I am not feeling well). Thank you and everyone who participated in whatever the heck this was. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I had to look in your talkpage history to find the apology from Beaker342. I understand and sympathise with your desire to bury this incident; however, in the interests of clarity and open communication, the community prefers that messages are left on a talkpage for a while, and then archived appropriately. People do different things, and that's the collegiate nature of Wiki. It's up to you to consider how much you want to assist others in the project, and how much you want to do your own thing. Of course, individual circumstances result in individual decisions, and you may be hurting so badly in this issue that you just want to forget it. I mention it so you are aware that I wasn't able to find it immediately, even though you made mention of it in your communication. You may use this information to inform your future decisions. Or - put simply: It causes problems when you delete messages from your talkpage - it's best not to do it in future!
I hear what you are saying about dropping this issue. If editing Star Tribune is causing you stress, I would suggest editing elsewhere on Wiki for a while, and come back to it when you are feeling stronger. Best wishes, and keep well. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds completely fair to me. So I may consider this issue closed? (I track open issues and at this time because of my physical health would appreciate being able to close this one.) Star Tribune is a Low priority WikiProject Journalism article (at least according to my rating at the moment) and I have no interest in it at this time. You'll just have to trust that I manage my talk page in a way that works for me. One other person had a similar comment by the way, quite a long time ago, and I noticed a comment about it at a meetup. To each his own (some people completely delete their talk without archiving it, right?). Thanks so much for your efforts. Best wishes for the holiday season and the new year. -Susanlesch (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your involvement is up to you. That's always been the case. I have been attempting to deal with the editing rather than the individuals, and not leaving messages on user's talkpages. I have today requested that Beaker342 cease messaging you about the issue as I can see you've made it clear that you don't wish to discuss the matter any more. Your continued involvement in the discussion about having a "style" section in the article is up to you. You are not obligated to watch the article, nor to get involved in any discussion. I suppose what I am saying, is that I have seen the issue as being about editorial content rather than behaviour. I can see where it has involved behaviour, though I have tried (and am still trying!) to steer it away from that area. You have done nothing wrong. You have nothing to feel bad about. I think Beaker342 didn't fully understand the Wiki way and has tried to pull you into this issue rather more than he should have. I haven't communicated directly with you (until today, here on my talkpage), and I have pointed out to Beaker342 that it would be inappropriate for him to continue to communicate with you. So, as far as you are concerned, yes, the matter is closed. Tuck yourself up in a comfy duvet with a warm Pot Noodle and watch some daytime TV. Wiki is not worth the stress when you are ill. You are a valued contributor - we want you to continue with your edits. You make Wikipedia a better place. Now, have a rest, and come back refreshed. Or edit in a different corner of Wiki for a while. The important thing is for you to recognised that you are valued and that you have done nothing wrong here.
The matter is closed! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help with Star Tribune, and unrelated style issues in New York Times and Time. -Susanlesch (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I rarely get these, and it's very nice when I do. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. -Susanlesch (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for your input on credit crunch. I would appreciate some help pruning those links and nixing the commentary. The other editor has quite an agenda and, at this point, starting a revert war is not my aim. Montco (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karyn Kupcinet

[edit] Help with a dispute

Hi. I got your name off Editor assistance page and I'm hoping you can help out. Me and another editor (editor #1) have been dealing with another editor (editor #2) who basically reverts every edit either of us do based on their personal feelings. The article in question is Karyn Kupcinet. As you can see from the history, it's been nothing but an ongoing edit war. Long story short, after a few weeks of the article being left alone, I decided to rewrite it. I ran this idea by the editor #1 who, after I wrote the article, copy edited what I wrote for mistakes. We both agreed the content was well written and properly sourced. Naturally, this brought editor #2 who never agrees with us out of the woodworks (after having previously been banned for being uncivil) and has changed EVERYTHING. Now, I understand that will happen, but editor #2 changed things that were properly sourced because they have one book that counters two publications that I used as references. The bottom line here is that the editor #2 doesn't want anything in the article that reflects poorly on the subject or that isn't in that one book. They've also added lots of unsourced items and attempted to stick statements near or before other statements that are properly sourced in an attempt to pass them off as sourced. Editor #1 and I have attempted to talk to editor #2 but they won't stop changing the page and constantly add things without sources and pay no attention to Wikipedia policy or style guides.

Is it possible for you to step in and take a look at my rewrite and theirs and see which one is the better version or offer any advice? I'm (of course) willing to compromise regarding the article, but the other editor and I feel that the only reason editor #2 is constantly rewriting the article is because they feel the page is theirs and they're the only one knowledgeable on the subject. They're also unwilling to compromise and rarely address either one of us attempting to agree on something. Instead, they rewrite the article and become indignant if anyone changes a word. Basically, only three of us are involved in this dispute. Another new editor has popped up recently, but I suspect that is a sockpuppet along with a few other anon IPs that have popped up as well.

Anyhow, any help would be greatly appreciated and I apologize for this being so long and/or confusing. We're both pretty much at our wit's end regarding this article and that editor. Thanks! Pinkadelica 11:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look. I'll take a closer look later and give my opinion on the talkpage. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) Any help is greatly appreciated. Pinkadelica 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karyn Kupcinet

I hope that you don't end up regretting taking on this dispute resolution. The reason that it has been so contentious can easily be explained by the posting Dooyar left in response to your initial question. This is how it has been ever since he/she began adding to this article. It's quite frustrating. Wildhartlivie 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. However, in my experience, articles get better through such disputes. There is a reason why there is a dispute, and that is usually because the article is not balanced enough. There are going to be decisions I recommend that you will support, and some that you will not support. Somehow we will work our way through to a hardened and brilliant article. I would strongly urge you to focus entirely on the article and refrain from commenting on the other editors involved no matter what they say or do. I will give this message to the other editors as well. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karyn Kupcinet

Thanks for your message. In the future, I will focus on the article and the dispute, but (and I'm not making excuses for myself) the other editor (Dooyar) rarely addresses the topic at hand and usually goes off into something else. Plus, the snide remark about Wildhartlivie being suspended from editing the article kinda ticked me off. :) We've been dealing with this guy for the past few months and, at times, it gets beyond frustrating. I apologize and look forward to finally getting a good article completed. Thanks again for helping. Pinkadelica 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What is the remedy if someone ignores the dispute process and does not acknowledge the questions being posed and discussed? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We are all volunteers and cannot be conscripted to take part in a discussion. However, if a user doesn't get involved in negotiations with the community, especially during a dispute when requested to get involved, this will be looked upon unfavourably. If there is a Request for comment on that user, such behaviour will be taken into account - though not getting involved in discussion is not, by itself, a reason for such a RfC - the user would have to be displaying disruptive behaviour for a RfC to be called.
To make it clearer: An edit dispute is common and is not by itself reason for a RfC. The first stage is discussion, then a request for assistance. If after these stages the dispute continues, and it is shown that one of the parties involved in the dispute did not fully engage in dispute resolution, then it will look poorly for them in a RfC - continued poor behaviour in some cases can lead to sanctions, such as temporary blocks. But I don't think we are anywhere near a blocking situation at the moment.
Wiki editing can be frustrating at times - a way to help is to have several areas of interest so if there is a dispute in one area you can get on with editing in another area. I have been involved in disputes which were cleared up in days, while others dragged on longer. If people are not getting involved in discussion then we have to proceed without them. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I actually have been working on other articles quite diligently. One problem I've had with it is that a specific editor has followed me to one page and started the same type of behavior that landed this article in dispute. I've actually considered changing my username. Ah well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Following another user with the deliberate intention to disrupt their legitimate editing is called Wiki stalking; this behaviour is frowned upon and if it becomes serious would be a reason for calling the RfC I mentioned above. Would you like me to take a look at the articles involved and give an impartial view? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I just took a look at the three most recent articles you've edited along with Dooyar, and in all three Dooyar was involved in the articles first. Dorothy Dandridge - your first edit appears to be 5th Dec - Dooyars was editing back in August; Janis Joplin - your first edit appears to be 11th Oct; Dooyar's is in August; Gertrude Lawrence - your first edit 7th Nov, Dooyar's was in October. There are a number of articles you're editing in which Dooyar is not involved. I've not yet seen an article in which you started and Dooyar followed. It can sometimes appear when you are in a dispute over editing that someone is targetting you, and you can start to feel victimised. I don't see any evidence for stalking at the moment, and it might be just your general feelings of frustration. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karyn Kupcinet dispute

Hi. I'm just going to apologize in advance for the (fairly civil) rant I left on the Karyn Kupcinet talk page. I appreciate your help and guidance regarding that whole dispute, but after careful consideration, I feel what I ultimately said needed to be said. You and Wildhartlivie have been amazingly patient in dealing with the other editor, but I can no longer sit back and let that editor play games and complain about being personally attacked by Wild when that is simply not the case. I know these things take time to sort out and I'm certainly not the most patient person in the world, but I honestly feel these alleged issues and debates are not issues at all and are merely a ploy to drag things out. Again, I apologize to you personally because I respect the help you have given and I honestly admire the patience you have shown regarding the whole situation. Perhaps I could've dealt with the situation in a different manner, but I'm a firm believer in calling out malarchy (I'd like to use a stronger word there!) when I see it. At this point, I am seriously considering bowing out of the whole dispute because of the other editor's diversionary tactics, lack of respect for anyone else's work and/or opinion, and their false accusations. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pink. I can remain patient and calm in this only because I'm not involved. Like you, I have got frustrated and enraged when dealing with disagreements regarding areas of Wiki in which I have been involved, so I understand where you are coming from. My advise to you is not to take this personally, and to detach yourself as far as possible from the personalities of the editors involved. Deal only with the issue of the content of the page, and ignore as far as humanly possible any personal remarks. In situations like this it is all too easy to read slurs in comments where none was intended. By remaining detached you are better able to assess proposals regardless of who makes them. Editor A, who is liked, may make a poor suggestion, while Editor B, who is not liked, may make a good suggestion. It is often hard for those involved to accept the good suggestion of Editor B. Which is why it's helpful to sometimes get that outside view - in this case, me. Stick with it - the Karyn Kupcinet page will become stronger and better through this process, and your input is greatly valued. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He's At It Again

I always get the distinct impression that UtherSRG always has a monumental ax to grind against me. He's at it again, reverting my pictures, claiming that they are "just cartoons." ANd the fact that he lets other people post their art, like with the anatomically wrong picture in Procoptodon [10], but not mine, makes him out to be a colossal hypocrite given the angst and drama I went through with him last time, when he claimed that I wasn't allowed to post "original research" pictures. --Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Make better images. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
So who died in order to make you the sole arbiter of what pictures can and can not be used in Wikipedia because they offend your superhuman sense of aesthetics? I mean, is your aesthetics the only reason why you've always taken the time to give me nothing but grief? I thought it was about how "original research pictures weren't allowed in Wikipedia because (you) said so."--Mr Fink (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
UtherSRG doesn't care about accuracy, he doesn't care about correctness, all he cares about is getting his own way, with Wikipedia and other people be damned. If he really did care about making Wikipedia better, then why would he put me through Hell with his vociferous nitpicking about the supposed inaccuracy of Deinogalerix, only be so eager to use an allegedly better, three-toed picture of what's supposed to be a one-toed kangaroo?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way anyone can get this colossal hypocrite to stop?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


How you doing? You left a message on my talk page a while ago, and I briefly looked at it, then got involved in other things. Sorry. You've pinged me again. I'm happy to look into what's troubling you, as I think you are a valuable contributor to the project. What's concerning you at the moment - point me to articles and diffs. Regards SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the same problem with UtherSRG, in that he refuses to let me post my picture of Procoptodon solely because he refuses to accept my pictures, to the point where he insists on replacing it with a "better" picture, to the point where he continually disregards the fact that it is inaccurate. [11] --Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Bates dispute

Thank you for weighing on the dispute.User:calbear22 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Any problems let me know. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help please?

Hi. I don't really know who to turn to. Could you take a look at Cottage pie, Cottage pie (redirect) *?*? and Shepherds pie. The feces seem to have met the ventilation here. I don't know how to fix this—I'm not adverse to the move itself. I think admin intervention is necessary to get the histories and talk pages in the right places. I can't remember if you are an admin or not. If not, do you know someone would could take a look. That would be really great. Happy editing TINYMARK 23:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything now points to Shepherd's pie - I hope this is the way that people wanted it. I took my cue from the first sentence of the article. Regards SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 10:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ! TINYMARK 10:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)