User talk:SilkTork/Lazarus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please add as much abuse, praise and puzzled comments as you wish. I am particularly fond of the praise. I am also very keen on Mr Kipling's Battenburg Treats.

Contents 1 email 2 Bristol 3 Beer 4 RfA thanks 5 RFA thanks 6 Re: Coquitlam Station 7 Encounter categorization 8 Rugby help 9 Blocking 10 Paul Geisert 11 World cup 12 Clothing categories 13 Misleading edit summaries, in bulk 14 Your opinion please. 15 {{clothingstub}} and Cat:Clothing stubs 16 Editing: Beer 17 Consensus 18 Train stations: kicking the hornet's nest 19 I've nominated the portal approval page for deletion 20 Guinness Storehouse 21 Beer 22 Copyright violation template 23 Minardi's 2 Cents 24 re: let's talk 25 User:Stlemur's reply 26 User:Noisy's reply 27 User:Pypex's reply 28 Re: Brewbox, microbreweries category

[edit] email

do I assume that you did, or that you did not, revieve my email?

Please be very careful what you say on tghe gf beer article. There is no evidence that brewing makes beer safe for coeliacs. Piles of evidence that pllenty of gluten is not converted to amino acids. this is really dangerous. people reading the article will be very happy top believe statemnts to the contraqry and persuade themselves that one or two pints a wekk is ok. This leads to bowel cancer ande oseoperosis. How caqn i stress any mopre clearly the need to be accurate and not allow these dangerous claims be given equal balance with the scvietific evidence? if you have not recdieved my email, i do not care who yuo think i am, what you think of my face, or whether you have a jauniced view of me and my work. All you need to know is that a lot of people can die if theyt are not told an accurate truth. steve 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My own research into the matter of brewing with a modest amount of barley shows there are differences of opinion. The aim of Wikipededia is to show a balanced view. Words like "claim" rather than "feel" give a point of view that is considered inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You are so close to your subject that you feel that your own reading of the evidence is the only view to take. My edits to the article are only trying to put in place a balance - to suggest that the brewers themselves have one view, and that there is a conflicting view which is not, as yet, supported by any more convincing evidence than the brewers view, but that the conclusion is that perhaps, for reasons of safety, it might be advisable to drink beers such as Budweiser with caution and in moderation. This article, for example, gives a balanced view: Is Beer Gluten-Free and Safe for People with Celiac Disease? SilkTork 10:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am oviously going to have to convince you - which is going to be timconsuming. There are loads of sources but they tend nto to directly say "trher is gluten in beer". Why? why woulod you write an article saying b"eer is wet"? It is directly observable. so is the result of an ELISA test. Thre is controversy over this test, but NOT over whether it detects gluten, but if it is sensitrive enough to pick up (or accurately account for) hordein. If anything it underestimates ethe level of glluten in beer. Also obvious is the head on a beer. What causes this? It is not detergent left over after cleaning the vat. It is caused by a sticky-stretchiness -GLUTEN (see para 1 under traditional beers at http://www.fosters.com.au/enjoy/beer/beer_and_gluten.htm - by the way this Fosters comment was written this way after I persoanlly indicated and proved their former comments were misleading). gf beers use different ingredientas and when there is a head it is caused by non-gliadin, nom-hordein, non-secalin proteins. how do we know? these proteins cannot be c`reated, and were not present from the start. I talk to the development scietists trying to improve ELISA. My research is extensive, and lets face it matters a lot to me. I am very happy you are going to do a point by point with wikwoble, I suppose I can oversee it. But please do not place anything dangerous ther until we have decided on a form or words. What you wrote is not balanced - it just give equal weight to a myth and a scie3ntific and provable fact. That is not balance. steve 10:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Time consuming is the nature of Wikipedia! Time consuming, frustrating and sometimes stressful! But the aim is to create a balanced and credible online free encyclopedia - so all the work is worth it in the end. The process we are now going through is seen as one of the most valuable aspects for the ultimate credibility of Wikipedia. Editors debating the finer points of an article. While this goes on, however, there are established and important conventions that are at the heart of Wikipedia.

One is that "Wikipedia is not an advertising service." There appears to be - intentional or not - a desire to promote the glutenfreebeerfestival website. My concern, and I hope you share that concern, is that the Gluten free beer article remains free from the taint of being a promotional aid for a website that you appear to be quite passionate about. The article in itself should provide all the information a reader should need to evaluate the situation regarding gluten free beers. A link to a website which reviews gluten free beers is appropriate, but comments on how good that website is, and how significant or important the work of Steve Ford is, or an inflated sense of the importance of having a range of gluten free beers available at a local beer festival do the core values of the article no good at all. Reference links which "appear" to be more concerned with getting the name of the website on the page as many times as possible (intentional or not) are not giving the article a good impression. Both our aims here are to make an article on gluten free beer as brilliant as possible. Any stuff which looks like it is promotional taints the article. If there is an alternative route then, for the benefit of the article, lets go down that route. My next stage will be to go back to using references to the Bella articles as that takes away some additional references to the glutenfreebeerfestival website, and takes away the taint of the article being used as an advertisement for glutenfreebeerfestival.com .

Another convention is that material should not be original research. This is a tricky area and does cause a lot of stress! In order to show that an article is not original research, we like to have valid referencing. Some of the current referencing is to Dr Steve Ford of the glutenfreebeerfestival website. It is questionable how valid he is as a reliable source. It might be better, given the controversy surrounding the formation of this article and the ongoing debate, that Dr Ford's primary sources are used rather than quotes from Dr Ford himself, just to avoid any suggestion of original research, and to give more solid credibility to the viewpoints.

The final point is the one about point of view. Many of us have a slight bias in favour of a certain point of view. We have an opinion. That is why it is important to have a peer review of what we have written. It is an academically rigorous process and is valued among experienced editors. The end result is hopefully a balanced and hardened article. There are times in this ongoing debate about the gluten free beer article when I do question my own involvement, and the unbiased nature of my editing. I have asked an experienced Admin to look at what has been going on, and he feels that the process is unfolding as it should. I admit, though, I still have doubts at times, but I am hopeful that the step by step process of editing the article will reveal any potential bias on my part. SilkTork 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Much of this is not for me. My point to you is about the dangerfous material that could arise (and did arise) under a mislpaced idea of balnce. I have already said I will not get involved in any refernce to me and my site - Take this up with the person you are primarly debating things with. But engage me on the point i made above. Personnaly I don't care if my name appears on these pages, I do care if someone uses your words to poisen themselves. steve 13:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The very aim of Wikipedia is to give all important points of view. It would be inappropriate and against the principles of Wiki for one view to dominate, unless that was a dominant view in itself. Wikipedia is not a soap-box. It is an encyclopedia. You are sailing slightly on the wrong side of Original Research and Point of View for an encyclopedia entry. Strong, one-sided views are appropriate on glutenfreebeerfestival.com, but not here. Here we hope to give both sides of the debate - EVEN IF WE DISAGREE WITH THEM! I acknowledge your points, and I hope that you will see that my careful edits include notes of caution. But I feel we would be wrong to dismiss the brewery scientists with an airy wave of the hand and the summary that they don't what they are talking about, even though there appears to be no HARD EVIDENCE that they are wrong - only SUPPOSITION (no matter how sensible that supposition actually is!). A quote such as this, from Donald D. Kasarda, research chemist in the Crop Improvement and Utilization Research Unit of the United States Department of Agriculture, shows the lack of hard evidence: "There is some evidence from analytical methods involving antibodies prepared to gliadins that there are peptides in beer that react with these antibodies. It is not proved beyond any doubt that the peptides in beer are actually toxic to celiac patients, but it is quite possible that the peptides remaining in any barley-based or wheat-based beer, Sapporo included, are harmful to celiac patients." To present your views, which are clearly not in line with Dr Kasarda's - an expert in the field, as hard facts would be inappropriate. SilkTork 13:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You do not understand the point. It is not about peptides it is about gluten NOT being chenged in the brewing process. it IS hard evidence that ELISA tests show remaining gluten after brewing. I am not interested in suposed effects of peptides - I am interested in UNCHANGED gliadin and hordein. Sapporo's evidence is IRRELEVANT and used by those who do not understanfd what they mean - dangerous. You know what they say abougt a little knowledge? Thank you also for the lesson in epistemology but I sadly have to give them avry day. Note I have not put a single reference to my site on this article. it is not about whether I enjoy this arguemnt, but whether half understood comments are dangerous. There is zero evidence that gluten is remnoved to safe levels by brweing. There is plenty of evidence (not sensible suposition) that it is not. you are baloancing arguments over wherter pens have ink on the evidence thatpencils are ink-free. Please understasnd this point. steve 14:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have knowledge of the subject, and some passion. The concern here is not about how right you are, but about the available debate. You appear to think of the article as an essay in convincing people of the dangers of regular beers. I am concerned with producing a balanced encyclopedic entry on the different viewpoints on the subject of gluten free beer. Asserting loudly how right you are in your view is actually not the way to convince me that you want to create a balanced article. Is there some material that you could point me to that you feel should be in the article, but is not? Or are you suggesting that the balance of opinion in the article is too biased in one direction? SilkTork 15:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually reading what I am writing? I am not interested in seeing my name on this page or references to my websiet . You are not givbvn a balenced view. there is no evidence to support what you are asying. Remove that reference RIGHT NOW. I would rather there was no article to gf beer on this site than one that encourageds readers "to maqke3 up own mind" ('Oh look, no one knows for sure') too many will use bad evidence3 like yours to rationalise po;isening themselves. And many like me will have no sympotroms - untjil they fall over and finde it is too lat e to repair their bones, or have bowel cancer. Look at teh fosters item. It is evidence. Look at the sapporo quote. It is not. If you do not undersatnd the difference find someone who does. your balance is irresaponsible. from the two sources, thaqt is 100% ecvidence. Stop trying to prove you are right, get over the ego trip, and do the right thing. the BALANCE of known facts are that there are DEFINITELY dangerous glycoproteins after a mash is brewd. It is not beeing loud - it is 100% evidence thta no one takenm seriously denies. if you ned more try http://www.regional.org.au/au/abts/1999/sheehan.htm or http://www.vscht.cz/kch/kestazeni/post03/8.pdf or http://www.asbcnet.org/journal/pdfs/2006/ASBCJ-64-0166.pdf or a multitude of references. dont get disatracteds by words like "peptides" - your use of thar other ;matter amonts to dissembliing not balance. balance is not givbeing ;equal weight to truth and untruth - or if it is this is notr an encyclopedia. lastly, you might find this entertaining. I have to do it for a living. i am only doing it here to stop your loack of underswtanding huritng sojmeone else. steve 08:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This image was sent to me by the above user who had trouble uploading it himself. Attached was the following text (I took the liberty of correcting typo's etc, just for ease of understanding): "this represents the ELISA sampling of two gluten free beers - one with non-gluten ingredients, one using barley. Note that the test on a final product reveals residual gluten - so the second is a "low-gluten" gluten free beer. The image is not suitable for the article itself, as it uses confidential certification that would require permissions from various sources, and would mean little to most people. However, it is important that you are convinced, as the article I read this morning suggests there are aguments on both sides. All beers made from barley or wheat have residual hordein or gliadin. The only evidence that can really deal with that fact would be a certificate that showed zero residual gluten according to ELISA - but even then there is a growing point of view that these tests underrepresents hordein. This is because the test's primary role is to detect gliadin in wheat products. This should not be thought to suggest there are false positives. The only concern is false negatives."wikwobble

[edit] Bristol

Hi Steve, a bit of advice if you get a moment. Like you I recently got the suggestbot to come up with some articles for me to play with. (Pub Names is one which requires me to sit down in a darkened room for several hours on end!). Anyway, first up was the stub Greater Bristol. I've looked at it and I'm not sure it should be an article at all. I've put something on the discussion page but thought I'd ask for your view on a couple of procedural issues.

1) Just out of interest, do you think Greater Bristol adds any value that Bristol doesn't?

2) If not, would this be a candidate for merger or deletion?

3) Depending upon (2) above, what is the procedure for formally proposing the article be deleted/merged?

Sorry to bother you with this, but I know you have studied and embraced both the procedures and the syntax far more than I. Feel free to refer this to another user/editor if you know of one who has particular expertise in this area.

Any thoughts on my talkpage or here gratefully accepted!

Cheers Duncshine 10:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. There is a Greater Manchester article and a Manchester article. There is also a Greater Birmingham article and a Birmingham article, though the Greater Birmingham article is very much a stub. It looks from the evidence of the Greater Manchester example that it is possible to produce a decent article, but that may not be the case for every region. You could propose a merger and see what other editors say. This page gives advice: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Essentially you put this tag {{merge|Greater Bristol}} on the Bristol page and {{merge|Bristol}} on the Greater Bristol page. And then you put your reasons for the suggested merge on the talk page. Good luck! SilkTork 11:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Steve, I've added the tags and reasons, we'll see what people think. I think Greater Manchester and Greater London definitely deserve articles as they are legal entities in their own right. Bristol and Birmingham are slightly different. Anyway, we'll see what the concensus is. Thanks for the tips. Duncshine 11:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer

Yeah, but then there will be a bunch of drunk gguys at their computers going lkjhlghfewaglkjhfsaglnwfdlhglkjshglfeshglfg for every alcohol article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardkselby (talk • contribs).

There already are! SilkTork 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support for my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad I meet your criteria. Most of all, I'm glad you took the time to evaluate my candidacy, as I believe that's what keeps RfA running smoothly, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Please let me know at my talk page if I can assist you with any admin-related tasks, or just if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 02:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Awesome! Glad to have helped. SilkTork 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Coquitlam Station

Yes it should, the name "Coquitlam Station" now is an abbreviation of Coquitlam Central Station, though there is a future station on the same line that is going to be called Coquitlam Station....(confusing, but eh, it's the government) And yeah, you're right, a greater distinction should be made about those two stations in the article. _dk 23:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encounter categorization

Are you certain a CIA publication run mostly by Americans should be in the category "Literary magazines of the United Kingdom?" I have no strong objections at all -- just asking. The categorization strikes me as a bit of a stretch (but only a bit). Best, Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-04 13:27 (UTC)

No problem. I have returned it to the more embracing cat which is less contentious. SilkTork 13:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby help

Hey, sorry for the late reply. The only way a move could be arranged would be to move all the subpages of the Portal as well. However, before you do that, please make sure you have a consensus on the talk page of the Portal. You may also need to use Wikipedia:Requested moves so that more people get to know about the proposed move. If you need any further help, please feel free to ask. Cheers, Tangotango 08:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with the situation as is. The move created a redirect from Rugby football to Rugby so the Portal link now works. Your message, however, has reminded me to leave a note on the Portal talk page mentioning the situation. Cheers! SilkTork 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

Thanks. I appreciate your comments. I was very reluctant to block him. Normally admins who are party to disputes don't do so. There are sometimes exceptions: where, for example, a serious issue arises where immediate action is called for and no other admin can be found to act. That was what happened on that case. When he went to his fourth revert he was reported by 172 to the 3RR page. I did two things. I added a note explaining the background to his report, and left a note on Feline's page pointing out the fact that he had breached 3RR and advised him to revert his revert. Had he done so I would have left a note on the 3RR page asking that he not be blocked. At a very minimum having hit four he should have stopped.

The problem was that, not alone did he not stop and not revert, he did a fifth revert, with comments that indicated that he would go on to do more. In those circumstances in the past admins, even where they are a party to an edit war, have stepped in if no one else was available. I did so because there was a real danger that with 5 reverts to his name, and a likely 6th or more, others who had reached 3 would then decide that they would also break 3RR, if only to stop him. So we could have had two, three or more reverting each other over and over until some admin got to them. The whole edit war would have become much worse, with bad blood all over, and accusations as to who started what first, etc.

As I said, it is very very rarely that admins have to put on their admin hat during an edit war that they are involved in and we all are very very slow to do that. I was worried that if he wasn't stopped, and did a 6th and beyond, we'd have a stampede of others saying "hey, if he can get away with this, so can I". I judged the case to be one of those very rare exceptions where an admin had to intervene. I have only ever done that once before that I can remember of. In that case, as with last night, I imposed the standard block (not a higher one, even though having climbed to 5 reverts a higher one was deserved). I placed a note at three places: on the relevant talk page where the edit war had been taking place, at the 3RR page, and at WP:ANI, explaining what I had done, why I had done it, and asking for admins to review the decision. (Often the standard procedure there is for another admin to unblock the blocked user, then immediately reblock them but in their own name.) It didn't arise in last night's case, but had it I would also have done what I did on the other occasion, which was to withdraw completely from the debate until an independent review of the block had taken place. (I had already done 3RR so I wouldn't have been doing any edits anyhow, but if I not done the three, I would have backed out of the debate.) I was completely upfront about what I had done and why I had done it, stood back and left it to other admins, once they became available, to review it. Normally admins don't undo a block without discussing it with the blocking admin first. I had it clear in the messages I left that I was leaving it up to them to decide on the issue. If they decided the block was wrong, or too long, or too short, that would be OK by me.

I fully appreciate your concerns. I didn't want to be placed in that position. I acted in what I believed to be the best interests of Wikipedia to stop a whole host of others joining in to follow his breaking of 3RR. I did it publicly, and made sure it was fully public, not a secret block that no-one knew about. I asked for it to be reviewed, publicly. The response I received, both publicly on the pages and privately via email, was that I was right to block him. While 4 reverts can be explained away as an accident, a fifth, when someone has already been told they have breached 3RR, with edit summaries threatening more, in the views of other admins, required immediate actions and they viewed my actions are proportional, well judged, and upfront. I hated to be placed in that situation. With a bit of luck I won't be placed in that situation again for a long long time.

Thank you for letting me know. As I say, I understand fully your worries. It was something I normally would not dream of doing. But given the number of reverts and the threats to do more, I felt that, reluctantly, I had no choice but to put my proverbial admin had on and intervene. (BTW in the past, when he exceeded 3RR I have blocked my best friend. So even though I was in an edit war with Feline, when it comes to exercising blocks I instinctively adopt a neutral stance. Had it been someone who agreed with me on that page I would have blocked them also. I hope Feline realises that it was because he broke 3RR (and in fact climbed to 5) not because he had clashed with me, that he was blocked. I have in the past blocked people I admired and unblocked people I detested!)

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that you were part of the revert war. He was guilty of three reverts and more because he had been pushed in that direction by yourself. As he pointed out, you were on the limit of three reverts yourself. Three reverts is not something that you are allowed to do because that's the limit - it's a guide to suggest that a war is happening. To be honest I think both of you at this point need a serious talking to. You are both out of order. By going up to the three limit revert, and then blocking, you are playing to the rules of the game, but not the spirit. Sometimes these things happen - such is the nature of wiki stress. But you should now stand back and take a look at the situation. The first stage in coming to a consensus on The British Isles and moving forward is for you to accept, even privately to yourself, that just perhap - just a tiny bit - you might have reacted out of passion rather than understanding. That just perhaps - just a tiny bit - you have a different point of view, but you are forcing your point of view through blocking another user rather than through debate or other appropriate strategies. As for comments of support - at the last count I saw three comments critical of your action. We all get into debates about content. My advice is that when you get into a heated debate it is better to explain yourself fully and revert just once a day. Don't push the other person into a revert war. As an admin you have a resonsibility to be behaving much better than the other guy. You should be leading by example. At the moment the example is of you engaging in a revert war and blocking when you run out of reverts. And then, when the questionable nature of your action is pointed out, you argue that you did the right thing! SilkTork 08:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That is inaccurate on numerous fronts. I do not block people I am in edit wars with. I did not in this case. That user was in edit wars with a number of people. Unlike everyone else he chose to go beyond 3 reverts and was reported for blocking (not by me). I urged him to step back. He then continued edit warring with other people a fourth time, then a fifth time, and declared his intention to do a sixth and as many more as he could. In normal circumstances having done his fourth he would have been automatically banned by an admin. It was purely by chance that none was available. I would not have intervened even on his fifth reversion, though users who reach that number have been blocked by some users for anything from 3 days to one week. But when having done his fifth he declared his intention to do a sixth, a seventh and as many as he could get away with, while taunting the numerous people he had been in edit wars with that he could keep going while they in effect chickened out at three. In those circumstances a ban (usually quite a long one) is automatic. It was purely by chance that at that moment no admin was around. If he had been allowed to continue, many of those who had stopped at 3 could well have decided 'well fuck it. If he can get away with it, so can I' and started doing extra reverts. In those exceptional circumstances, where a user would normally have been blocked but hadn't been simply because at that moment no-one was around to do it, it is normal for an admin, even if they had been party to the edit war, to intervene and do the block. What do you suggest I do? Let him revert up to eight, nine, ten? Have other users then join in and have a three or four way revert war which could have seen five or more users having to be be blocked? Let the page descend into chaos? It is standard, and normal, in those extreme cases for someone in my position to intervene once it is done (i) openly, (ii) honestly, (iii) in a way that does not see the admin gain any form of advantage by the intervention.

I advertised the block openly on 3 pages, gave an honest explanation for exactly what I did and the reasoning behind it, and withdrew from editing the page. As it so happened having done three reverts I could not have continued editing anyway, but even if I hadn't I would have withdrawn completely from editing the page until a totally independent admin became available and reviewed the block. The block was reviewed by independent admins and they judged by actions in the circumstances to have been right. They were right in that emergency situation. I hope a similar situation does not arise again for a long long time but if I does, like other admins, I will act in exactly the same manner: (1) urge the person breaking 3RR to stop; (2) wait in expectation that an admin will intervene; (3) if no admin is available and the situation is getting out of control block the user breaking WP rules; (4) advertise the fact openly and honestly, (5) withdraw from the editing of the page until the another admin can review the block.

I am fed up having to explain what was a perfectly correct, perfectly open action, done under Wikipedia rules to deal with an emergency. It was Feline who was 100% at fault, not me. He acted dishonestly and broke the rules. I acted openly and honestly and enforced them. I have nothing to apologise for. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you are "fed up", and I will now leave you in peace. However, I strongly suggest you do not again use admin tools against another user with whom you are in dispute - if nothing else, just to save yourself from this sort of questioning! Calling differences of opinion on the wording of an article an "emergency" is perhaps a little strong, and it is not encouraging that you are unable to reflect on the implications of this situation. Be that as it may, happy editing! SilkTork 09:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Geisert

I have reverted my own closing of the AfD in light of what you said, but please note: If you say in your nomination that what you already have in mind is anything other than deletion, others are likely to call for a speedy close. Don't mention redirecting in your nomination, if you want the discussion to proceed naturally. Kimchi.sg 03:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Points noted. Thanks for the revert. SilkTork 08:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the matter, SilkTork; now I understand the situation, I have retracted my call for a speedy close and replaced it with a vote for the outcome we both desire. My apologies for the inconvenience. — Haeleth Talk 12:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World cup

There has been a great deal of debate going on over the future of the World cup article, both on its page and the talk pages of its major contributors. Although it may ultimately become a redirect, I hope you would consider undoing the changes you have made until a consensus can be reached. Erath 11:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clothing categories

You might want to join the discussion on recategorizing other clothing articles in Talk:History of Western fashion#Resolving_the_Edit_War and following. - PKM 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a quick look. Seems quite involved. I'll take a closer look when I have more time. SilkTork 20:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. - PKM 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading edit summaries, in bulk

I notice you're making a large number of edits where you delete a category from an article, but you enter a misleading edit summary saying "clean up"[1], or "fixing double category"[2]. What's up here? —Michael Z. 2006-07-10 13:19 Z

Really, I'd like an explanation before you continue[3] what appears to be sneaking a massive number of changes. How was this a double category? —Michael Z. 2006-07-10 13:33 Z

• Hi Michael. I was removing the Microbrewery cat which has been replaced by the Beer and breweries cat. It was a formal consensus decision to recategorise the brewery cats. However, at the time the Beer and breweries cat replaced all the other brewery cats the Microbrewery cat was somehow left behind, creating a double brewery cat. I have closed down the Microbrewery cat and removed the Microbrewery cat tag from the thirty or so breweries affected. Thanks for your concern. SilkTork 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[moving discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer#Removing category:Microbreweries —MZ]

[edit] Your opinion please.

Please see Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Request_for_comment_suggestion regarding your comments made in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Buell_Anderson. I hope that I correctly voiced your earlier concerns. Ste4k 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That topic is very involved and will require considerable reading and research. I will give my opinion, but please bear with me because it may take some time. Cheers! SilkTork 22:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{clothingstub}} and Cat:Clothing stubs

First of all, STOP. Secondly, your out-of-process creations have been discovered and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, and may later be taken to WP:SFD. Just in general, in order to create a new stub type and category, one must propose it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals and get consensus, besides for which your creations do not conform to our naming conventions. OK - a discussion will now take place. Please don't change over any more stubs for now. Thanks. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 11:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Those were my first attempts at creating a stub type. I haven't done any work on them since creating them. I'll be guided by your advice. SilkTork 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian is right. If you'd taken the time to read the instructions you'd have known to go to WP:WSS/P, and would have been told that the naming guidelines for stub templates insist on a hyphen between the topic and the word stub. Grutness...wha? 11:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Again. No problem. I have been made aware of the error. I have advised others [4] not to use the templates until you guys sort out the problem. Is there anything you'd like me to do in the meantime? SilkTork 11:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really - hopefully it won't be a huge problem to fix it up... depends whether you replaced the old stub on articles or just made the old stub template into a redirect. Grutness...wha? 11:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC) - PS - thanks for not being annoyed about this!

There was one stub template {{fashion-stub}}. I copied that template and created two new templates: {{fashionstub}} and {{clothingstub}}, and created a new stub category - the clothing one. I then set about searching through the {{fashion-stub}} list, deleting that stub and replacing it with either {{fashionstub}} or {{clothingstub}} depending on whether the article was about fashion or about clothing. SilkTork 11:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC) PS. Nothing to get annoyed about. I made a mistake. You guys are fixing it. I'm glad you spotted the error. I'm slightly embarrassed is all! SilkTork 11:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing: Beer

Hi Silk Tork. I see you are a beer afficianado like myself. Regarding the inclusion of the internal link to "beer drinking records" under the general category of "beer", I felt that beer drinking records (not other alcohol consumption records) would be appropriate and should be referenced from the "beer" category. I agree that a beer drinking record sub-section is probably not appropriate under "beer", but certainly a link to beer drinking records is as appropriate as the current link to "pub games" since speed beer drinking certainly is a pub game at most pubs I have frequented. I removed the "merge" suggestions on "beer drinking records" as it had been up for several weeks with no ensuing discussion. I will leave it up to see if discussion ensues. I think it is not appropriate to have "beer drinking records" merged into "Guinness world records" as Guinness apparently is no longer accepting eating or drinking records out of fear of litigation, and a beer drinking record could be alternately established outside of Guinness (i.e. Ripleys believe it or Not, etc.). Your thoughts? Apparent Logic 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I see you are now working on the Beer games article. I think that is the most appropriate place for the speed drinking record as that article already contains references to speed drinking. Happy editing. I hope to see you contribute to more beer articles. Why not join: Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer.

Apparent Logic 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Just signed up. Thanks.

Hi Silk Tork: You and I realize that the link to World Beer Drinking Records is there via the "Beer Culture" link since we have both worked on it, but an uninformed user who visits the beer page would not know that. The user needs to click on the subcategory "Beer culture" then know enough to click on "Drinking Culture" when he arrives at the second page. Additionally, when you search for "Beer Drinking Records" that page was replaced by a redirect to "Drinking Culture" by you, and the user needs to scan the contents to realize the sub-section is there. That's 3 redirects. I don't think adding a direct link to the section under the "Beer" category "duplicates the link", it just clarifies that the section is present and facilitates navigation to it. I design websites and understand how the average user navigates. To suppose that someone would understand that "records" were under "beer culture" would be a mistake. Perhaps 1 in 100 people would be able to find the final link. I feel that a link to "beer records" in a category discussing beer is just as worthy as one to "Pub games", "Pub crawl", and "Public house", which you do not have a problem with. Do you agree? Apparent Logic 14:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are various aspects of beer. Not all aspects can or should be directly linked from the main beer article, otherwise it would become overheavy with links. The best thing that can be done is to group related interests together in one article or category and then link to that category. It's certainly worth considering if Pub games and Pub crawl and Public house are all needed. Though I think you are being very playful when you suggest that a redundant and unknown beer drinking record is significant enough to deserve a direct link. SilkTork 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've fiddled a bit to include a more direct link to drinking games. See what you think. SilkTork 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

When you're making a huge change to a collaborative project — as you just did to WikiProject:Beer's goals and then before that in trying to eliminate Category:Microbreweries — you've got, got, got to seek Wikipedia:Consensus. That means at least some discussion beforehand, somewhere where people interested in the subject will know to look for it.

Yes, I know, WP:BOLD. See the "Note also..." section in that guideline. --Stlemur 12:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your objection. I understand that you are not happy with my rewording of the goals. The Goals section was written a while ago and needed adjusting. "Getting stewed to the brim" is amusing frat talk, but is not suitable for a serious encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing process. If you are not happy with my exact wording, then please make adjustments. That's what this open policy is about. A total revert is not the most delicate way of editing and tends to lead to hostility. Which wording would you be happier with? SilkTork 12:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't "reword" the goals, you substantively changed them without discussion. What I would be happy with is discussion. --Stlemur 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little more rewording. I've done it in stages to make it easier to undo sections. Have a look and let me know what you think. SilkTork 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Train stations: kicking the hornet's nest

Well, we've gotten everyone riled up on this one, haven't we? Mangoe 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Next kick: delete Amtrak station stops. Mangoe 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, but at some point after sufficient discussion, we should pull together all the comments and ideas and see what form of consensus we have for saying that the proposal has the agreement of enough editors for it to be a proposed policy. I've just found this, which may be of help: Wikipedia:How to create policy. SilkTork 08:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also this: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines SilkTork 08:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've nominated the portal approval page for deletion

Since you pinged me concerning the village pump discussion on this page, I thought it only courteous to return the favor concerning the page deletion nomination. You can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals.

--Transhumanist 03:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did. I thought about it, but wondered if it might be considered disruptive. Anyway, whatever happens, the Portal guys might decide to alter their approach. They appear to be genuinely well-meaning, and hadn't considered the implications of what they were doing. SilkTork 12:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guinness Storehouse

Great, didn't realise there was already an article. It's probably worth mentioning in the article that you can't actually visit the brewery - only the exhibition in the storehouse. Stevage 08:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer

Please, please raise items regarding beer for discussion before blindly doing nerges. I've reversed your merge of Burton upon Trent brewing. Noisy | Talk 09:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! I'm pleased you have an interest in getting involved in doing beer articles. But please do not revert in future without making contact with me - there is a reason for my actions, and if you can't immediately see the reason then we can talk about it. This is less hostile than a blunt revert which can result in a degree of bad feeling. The article in question was a copy of material already found in the Burton upon Trent. That material remains there, as it does reflect a significant portion of that town's history. The other appropriate place for the material is in a general history of the development of beer history in England, which is where I placed it. Having the same material in three places is perhaps too much, don't you think? I await your response. SilkTork 10:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To let you know. I've again redirected the sub-article to the main article. I have given explanations in the edit summaries. But to make it clear: The English beer article is the main article on the history and development of beer and brewing in England. As such a section on the brewing in Burton upon Trent is appropriate. Other sections on the history and development of beer in England can and will be added to that article. A section on the brewing industry in Burton is appropriate in the general article on Burton, so the current section stays there. Both those articles will need further editing and developing. A slightly different focus will emerge from the two articles. In the Burton article the focus will be on the impact of brewing on the town, in the Beer article the focus will be on the impact of Burton on beer. I hope this is clear. Any questions let me know. SilkTork 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that other people on the project got in ahead of me, and reversed your edits. We don't have to finish Wikipedia tomorrow, you know: we have got a fair bit of time before the universe's computing power runs out. Just propose things before madly rushing ahead and doing them, and you'll find out in the fullness of time whether you have got consensus for your actions. Category:Articles to be merged tells you what the templates are and how to go about things. Noisy | Talk 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation template

Hello, SilkTork. I noticed that you put a copyright violation notice on Talk:Channel 4 - The 100 Greatest albums. The copyright violation template should go on the article page instead of the talk page. Also, the article should be blanked first. Thanks, Kjkolb 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know. I'll make the adjustment. SilkTork 09:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minardi's 2 Cents

Thanks, Witht the Burton On Trent brewing article I thought that it was "taking over" the towns article, so I moved it out. I do though, totally agree with your explanation above, and I think its the way to go. Maybe stick a redirect on Burton On Trent Brewing? It is a very important subject in the area. As for me, i'm only here to keep making steady small edits as its all I have time and inclination for. I keep trying to make the place better though!

[edit] re: let's talk

SilkTort, thanks for the message. No, at this time I don't really have a direct problem with your edits or personality. I'm not subscribed to all, of the beer articles yet and much of what you do I don't see. I was responding to the concerns of other users and really wanted to head off a major confrontation before it got started. I stand by my comments regarding merging — I think that consensus should be sought first. And, let me assure you, it generally is. You will piss off a lot of people by what is effectively deleting an article without discussing it first. But you may want to find that out for yourself. I saw the complaints on Wikiproject:Beer, and I looked at your talk page archives which had people begging you to stop unilaterally recategorizing articles. The guy on the Wikiproject thinks that you are a troll. That's bad. I've been here a long time and I've seen very valuable editors and even friends driven away because they could not edit collaboratively and I was just trying to defuse a conflict by presenting my views. Please keep in mind that I scolded the other poster for calling you a troll. — goethean ॐ 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stlemur's reply

Well, first, I do feel like you're being aggressive in your edits. WP:BOLD is one thing, but it's not a universal excuse; you shouldn't just delete a category or an article without consensus, and there are well-established procedures for seeing if there is such a consensus. This is the case with Category:Microbreweries, where, according to the vote, there is no support for deleting that category other than yours.

Second of all, I feel like you're obfuscating and evasive in responding to criticism and questions. For example, here:

"When you're making a huge change to a collaborative project — as you just did to WikiProject:Beer's goals and then before that in trying to eliminate Category:Microbreweries — you've got, got, got to seek Wikipedia:Consensus. That means at least some discussion beforehand, somewhere where people interested in the subject will know to look for it.

Yes, I know, WP:BOLD. See the "Note also..." section in that guideline. --Stlemur 12:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your objection. I understand that you are not happy with my rewording of the goals. The Goals section was written a while ago and needed adjusting. "Getting stewed to the brim" is amusing frat talk, but is not suitable for a serious encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing process. If you are not happy with my exact wording, then please make adjustments. That's what this open policy is about. A total revert is not the most delicate way of editing and tends to lead to hostility. Which wording would you be happier with? SilkTork 12:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't "reword" the goals, you substantively changed them without discussion. What I would be happy with is discussion. --Stlemur 13:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little more rewording. I've done it in stages to make it easier to undo sections. Have a look and let me know what you think. SilkTork 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)"

I was quite clear in saying what my objection was, and you simply did not address what I was talking about.

Finally, sometimes it seems like you're making edits that indicate a real misunderstanding of the subject matter. For example, [[Talk:Mash ingredients#Merge with Adjunct (beer) would be a bad idea]]|here:

"We do need a detailed article on the differing malts, and this is a brilliant start - though at the moment this is mainly about homebrewing malts which are different to commercial brewing malts. The section on British malts gives the game away as no commercial brewer uses a "mild" malt.

I propose this is developed as a homebrewing article. The adjuncts article is being developed with world-wide commercial brewing in mind, so would not be an appropriate merge with that. Also, it would be good to keep adjuncts, malts and hops separate in their own articles. Some information can be taken from here and used in the Malt article - though care has to be taken that homebrewing information is not transposed - the processes and ingredients do differ. SilkTork 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is just plain wrong. There is no substantive difference between commercial and homebrewing malts, the article is not specifically a homebrewing article and there's nothing in there that makes it so, and I named three major British breweries right off the bat that use mild malt. And yet, by the time you'd initiated the discussion, you'd already made the recategorization.

And it isn't just me saying this; looking back over your talk archive, people have been raising these issues with your editing style since at least January. Based on all that, do you see why it comes across to me as deliberately disruptive? --Stlemur 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Noisy's reply

I notice that you've used 'arrogant' in trying to describe how you perceive that others may see your edits. I don't see that at all, just someone who's very impetuous.

From your user page I see that you are the same age as me to within a couple of years, so I think that I can recognise in you a few of the traits that I have, and a few of the cycles of frustration that I have been through in my career on Wikipedia. One of the characteristics I have is that I've been around the block a few times, so I recognise problems - and have the solutions - that those who are a bit younger don't have the perspective to see. With this viewpoint I proceed to make edits based on experience ... but people who follow along behind don't have the background, or know the assumptions I'm working on, and start raising a stink. Having recognised this happening, I now take things a lot slower and am prepared to back down for the time being with the expectation that in the fullness of time people will come around and do things in a sensible fashion.

There have been a few times when I have nearly blown my top with frustration:

• the advent of categories seemed like a good idea, until authors started using them for every conceivable thing under the sun, rather than proceeding along a well-defined path or following an existing cataloguing system
• Jimbo started imposing censorship based on his own values, rather than those of the community
• administrators started quoting WP:IAR as if it was one of the four basic principles that govern Wikipedia, rather than the very last resort.

When faced with circumstances like these, you can either face up to them and try argument and logic in an attempt to change opinions, in which case you'll get nowhere, and have a heart attack; or you can bite your tongue and go and correct spelling mistakes for a week or two until you have the blinding revelation that this is only the internet, and not real life. Losing a battle here - or even the war - will only affect your self-esteem, and not your relationship with those you work with, live with or go down the pub with.

Until you reach the understanding that everyone else who edits on Wikipedia is a tosser, and it doesn't matter what the hell they think of you, you'll just come up against one stressful situation after another.

There is no right and wrong here; just what other people let you get away with. My advice: follow the policies and guidelines unless they're patently stupid; vote for good things and against bad things; if someone reverts you, go and do something else in a totally different area, like vandal patrol ... and at least once a month take a whole day off. Noisy | Talk 00:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is for you?  :-) Noisy | Talk 10:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pypex's reply

My main contention was basically you went against the then status quo with restructuring and moving pages, but considering your 100% more qualified to talk about beer than me I can't complain. Considering the hours you've put in I don't see that anyone can have much cause for complaint.

I have to agree with Noisy in saying that everyone else on wikipedia is a tosser, and that every time you edit someones work you potentially attract flack, and there are many members who will fight you to the bitter end to preserve there paragraph. Sadly these people also seem to work there way quickly up the wiki hierarchy.

Wikipedia is a twat run bureaucracy and every time you make an edit you piss someone off. If it ever comes to RFC then i'll be fighting your corner.--Pypex 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Brewbox, microbreweries category

Hi there. I'm sorry to have made the sort of comment I did without staying around to be part of the discussion. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately.

So on to my concerns... First off, my main annoyance was with your previous brewbox-related edits and I let my failure to express myself fully about those changes at the time they happened seep into the microbrewery discussion. That was inappropriate and I apologize. In the case of the brewboxes, I felt that a clear concensus was established by usage of the brewboxes (if not by discussion). Your decision to change it to a mailing address box at the bottom of the article (instead of an infobox) went beyond the as yet unresolved discussion about whether to include a beer list in the brewbox. I felt that that was unilateral.

As for the changes regarding Category:Microbreweries, I think that it was the result of a genuine misunderstanding of the concensus reached in the Category Name Change discussion. It seems that you thought the decision to group the regional beer and brewery categories into combined "beer and breweries" categories meant that the microbreweries categories needed to go. Others (myself included) seemed to feel that this applied only to the combination of the regional beer categories with their associated regional breweries categories. The Wikipedia category scheme is not a strict tree and there is no reason that there cannot be other axes of categorization under Category:Beer (look at Category:People or Category:Russia for instance). Your objection that "microbrewery" and "craft brewery" cannot be defined in a way that allows for verifiable categorization is a valid point for discussion, but you should have brought it up with the Beer WikiProject (you may have done so since, but I'm not watching the project's talk page).

That being said, you are right that concensus is not required for every change, especially from a relatively inactive group like WikiProject Beer. However, for me the idea of collaborative editing is that you should strive to gauge the current overall concensus on a topic and edit mercilessly along those lines. If you want to work against the current perceived concensus, start a discussion. Mike Dillon 04:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)