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

[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)