Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MusicAngels (talk | contribs)
1,089 edits
→Your interest in peer reviews: Answer, and thanks again for your Auden effort.
MusicAngels (talk | contribs)
1,089 edits
Line 60: Line 60:
:::Hi, SilkTork! Thanks for your perceptive analysis of the situation. But I'm sorry to see that MusicAngels brought this complaint to you, because MusicAngels had earlier taken this identical list of IPs to EdJohnston's talk page, where it was conclusively proven that the IPs had nothing to to with each other, either chronologically or in articles edited. The fact that MusicAngels didn't accept that conclusive proof, but instead shopped their complaint around to another admin (wasting your time as they wasted EdJohnston's and mine), makes me wonder about this person's [[WP:CIR|competence]]. It is clear they have no understanding of what socking looks like, but they they keep accusing people of it. To [[User:MusicAngels]]: you need to STOP beating this [[WP:STICK|dead horse]], stop reporting other users for this or that, and focus on editing. If I ever see you take make this particular complaint again, I will consider asking for a community decision to restrict the kinds of things you can say about other editors - even, and especially, if you think they are IP-hopping trolls. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
:::Hi, SilkTork! Thanks for your perceptive analysis of the situation. But I'm sorry to see that MusicAngels brought this complaint to you, because MusicAngels had earlier taken this identical list of IPs to EdJohnston's talk page, where it was conclusively proven that the IPs had nothing to to with each other, either chronologically or in articles edited. The fact that MusicAngels didn't accept that conclusive proof, but instead shopped their complaint around to another admin (wasting your time as they wasted EdJohnston's and mine), makes me wonder about this person's [[WP:CIR|competence]]. It is clear they have no understanding of what socking looks like, but they they keep accusing people of it. To [[User:MusicAngels]]: you need to STOP beating this [[WP:STICK|dead horse]], stop reporting other users for this or that, and focus on editing. If I ever see you take make this particular complaint again, I will consider asking for a community decision to restrict the kinds of things you can say about other editors - even, and especially, if you think they are IP-hopping trolls. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks for looking that up, but its only the tip of the iceberg stemming from a WP:Hoax which I reported from 2 months ago on Drv investigating socks. Everyone seemed to recognize that the socks are a problem, though coming up with a way to control the socks is a more difficult task. I have started collecting the information in my sandbox but the full investigation might take some time. Even yesterday another appearance of the sock tried to interrupt my contact with an editor making a GA nomination. Anyway, I wouldn't have bothered you with this if I knew that you no longer had checkuser on your account. Cheers, and that was really something watching how quickly you did the Auden. [[User:MusicAngels|MusicAngels]] ([[User talk:MusicAngels|talk]]) 18:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Thanks for looking that up, but its only the tip of the iceberg stemming from a WP:Hoax which I reported from 2 months ago on Drv investigating socks. Everyone seemed to recognize that the socks are a problem, though coming up with a way to control the socks is a more difficult task. I have started collecting the information in my sandbox but the full investigation might take some time. Even yesterday another appearance of the sock tried to interrupt my contact with an editor making a GA nomination. Anyway, I wouldn't have bothered you with this if I knew that you no longer had checkuser on your account. Cheers, and that was really something watching how quickly you did the Auden. [[User:MusicAngels|MusicAngels]] ([[User talk:MusicAngels|talk]]) 18:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|MelanieN}} The socks were identified by EdJohnston. The trolls were identified by Drmies. That was their use of that language, and the IP-editors you refer to are continuing to interfere with my edits as recently as yesterday. [[User:MusicAngels|MusicAngels]] ([[User talk:MusicAngels|talk]]) 18:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:39, 6 October 2015


Old dusty archives
Modern clean archives


Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork


I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

To remove the sandbox link add #pt-sandbox { display: none; } (or li#pt-sandbox {display: none;} for MonoBook users) to your common.css page.

To prevent the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent site notices add #siteNotice { display:none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent the MediaViewer follow these instructions

Use {{Reflist|30em}} instead of {{Reflist|2}}

Resurrection of Eastleigh/Hampshire Wikipedia meetup

Hi SilkTork, I noticed from a post at the Eastleigh Wikipedia meetup that you're in Southampton (snap!) - I'm hoping to plan a meet for Hampshire to hopefully draw more people in. Is that something would be interested in? samtar (msg) 09:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be interested in that. Keep me informed. I was unable to go to the last meetup, though I wanted to. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest in peer reviews

Hi SilkTork; Your user page indicates your interest in peer reviews. The GAR at Auden has been open for just over one full month now, and there appear to be no editors coming forward to support the top editor there or the old 2009 assessment. I did list it at all of the WikiProjects listed on its Talk page. Could you close out the GAR for Auden [1] as you see best for the article. MusicAngels (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. It may take a while before I reach a conclusion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Note my entry Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#W. H. Auden when you look at this. Keith D (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll take a look. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I found some time to revise the lead at the Auden page, and will head over there now if you're not working on it. Thanks again. - Macspaunday (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC) - Later: done for the day! - Macspaunday (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm hoping to complete the review today. Just need to check a few sources to make sure statements are used accurately. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: Already thanked you over on the talk page, but thank you again. Could I trouble you to make a one-letter change at [[2]]? The overall pass-fail tick box still shows the equals-sign icon, not the tick, and it would be good to avoid any ambiguity at all, even though the Keep section is entirely clear. Make that ten thousand thanks. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) - And I found a good source for that "Mediterranean" question too. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll tick that box for you, but it's not needed. The check boxes are what I use to keep a record of what I'm doing, and I've never actually bothered to tick the final box (indeed, I am now going to remove it from my personal GA template: Template:GAstart because I never use it). The record of the Keep is in the article history template on the talkpage. And the article is still listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork; My thanks for doing the Auden page so quickly and thoroughly. I shall try to look at the 4 paragraphs in lead section later per MoS statement about the current 5 paragraph overflow. May I request that you do a checkuser on the following new account which was created just recently during the Auden edits under "coincidental timing" circumstances, at any time you might get around to it:

Once again, my thanks for looking at the Auden. MusicAngels (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I surrendered the checkuser tool when my time on the Arbitration Committee was up. I will, however, take a quick look at the edits by those accounts you list to see if there are any concerns that need taking forward. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look. The only IP address I can see that has been editing recently is User talk:192.12.13.14, and that address appears to have appropriately reported you for edit warring. I also note your inappropriate and hostile comments on that IP's talkpage. I'm not aware of your history, so I don't know why you are inclined to hostility in this matter. Editing Wikipedia can frustrate and enrage the most gentle and well meaning of people. It happens to us all at times. There are several ways of dealing with conflict and frustration - often the best way is simply to walk away from the incident. There is so much to do on Wikipedia, that we needn't stress ourselves over what are usually trivial matters. If you genuinely find that you can't let matters alone, and that you continue to get into edit wars or confrontation, perhaps editing Wikipedia is not for you. Many folks have found over time that Wikipedia can be a little too stressful! Keep well. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SilkTork! Thanks for your perceptive analysis of the situation. But I'm sorry to see that MusicAngels brought this complaint to you, because MusicAngels had earlier taken this identical list of IPs to EdJohnston's talk page, where it was conclusively proven that the IPs had nothing to to with each other, either chronologically or in articles edited. The fact that MusicAngels didn't accept that conclusive proof, but instead shopped their complaint around to another admin (wasting your time as they wasted EdJohnston's and mine), makes me wonder about this person's competence. It is clear they have no understanding of what socking looks like, but they they keep accusing people of it. To User:MusicAngels: you need to STOP beating this dead horse, stop reporting other users for this or that, and focus on editing. If I ever see you take make this particular complaint again, I will consider asking for a community decision to restrict the kinds of things you can say about other editors - even, and especially, if you think they are IP-hopping trolls. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking that up, but its only the tip of the iceberg stemming from a WP:Hoax which I reported from 2 months ago on Drv investigating socks. Everyone seemed to recognize that the socks are a problem, though coming up with a way to control the socks is a more difficult task. I have started collecting the information in my sandbox but the full investigation might take some time. Even yesterday another appearance of the sock tried to interrupt my contact with an editor making a GA nomination. Anyway, I wouldn't have bothered you with this if I knew that you no longer had checkuser on your account. Cheers, and that was really something watching how quickly you did the Auden. MusicAngels (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: The socks were identified by EdJohnston. The trolls were identified by Drmies. That was their use of that language, and the IP-editors you refer to are continuing to interfere with my edits as recently as yesterday. MusicAngels (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork&oldid=684451312"