User talk:SilkTork/AMA Archive

Welcome to the AMA!
Hello SilkTork, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is AMA alerts. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel, which reports new cases and alerts to us. It can also be used as a place to ask for advice on an issue. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out AMA Requests for Assistance, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocate's talk page, including our coordinator Steve Caruso or deputy coordinator Wikiwoohoo. Again, welcome to the AMA! We are also currently having our December Meeting. Feel free to come and join in. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Urartu article dispute
/Urartu

Smiley Smile issue....
Hello,

Thanks for your message.

I had loads of problems with Monicasdude, a belligerent user who left this forum (thankfully for wikipedia) months ago once the powers that be attempted to silence him. One of his mandates was to basically follow me and stalk every page I edited; Smiley Smile is a case in point. My revert of the Smiley Smile page on Jan 2 was more of a really quick way to bring it back to what it used to be. I had meant to refine it further, but I forgot. Hence, I just took out some of the POV I could find (not all of which was written by me, btw). It appears to be more even-handed now.

Cheers, Brian BGC 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the current edit of the article. I'm pleased that you've had a chance to tidy up. The language now appears to me to be appropriate and fit the known facts. I would say, however, that it would be very useful and helpful to have links to some external reviews which make mention of the poor reception of the album at the time it was released. A google would reveal a few - Rolling Stone is a good source. I will speak to Joope to see if he finds the current edit acceptable. As an aside, and I'm making this comment on my talk page rather than yours so as not to inflame matters, it is usually better to work with an edit that you are unhappy with rather than making a blunt revert. I suggest that if you read through Stan Wellers edits on Sticky Fingers you'll find some stuff there that can be kept. You have great knowledge about music, and you are an asset to Wiki. Try not to get sucked into revert wars. See if you can work with the other guy - you are, after all, working toward the same goal, and you both share the same interest. In the real world you'd probably be the best of mates! SilkTork 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance. I still don't like the word "infamous" but you may be right in what you said about the album's reputation. I don't think the Smiley Smile article is perfect but that is just my opinion. To make it perfect (in my opinion) it might need a complete rewriting. I think we'll just see what people write on the Smiley Smile page in the future. I think you handled this case very well and I'd like to thank you.

Roope 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse case
/Mattisse

Artificial Ski Slopes article
Hello there. You asked me to ping you if Cima stuff was added again. Unfortunately this article has occurred. Perhaps a period of registered-users only might encourage some more dialogue although I doubt it as things don't seem to be getting through. Snecklifter 15:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it time to remove the protection on this article? Do you think we should see if the message has got through?Snecklifter 10:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You should still be able to edit the article as you are a registered user. Are you having problems editing? SilkTork 17:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm just not a big fan of leaving protection in place for long periods of time. I see protection as restriction and fundamentally believe wikipedia should be editable by all, including non-registered users. In this article's case it was necessary due to the vandalism taking place but it is my hope that the vandal in question now understands why this has happened and will no longer make spam edits as before. Perhaps I am being too optimistic - I have little experience in these matters and will defer to your judgement. Snecklifter 08:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the open nature of Wiki. However, glancing back at the article's history, there has been a fair level of spamming going back to April 2006 from unregistered users. I suppose the nature of the subject matter invites companies who wish to advertise. This could be the sort of article that will continue to need semi-protection. I would suggest we give it a full month, and then unprotect and see what happens. SilkTork 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments - I agree. Snecklifter 09:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Pajaro4
I have already answered the matter on the talk page of the article in question. There is a large amount of information on the matter on Pajaro4's talk page as well, where I explained the issues with the articles. J Milburn 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I didn't realise that this was filed as a dispute. I thought he had just requested assisstance on writing the articles. I think, now I realise that the editor has effectively 'brought charges' agaisnt me, I should defend myself. If you review User_talk:Pajaro4, User_talk:J_Milburn, User_talk:J_Milburn and User_talk:J_Milburn you will see the discussions that I have had with the editor in question. The issue was, quite simply, that I came across one of this editors articles, originally entitled Bellotti Cymbals, and, finding it to be non notable, nominated it for deletion. It was then deleted, and recreated, then deleted again, as can be seen in the logs. It was after this that I had a long discussion with the editor in question, who did not understand the deletion process, and did not seem to understand the policies that the article breached. I am actually rather offended that this has been brought to this stage, and also offended by this statement- 'I would simply like the opportunity to revise and complete my article without having a (rather young) page-patroller out there who seems intent on removing my article.' As I am sure you can see, I am not 'intent on removing the article', I nominate many pages for deletion every day, this, as far as I was concerned, was just another candidate. Also, the fact that I am 'rather young' is irrelevent. I am also rather shocked that this editor claims that I have a confrontational tone- I have been complimented in the past on how politely I have dealt with new editors not understanding policies. Please do tell me if I have done wrong. J Milburn 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, just a note to say that I really do appreciate how patient you have been over the matter. I don't think Pajaro4 has much intention of coming back, but I must say that I admire the way that you were willing to go over every intricate part of the case. Do you intend to close the matter now? J Milburn 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy Request of 2/7/07 (Across.The Synapse)
On the Socrates confusion, I think everything has resolved itself: no further reconciliation is necessary, but thank you for all your hard work: Matthew 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll close the case now. SilkTork 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks
Hello Steve. I appreciate your attention. Macrakis ad I got a little misunderstanding, but he sent me a very polite message later. I am not upset anymore and I think there are a lot of nice people around Wikipedia. Talking about the SUN study article, I did not write in it except some fixes about the bibliography, because I considered it of interest because it was about a topic people want to know nowadays ( health related styles of life, diet, and so on). The problem was that the guy that wrote it at first seemed to be related to it, and that was why it was proposed for deletion. Well, the article looked well-written, perhaps a bit long (for my taste), but it deserved a second chance. Anyway, I will continue contributing to Wikipedia in english in whatever I will be able to (considering my limited english expression), and definitely I will to Wikipedia in spanish. I wish you the best in your life. --Arturico 14:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to close the case now? SilkTork 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, please.--Arturico 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Done. SilkTork 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Surrey Stingers
Thanks for looking into this, is there anything in particular that you wish to know that would help you reach a decision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jskivington (talk • contribs)

I've given my opinion on Articles for deletion/Surrey Stingers and left a message on User:Simondrake's talk page. It doesn't look like Surrey Stingers will be deleted. But I'll keep an eye on it. Is there anything else you'd like me to be doing? SilkTork 17:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, i appreciate your help. I can't think of anything else, but if I do I will let you know.Jskivington 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whole Language
I disagree with Merceris' characterization of the issue as she shared with you on her talk page, for several reasons. First, it is not true that no changes were made based on her additions. Note that the introduction includes more discussion of the controversy, although I am still not certain this is necessary. Second, I think it was proper to remove the information related to whole math. Whole math is not a widely-used term. It is a pejorative term used by the current U.S. first lady to call reform mathematics into question. But even to the extent that reform mathematics is linked to whole language (and, epistemologically, it is), it warrants only a mention and a link to another page on the topic. Third, I think it was important to remove the information about decodable text. The National Reading Panel found mixed evidence for its efficacy, so it is not a strong example of an instructional practice eschewed by whole language advocates in the face of countervening evidence. The continued disavowal of systematic phonics instruction, however, is exactly that, which makes it a particularly potent example (and consequently is the focus of this article).

Finally, I disagree that the page reflects a whole-language bias. I have told merceris repeatedly that I think it is important to present the topic neutrally. My own perspective appears nowhere in the article. I have taken great care to omit any personal reflection on the topic; indeed, I hesitate even to give my perspective in writing to you (and, at this point, will not) because I do not wish to be seen as partial. My commitment to neutrality should be evident in the fact that I contributed extensively to this page as well as the page on phonics--a very different approach to reading instruction. I should hope that you cannot tell how I feel about either subject. Merceris, by contrast, does not seem to be satisfied because the page does not say whole language is intellectually bankrupt. That would not be neutral, and I could not--whatever my thoughts on this topic--be persuaded to say so. For example, it is not true that "most" U.S. school districts have renounced whole language, as she wrote in her response to you. This is weaselly language (I mean this is the technical sense, not as an epithet) and also isn't true. Many more districts have adopted phonics-based approaches subsequent to No Child Left Behind, but some districts--especially wealthier ones--continue to use a constructivist pedagogical approach to reading.

Let me close my reflections by adding that I have read some of merceris' other pieces, and I am very concerned that his/her contributions are non-neutral. I do not know very much about mathemaitcs reform or Everyday Mathematics, but her contributions seem to have a particular political bent to them. I should also say that merceris did not attempt correspondence with me, even after my first note on her page, to discuss ways to improve the article. I hoped, through my initial actions, to create dialogue and improve the page; this was not reciprocated. I am hopeful that neutrality will reign in the case of the whole language page and that you will find people more informed about mathematics to help assure neutrality in merceris' edits on that topic. Kearnsdm 21:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel there is enough balance in the article as it currently stands? SilkTork 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Shortly after I requested advocacy, merceris acquiesced, so there have not been any disputed edits since that time. What is your view? Kearnsdm 23:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My involvement here is to see that fair play is done, and that all parties finish up if not happy then at least content that the right thing was done with the agreement and understanding of those involved. You called the case so I am your advocate and will support and help you build the article in the best manner. Building the article in the right way often involves testing the article with others - especially those who hold opposite views. The best articles are often those which have gone through that fire and emerged hardened and brilliant. It can be an uncomfortable process, and emotions sometimes run high. I have spoken to merceris who appears to be holding to a view that the article is not balanced, and that you haven't been allowing alternate views. It is possible that merceris may have acquiesced under pressure rather than acceptance that your view is the right one. It may also be possible that merceris is taking advantage of my involvement to again pursue a non-standard view in the article. I note that you say you removed mention of decodable text, even though there is an article on that subject on Wiki. Currently it is difficult to substantiate anything in the article as there is a lack of appropriate referencing so readers cannot check sources. The only references are those I put in quickly to show how referencing can be done. The further reading list is not referencing. I would suggest to you, and I shall suggest the same to merceris, that statements in the article need to he referenced. At the moment we are working on your assertion against merceris' assertion. And academic truth should not come down to one person's word against another. We need evidence. SilkTork 08:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the interest of closing this topic, I have started to create references for key assertions. I am not finished, but I think this will work well.  It will concern me, however, if Merceris--or anyone else for that matter--attempts to argue that information should not be removed because it is "sourced."  If "sourced" simply means you found something about it on the internet that matches your perspective (as I believe Merceris did), that does not give us the evidence that you assert we need.  I am in complete agreement that evidence is critical, but I also imagine you would agree that not everything is evidence.


 * I am not sure how to reach a resolution, however, because I don't agree that anything "sourced" should necessarily remain in this article or any other. I think NPOV is very important, and attempts to skew any article concern me greatly.  I think Merceris attempted to skew this article (and has done this with others).  I know that your interest is in consensus, but it perhaps makes more sense to have a simple detente and to leave the issue as it is.  You'll have to tell me what you think.


 * I appreciate your help in showing how to do references. That made the task easier.  It's also inspired me to learn to clean up articles.  I've tried to do that with this article and others.  Thank you for your assistance.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kearnsdm 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased that you are entering references. Excellent! However, it appears to me that the matter is not quite settled yet. Merceris is uncomfortable with the notion of editing the article. How best can you now proceed which will encourage other editors, such as Merceris, to work on the article? I am also unclear of your intention in your comments above regarding other editors putting in sourced material. If the sourced material is pertinent then surely it belongs? The intention here on Wiki is that articles are balanced. That of necessity means including views from all sides of a debate. The sort of views that you appear to wish to exclude would possibly be those that belong in an article - otherwise it might become a one sided view. In your effort to make the article conform to NPOV you might actually be creating a POV. The article has to include views of editors who disagree with you, by the very definition of balance and neutrality. There is no room here for any kind of detente of one of the five pillars of Wiki. I would very much like to see you engage in discussion with Merceris in the best way forward for the article itself. I see that you have much to offer Wiki. And I also understand your frustration when people have different views on how an article should be advanced and presented. I have been there myself! The best way forward for all concerned, and especially for Wiki, is to discuss and come to agreement. I am here to help that process - slow and infuriating though it is! I am concerned at this stage that Merceris is reluctant to get involved in editing. And I'm concerned that there is no current dialogue between the two of you. SilkTork 08:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm closing the case as Merceris has clearly decided not to get involved. If there are any further issues please let me know. Regards SilkTork 08:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Tomes / Cycles Case
/Cycles

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/MojaveNC
SilkTork - Thanks for the message to Staplegunther. I appreciate your involving yourself in the adovcacy process.

Lately, Staplegunther has been making edits to some of my edits, referring to them as vandalism and making some changes without logging in (instead using ip 166.70.56.104). He is also still a little trigger-happy with putting pictures on pages.

Any help would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MojaveNC (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Certainly. Point me in the right direction. I have just left a message on Staplegunther's talk page encouraging him to keep up with the dialogue that you guys have started. It's important that you two talk to each other if you are to work on the same articles. Sometimes an editor who starts off being an enemy can become a close friend and collaborator. Warm regards SilkTork 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Things are going okay from what I can tell as I get used to the Wikisystem. Thank you for your advice. I will be contacting Mojave also. Please assist where possible. I am glad there are people to help solve disputes and get people to engage. Dave.

Question about a Contributor (Again)
Hi again. If you recall, I was involved in a dispute with merceris over the Whole language page. I am writing again for a couple of reasons. First, I have been reviewing Wikipedia policy regarding atrribution and neutral point of view and find it more aligned with my view than with yours in terms of (a) the removal of information that is "sourced" if the source is not reliable or uncontroversial if not reliable and (b) the exclusion of information that is the contributor's conjecture (i.e., it is original research) or a significantly minority viewpoint that the contributor wishes to propel. I made my editing decisions in keeping with those parameters. I'd like you to take a look at the criticism section of the Developmentally Appropriate Practice page, which was created by merceris. I know very little about this, but it seems very clear to me that this information is merceris's political perspective and is intended to promote that. I am inclined to remove that section entirely because it is polemical and cites no sources, but I would rather just hear your perspective on this example. I'm going to leave the Developmentally Appropriate Practice page as is. Thank you for continuing the conversation. Best, Kearnsdm 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying about merceris's contribution to Developmentally Appropriate Practice. I will approach merceris and ask for sources to be included, and for some adjusting of language. Regards SilkTork 07:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)