User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 35

Göktürks
Hi Silktork! Could you please have a look to Göktürks when you're back. A user started the blacksmith slave discussion again. He is very well known in Turkish Wikipedia for his irreconcilable manner. Now he's banned there for two months, because of this same manner. About Gokturks, he's trying to distort matter, blaming people who refuse his wording as "nationalist". I'm not nationalist, but I feel uncomfortable when somebody put so much emphasis on such an insignificant matter. Besides, negotiations made before are also ignored. Hope you can find a way to sort out. Thanks!--CenkX (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Long day travelling - big delay at the ferry because most of the SeaFrance staff are on strike and boats were being cancelled. Just settled into our hotel in Strasbourg and had some cold sandwiches and a hot soup. It's almost midnight here. Very tired. But I'll take a quick look. If it looks meaty I'll leave it to later. 21:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just had another look and I don't quite follow the intricacies of the debate. It might be worth asking someone else to have a look.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

KM Article
Silktork, Kindly do let me know when we move the KM article to main Wikispace. There is room for improvement, but I think its reasonably well done, and comprehensive enough to demonstrate WP:N of the topic - and am sure the article would quickly improve as the Wikicommunity works on it. Thanks, Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion taking place here: Good article reassessment/Organ transplantation in the People's Republic of China/1 which relates to the KM article. Your views would be welcome.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have now taken the article off my watchlist. There's too much unproductive bickering and sarcasm on that talk page, getting back to the bad old days I turned my back on. Ping me if you need me for anything. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's OK. We're all volunteers, and are not obliged to do anything. Better that we keep happy and involved than to get stressed over one item. There is so much to do on Wikipedia, and there are many high profile articles (find the most visited articles here - ) and important articles that need attention. It's not worth fighting over minor articles that will attract few readers. Yes, let's get them right if we can, but let's be sensible and proportionate with our time. Keep well!  SilkTork  *YES! 09:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * :-) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing active discussions
Can you be careful when closing discussions. The one at Talk:Football is still very much active Gnevin (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have left a note there explaining the situation. If either your proposal or a new one starts to gain some consensus, then please use CENT again to pull in a wider consensus. WP:Engvar does provide a workaround for the situation, though if a better solution can be found that would be of value and should be implemented.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Certificate
Hi, now that Certificate is a disambig page, could you help with the link clean up per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true is very helpful. Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 12:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you. What are you asking me to do? And why? I followed your link and didn't understand what it had to do with what I did at Certificate.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi SilkTork. Certificate has a bunch of incoming links, seen here. Now that Certificate is a disambiguation page, those links need to be pointed to an article. For instance, Self-certifying key links to Certificate. That should be changed to link to Public key certificate. Problem is, most of these articles are in the "academic certificate" sense, and I don't see an article that really answers for this; perhaps the "As an academic award" section of the previous Certificate article should be put into a new Academic certificate article. So you see it's a bit of a mess; we're asking for your help in sorting it out. -- Ja Ga  talk 13:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer of getting involved. I have to decline though as I already have a backlog of tasks and I have no particular interest in the certificate topic - I simply reformated the article as part of dealing with the two year old backlog of Split requests. The amount of links in and out would not have have been altered by my reformating. I did merge Certificate (disambiguation) into Certificate, though as that had no links the amount of incoming links to Certificate should be the same. I wish you luck with your recruitment. Have you set up a WikiProject - that can help. And you might contact Signpost - they often do pieces on WikiProjects who are looking to recruit assistance.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, not a problem. Clean up is a request, not a requirement. Could you let me know where this list of split requests is? Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk  16:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I suspect you have misunderstood what has happened. I don't think I did anything that required a clean up, though I think the circumstances has given an understandably misleading appearance. The page you linked me to - WP:FIXDABLINKS - is talking about something other than what I did. I took an existing article and reformatted it. I did not move it. I redirected a recently created page (which had no incoming links) to the page I edited. I did not move that page either. It may look like I moved Certificate (disambiguation) to Certificate, but I did not. I am perplexed at your continued requests, and I suspect it is because you are thinking I have done something I haven't - but I could be wrong. If I have misunderstood either you or WP:FIXDABLINKS, please let me know.

The Split requests are here: Category:Articles to be split. Assistance in dealing with that backlog would be much appreciated. But be aware that making a decision on splitting requires looking carefully at the matter, and understanding both the rationales given and Wikipedia processes and guidelines related to the decision. Some editors have made hasty decisions simply in order to clean up the category, and that has caused problems in the past. The sort of people who check carefully, can then make firm decisions and carry them out, sometimes doing lengthy article construction, and are able to explain their actions and enter into patient and polite discussions with people who disagree with the decision do well at this task. To get a flavour for it - take a look at Reading to Plymouth Line, Thunk and Jarmut and let me know what you would do in each case. There are easier ones in which it's just a matter of removing Split requests which have no rationale and are placed on articles for which there are no apparent reasons for a split, so there is a varied mix of work.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Journalism and the Incubator
Hello and thanks for commenting on the CJ article. I place a copy on my user page to preserve the article in the event it is deleted from the incubator. It was moved there after a RfD discussion which I disagreed with (naturally). I have made some modifications and would like to put it back in for comment, but am concerned about a speedy delete and loss of the work. Any thoughts or suggestions? Jettparmer (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I assessed the article and would agree with others that it appears to be original research. It reads like an essay arguing for the the term "conspiracy journalism" to be accepted as a neologism. Wikipedia accepts neither personal essays or theories, nor neologisms. As you have this material in your userspace there is no need to have it in two places so I have nominated it for deletion at WP:MfD.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I made my case on the incubator. The term is in use in media and academia, as validated by the sources.  It is hardly original research - unless the catalogging of terms is considered WP:OR.  I would submit that it should be reevaluated in the main space. I moved it onto my user page to preserve it from oblivion.  Jettparmer (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

incubation
Why do you see Alex Gallacher to be an inappropriate incubator article? That's where it started after all. Donama (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The incubator is for articles that were deleted. Alex Gallacher was not deleted. The incubator went astray for a bit and got confused with WP:AfC, I am now cleaning it up. Alex Gallacher should have been started in WP:AfC.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Incubator
You've turned the project page into something that is guaranteed to draw extremely heavy opposition once people notice it. The incubator was never intended solely as a place for deleted articles. It was supposed to be an alternative to userfication in all its forms, which includes new drafts as well as REFUNDS, as well as unsuitable speedyable material that was placed in mainspace that someone felt merited incubation. It was meant as centralized, collaborative, userfication, not as a junkyard of previously deleted material. You've unilaterally redefined the entire project into something that I, and I'm sure many others, can no longer support. You've sentenced the incubator to death. Gigs (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand why you are harping on about what you are harping on about. Not only you are contradicting yourself, you are being extremely unfairly prescriptive of the uses of the Incubator. In practical terms, there is little differences between material that could potentially be userfied, unsuitable speedyable material, and deleted articles, and I for one would challenge you to draw the line between them in any objective manner. The similarities, however, are that all these do not belong in mainspace. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you replying to me or to SilkTork? SilkTork is the one who wants to draw the line you speak of, not me.  He's trying to exclude everything that's not previously deleted from the incubator. Gigs (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I got you wrong... but reading from your post above, you seem to imply that deleted material do not belong in the incubator while speediable and userfied material does. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. I'm confused. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying it all belongs there. Silktork has been editing the project page in a way to exclude everything from the incubator other than previously deleted material. I think this is a bad idea, and once the deletionists get wind of it, it'll kill the incubator.  Gigs (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see it being restricted to deleted articles only, and I don't see any discussion about it on the relevant talk page, because that's where this discussion belongs. If you would say exactly which edit(s) cause you concern, then ST can probably explain the changes he made and the rationale behind them. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Incubator
I feel like we are getting nowhere, so I opened an RfC. Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator. You may want to lay out your position under my statement so that people can get a more complete picture of the rationale behind your changes. Gigs (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I think it would be good to notify the original designers of the incubator, but I'm reluctant to do this considering my position in the debate. I'll leave it at your discretion. Gigs (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you posted it correctly to RfC, there should be no need for other notifications. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)