User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 42

Brewing
Hi SilkTork,

I've just put a dubious tag on the opening sentence of the brewing para: the idea that beer has traditionally or is generally divided into ale or lager depending on whether it is top or bottom feremented doesn't add up. (afaik, that distinction was made by American homebrewers in the 1970's, don't know why: probably a misunderstanding of books they'd read about European beer).

The distinction in English beer was as you say originally between unhopped ale and hopped beer but by the C19th as the styles we know now developed it became between lightly hopped ale (including mild ale) and the more heavily hopped beers (bitter, porter).

Elsewhere, other forms of categorisation developed quite separate from beer or ale. In Germany, for example, Lagerbier includes beers that are top fermented, like and altbier in Düsseldorf. Haldraper (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take a look.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Airforce
The original article named "Ottoman Airforce" (190 google hits) was renamed an obscure "Ottoman Aviation Squadrons" (8 google hits, all here)in spite of my strenous efforts to have it first discussed and explained. Not clear at all in what whay this improves the article not to mention accuracy, and instead of a simple re-direct, insitance on re-naming was confounding. The very dispute tag itself was ignored, other massive edits were carried out without search of concensus or discussion. The article has been rendered unrecogizable, negating work of so many contributers and basically removing it form these pages. Help?!Murat (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message SilkTork. To centralise the discussion, I suggest we continue everything on the article talkpage. Briefly however what we have, I believe, is (1) separate air services within the Ottoman Army and Navy, referenced and referred to by Takabeg, and (2) a lot of ill-informed English language references to an 'Ottoman Air Force,' probably actually referring to the Ottoman Army air service. Neither Murat no anyone else has produced any reference to the creation of an 'Ottoman Air Force' seperate from the Ottoman army and navy services. To continue reference to a separate third service where as far as I can tell so far, none existed, would be a traversty of what WP is supposed to stand for. Hope that makes my position clear. Please, if you can produce references aboutr the creation of a third service, I would be very happy to hear. Otherwise the article may need to be at 'Ottoman Army Air Force'. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point plenty of credible references, from the time period, which clearly refer to this "force" or organization as Ottoman Air Force have been listed (as the above editor had originally requested). The reference to a particular wording in the offical name of the first aviation organization to be established, "inspectorate", "office", etc. does not take away from the reality of this being an Air Force, same as any other air force that came into existence. All this could have been dealt within the article itself instead of taking the drastic measure of moving the article to where it will not be found by anyone, and without a discussion or concensus. Frankly, why and how this was done by a seasoned editor who should know better and has still not reversed himself to at least allow room for this discussion is a mystery to me. Where do we go from here? Murat (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is generally a backlog at Requested moves. I sometimes deal with such moves, and the discussions can be long and drawn out, which doesn't aid making a decision. I prefer closing those requests where discussion has stopped, and I think other admins feel the same. Someone will close the request at some point, and as it stands there is only one person opposing the move, so it should be a relatively straightforward decision.  SilkTork  *Tea time 11:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Laurel and Hardy review
Please see my comments on Laurel and Hardy review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC).


 * Bzuk, whilst most certainly a helpful L&H editor has a particular attachement to the Sendak book and further reading section - he wrote them and defended them here: Talk:Laurel and Hardy/Archive 2. I realised this and asked on his talk page what he felt should be done without altering them. I wasn't expecting the comments in the GAR. Not sure how to proceed with that now? Szzuk (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. WP:FURTHER and WP:Further reading give some advice on listing books, and I would direct you both to those guides. My personal view is that the current list appears little better than putting "laurel and hardy" into Google Books. Given that it is not difficult to find books on the subject, I would question the need to have a Further reading list at all. However, if there are some books on the topic that are particularly noteworthy, I can see an argument for listing them. But I would then question why those books were not used as sources in building the article. Further reading lists are not standard any more. They were used in the early days of Wikipedia when we didn't do much actual sourcing, and when we did it was general sourcing - simply listing a few books at the bottom of the article. However, since the requirement to use inline citation, editors have found that the major books on the topic are the ones that are being used as sources. There could be a case that, for example, there are 10 major sources, and only 6 of those are actually needed to support the statements in the article, so the other 4 are listed for the reader to consult; so we don't actually ban the Further reading section, but it is depreciated.  SilkTork  *Tea time 20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I "jumped the shark" here, see comments today. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC).


 * Happy for you to close however you wish. I have decided to take the L&H page to featured article status, it's not something that can be done in a hurry, atleast a few months and buying bibliographies, the first copy is now in my userspace. It's been an interesting process thanks for the input. Szzuk (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just had a glance, and see there's been improvements. I'll have a closer look later.  SilkTork  *Tea time 10:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see your lead is an improvement, I can work on the prose quite a bit from the look of things too, I think it would be helpful to get hold of a copy of L&H on EB, it might point to some major points I need to cover. Cheers. Szzuk (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Van Rebellion vs Van Resistance
I would like you to take a look at this article where there is a (familiar) long-winded argument with POV editors sticking to their strong (ethnic) pov's at the cost accuracy and reality. Can we at least get a tag in the heading to the effect there is a dispute about the name and a desire to move by many informed editors? Thanks. Murat (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help with edit warring at Ganas article
Please give us some assistance at article resolving edit warring problems with new user Marelstrom (talk). Over the past few weeks Marelstrom (talk) has made the same changes roughly 10 times, most recently only 30 minutes after I restored the version arrived at by consensus of several editors in January. Marelstrom (talk) has been uncooperative on the talk page and has made the following comment on ANI complaint (which has received no attention from administrators):

"I would very much like for there to be additional contributors. The summary as I have it now (though could be reverted at any instant) is mostly my point of view, and I don't mind it being adapted to hold other views, but I think Eroberer's POV is too heavily weighted in this article.  What the article needs is Eroberer off, and a dozen other editors on.  --Marelstrom (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) How does this ever get resolved?  --Marelstrom (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)"

I interpret this to mean any contribution from me is unacceptable though Marelstrom (talk) has made no effort to recruit additional contributors. The problem is mostly in the summary where Marelstrom (talk) repeatedly replaces properly referenced material with promotional, and frankly trivial, info from Ganas' own literature. Marelstrom (talk) has stated that they are a resident of Ganas though that comment was redacted by Oversight due to some false accusations Marelstrom (talk) made about my identity.

I asked two other editors for feedback and they have obliged but are more concerned with the edit warring and I agree it needs to stop. Any help you can give will be appreciated, let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Eroberer (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see the edit warring is ongoing despite a warning, so I have locked the article for a week. I will visit the article talkpage in a week's time to oversee a discussion as to the best way forward. In the meantime, I suggest everyone take a break.  SilkTork  *Tea time 11:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi SilkTork it has been a week, can we have your participation at Ganas talk page? Seems like there is an impasse over sources, focus of the article, etc. Eroberer (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ganas
[NOTICE BOARD] --Flyswatting (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had the same message on my talkpage. I am at a loss why this editor should wish to publicise their block evading sock, but I am also curious why you have not acted upon your apparent belief that this is the editor already sanctioned for violation of WP:OUTING? LessHeard vanU (talk) (no sugar, and easy on the milk)
 * I'm prepared to run with this a bit longer in order to uncover if there is a question of the article being biased. The account, though, is pushing all the wrong buttons, so this may be a short run.  SilkTork  *Tea time 19:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! We're waiting for your input on Ganas talk page to get this moving forward. Eroberer (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have left a comment asking Flyswatting to provide sources or agree the statements so we can move forward. SilkTork  *Tea time 08:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

GAN review of Action of Dec. 1669
Thanks for taking this up! I look forward to hearing your feedback. (And thanks for the virtual cuppa on your talkpage! :D) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you're not watching the GA review page, I replied there with some questions. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, do you think you could respond to my questions about which places need more citations or seem like original interpretation? I'd like to fix those within the seven-day deadline, but I need a bit of guidance as to which the problem areas are. (I also posted at MH about the title and got a suggestion which works for me, but I'm going to wait another day or two before moving it, since it's been moved a lot.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'll take a look now.  SilkTork  *Tea time 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied.  SilkTork  *Tea time 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

External links getting removed
Someone named "Berean_Hunter" accused me of spamming and removed the external links I've added. The links were from an online publication I visit regularly, and I'm not sure why those links are being labeled as spam while other publication links were left intact.

I went out of my way to put up links that were on-topic, weren't redundant with information already on the page or its external links, they were original content, and the links are open to the public.

I thought the external links were a way of providing more on-topic information that couldn't be integrated into the Wiki page itself? I don't know why he's accusing me of spam or singling me out.

Markm84 (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The guideline on using or removing external links is External links. On the whole the advice is not to add external links unless the link is an official website of the topic. I note that you are adding links to articles in a web publication. If you feel there is information in those articles that is not contained in our article, then we would prefer that you added the appropriate information to our article, and used the publication's article as a reliable source. That is how we build our articles. It was decided right at the start of Wikipedia that simply linking to other articles would not help build the encyclopedia and simply make us a link directory. The success of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia shows that our approach was correct, and we continue to be quite strong on removing links to other publications. I haven't closely examined the web publication, but it may or may not be regarded as a WP:Reliable source, so my recommendation for you is:
 * Contact Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask if realguns.com would be considered a reliable source
 * If realguns is confirmed as a reliable source, read through the articles, and pick out information that would be useful in the Wikipedia articles.
 * Add the information to the Wikipedia articles, using your own words (you can't copy and paste as that would infringe copyright).
 * Follow the guideline in Citing sources in citing to realguns.com
 * Let me know if you need any more help.  SilkTork  *Tea time 08:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Need your advice
Hi ST. Could you take a look  at  this and perhaps make a suggestion  how to  proceed from  here and get  started - you  have more experience than I  do. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw your edits. According to many  comments at  the original  RfC, it  was strongly  advised not  to  reconduct  the trial again so  as to  avoid the same fiasco  as the pending  changes trial. In the rare event that  the trial  prove inconclusive, it  would be back  to  the drawing  board for some other solutions that  were suggested. What we need to  know is how and where to  start  this thing  without making a faux pas and infringing  on discussion policy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, have the wording say the above. And the trial proposal should also indicate who determines the outcome and how. Create a dedicated Wikipedia page explaining how the trial and evaluation is to work, then create a link to the page's talkpage from WP:Cent. On the talkpage make it clear that it has been decided that the trial is to go ahead, so the discussion is about the mechanics of the trial, not about if we should have one. It is not to be a vote or a poll, but a discussion to ensure that the trial runs smoothly. Your sandbox wording is more comprehensive than the alternative version that was linked from The Blade of the Northern Light's talkpage, so work on that one.


 * As for the decision regarding the outcome of the trial and the evaluation. It might be useful to get that sorted out now, so that the decision can be a default. For example - "If a) There are fewer deleted new articles in the six month period AND b) Article growth has continued, then implement. Deletions and growth to be determined by a developer." Get approval of the developers first.  SilkTork  *Tea time 14:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you enormously  for this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Willie Nelson
Hi, I understand that many people have had a problem with me editing Willie Nelson's page. The reason why I added those subsections is because those are big things that happened to him and I think they should be highlighted. Please understand, I mean no frustration or anger, I just have opinions to things that I have trouble explaining. So write me back as soon as possible. Thanks. RoadHouse (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This conversation is more appropriate for the talkpage, so I will copy this there.  SilkTork  *Tea time 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications that you did in the early life section. I only posted that link in the discussion page without adding anything to the article because this week my time was pretty tight. I'll try next time to do it as soon as possible.-- GD uwen  Tell me!  21:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. As long as progress is being made I tend to keep a GAN open. I'll get a second opinion before closing the review as I have got a little involved in the article. There is still a bit of copy-editing and trimming to be done. It's slow as I don't have much time, and there are other things I am involved with on Wikipedia, and also other things I like to do on Wikipedia to relax. I will put another extension on the hold - perhaps two weeks to be realistic, especially as I have a real life article to finish before the end of this month. SilkTork  *Tea time 22:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (Just out of curiosity) Do you work as a journalist or a critic for a publication?-- GD uwen  Tell me!  17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My main job at the moment is looking after my two year old daughter, but I do occasional bits of writing, and I have a regular homebrewing column in CAMRA's Whats Brewing magazine supplement Beer. I'm not really a homebrewing expert, but that's what the editor Tom Stainer wanted, so I am learning on the job! SilkTork  *Tea time 17:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, well maybe soon you turn into a beer guru!-- GD uwen  Tell me!  21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Three Laws of Robotics
Hi

When you reviewed the article there were several areas where you thought that OR was prevalent. Is there any chance you could take a quick look and tell me whether or not you think those areas have been addressed? My intention is to put it up for GAN again in the next 4 weeks so would appreciate your input in particular.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll respond on the article talkpage.  SilkTork  *Tea time 08:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers for that :¬) I was unable to respond at the end of last year as my PC failed and was unable to fix it for two months (needed a new motherboard chip and memory, money I did not have spare)
 * I appreciate the problems of OR are inherent and possibly insurmountable without a rewrite but maybe it can be saved a little..
 * I will also reply there, thanks once again. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels


UOJComm (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

GA review
Thanks for your diligent, patient, and constructive GA review. Your feedback and edits made it a good-er article. ;) Now, by the laws of karma, I'll go find a GA nominee to review myself.   Will Beback    talk    12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. When main contributors work so quickly and positively then the review becomes a real pleasure. You and Andreasegde worked very well on that, and made it easy for me.  SilkTork  *Tea time 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads up - Falun Gong
Since you rescued him from an indefinite ban, Dilip rajeev has been treading carefully. However, he now appears to be taking bolder steps with respect to Falun Gong articles. I believe Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, which you and I both worked on, is now within his sights. The article has always been a 'high-value target' for both Falun Gong and PRC propagandists alike to "control". Fortunately, thanks to your help, and that of Jayen, it has reached the revered status of Featured Article, but that does not make it entirely impervious to attack from the determined. Now it appears that our friend [sic] may be attempting to seize this strategic article; he has already fired what I would call 'warning shots' on the article talk page. His discourse may sound reasonable on the surface, but if we were to look at all the talk page archives of Falun Gong articles, we can see it is a typical first step in his advocacy offensive. Ordinary editors' resilience is no match to the religious zeal, dedication to and passion of the Falun Gong devotee. I fear that, should he have his way, the article will become the propaganda-piece it was once upon a time. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll keep an eye on developments. There is also some movement on Kilgour-Matas report at the moment.  SilkTork  *Tea time 12:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a look at these?
Hi, can you check these three newly created articles on books:


 * 1900 National Upheaval
 * 1901: The shadow of an Empire
 * Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan

And see if they meet the quality standards? I believe that currently it goes more into an analysis of the events from one POV, than any discussion of the book or author.--PCPP (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The articles are poorly written in terms of prose, and of establishing why these books are notable. They mainly consist of a plot of the books, which is against policy - WP:NOTPLOT. Given that they are of poor quality, and do not clearly establish notability, they need cleaning up. I am not able to give an opinion on their notability as I have not searched for sources. Nor am I able to give an opinion on their POV, as I don't know the books in question. The articles are being actively edited; however, if they haven't made significant progress in terms of providing sources to meet the notability criteria in WP:NBOOK within another week or so, it would be appropriate to take them to AfD for a community discussion.  SilkTork  *Tea time 23:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

M-17 GAR
You were the last one to comment on the GAR ten days ago. You had said you'd like to see the review stay open for a week "to see if there is any support for the issues raised, though I would be looking to close at that point if there is no support". Well, no one else has commented since you did on the 11th. I'm just curious what you think. Thanks,  Imzadi 1979  →   03:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Closed as kept.  SilkTork  *Tea time 10:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 8
Hi SilkTork. You closed Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 8 in August 2010 and Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 8 on 9 October 2010. Your second closure was reverted on 12 October 2010. This was brought to the Administrators' noticeboard where no uninvolved admin addressed the request. Because Atmoz, an uninvolved user, endorsed your closure as an accurate summary of the debate, should it be restored? On a related note to WT:UP, would you consider closing and summarizing Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 8? The RfC was archived without a closure. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:User pages where users are re-discussing the issue. A summary of the heavily participated September 2010 RfC will help guide participants in the current discussion and hopefully avoid a rehashing of the same arguments. Thank you for the hard work you've done in closing and summarizing RfCs and in maintaining Template:Centralized discussion. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have restored the closing statement. It seems odd that someone should leave the discussion closed, yet remove the closing statement. An appropriate approach if disagreeing with a closure is to approach the closing admin. An inappropriate, yet workable approach, would have been to re-open the discussion. But to leave it closed, yet remove the reason why it was closed seems the daftest of daft things because it achieves nothing but confusion! Thanks for the heads up on that.
 * I'll take a look at the other matter later.  SilkTork  *Tea time 10:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that reverting the close but leaving intact the closing template is wrong. Thank you for restoring the close. I have made a small formatting change so that the discussion is more visible and the closure is more pronounced. As a gentle suggestion, when you make closures, would you use something like discussion top or archive top instead of collapse top? Collapsing a discussion will make it more difficult to view and will make searching for discussions in the archive more difficult. Cunard (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll try to do that. I tend to use templates I remember, and I find it easy to remember cot and cob! Hmm - I might make a redirect for dit and dib. SilkTork  *Tea time 09:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for creating those redirects. They are much easier to type. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I took part in the block notice RfC, and gave an opinion, so it would be inappropriate for me to close it. SilkTork  *Tea time 09:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries. Would you be able to close any of the discussions listed at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248 or Administrators' noticeboard? You are involved in several of the discussions but I think you are uninvolved in Village pump (proposals) and Talk:September 11 attacks. If you don't have the time or inclination to close the discussions, then don't worry about them. By the way, where is the best avenue to ask admins to close RfCs? My requests at AN and ANI are frequently ignored until I approach individual admins. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you haven't applied to become an admin? That would be the easiest thing. I became an admin after I kept asking others to do blocked page moves. If you're asking others to do stuff that you are capable of doing yourself, then it's time to ask for the mop. I haven't checked through your contributions - but if I did would I notice any problems? If there's nothing significant, I could nominate you. SilkTork  *Tea time 21:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer and the expression of confidence but I will have to decline the offer. I was asked in April about adminship but I declined then. Here is what I wrote: I have been asked to step forward for RfA several times (User talk:Cunard/Archive 6), and I have declined to accept the nominations. The main reason for my wanting to remain a non-admin is at I don't want to be an administrator, a 2008 essay by that holds true to me today. Maud Gage Baum, which I created recently, took me several months to write and polish. If I had had the admin bit at the time, it would have taken me several more months to finish. I would have been distracted by the interminable admin tasks that, while necessary, are less oriented towards producing content for the readers. A secondary reason can be summed up in what I wrote in January 2010: "Additionally, during contentious debates, some non-admins tend to assume that the admins are always abusing their 'status' to elevate their own positions. Several times I have seen this occur in the AfDs I have participated in, as well as other discussions I have read. If I were an admin at the time, I know that I would have been dragged into the berating. While I do not mind such berating, this would have further deviated from the discussion at hand. Being a non-admin gives me the freedom that admins do not have." Anyway, I doubt I have the patience to close and summarize RfCs in such depth and clarity. ;) Cunard (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: If I were an admin, this situation would be much worse. Closers frequently get much flak for their well-intentioned work. Another reason I don't wish to close RfCs. I strongly respect closers like you who don't mind getting reverted and berated. Cunard (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Shame that with so many people suggesting you become an admin that you haven't taken the mop. The amount of work you do as an admin is entirely up to you. Same as it is up to you as a Wikipedia editor how much work you do. The only requirement on becoming an admin is that you do not abuse the tools, and that you behave in a responsible manner. Such requirements of course are also expected of all editors, but somehow bad behaviour is more tolerated of non-admins. I understand people saying they don't wish to become admins because they wish to continue being bad tempered and grumpy because that is their nature. I don't support that view, but I understand it.

I can go long periods without making any admin actions, and don't feel under pressure to do an admin action for the sake of it. I have a standard offer on Editor assistance to help out on problems when asked, and often I am asked to assist in issues where it doesn't matter if I am an admin or not. People ask me to get involved in POV issues, in disputes, to take on GA reviews, etc. I find these tasks can be quite time-consuming and demanding, but I do them because I feel that as a community we should help out where and when we can - within reason. I think Wikipedia is a remarkable resource, supported by the time, effort and money of thousands of people across the planet. I am willing to do a bit of awkward stuff now and again to ensure this project continues. It is because people are generous with their time and energy and knowledge and money that this project succeeds.

Whatever you do for the project is an asset. And it would be inappropriate to ask you to do more than what you are comfortable with. Better that you are happy and productive as an editor than stressed and reluctant as an admin. However, the amount of extra work that you do is entirely within your hands. If you feel that you would by your nature be drawn into areas that would distract you too much, then fair enough. But if you feel that you are largely in control of the amount of time you already spend on Wikipedia, then in my experience that is not going to change by becoming an admin. I think the amount of work I did on AfD and disputes reduced after becoming an admin, purely because of my evolving relationship with Wikipedia. That would have happened anyway. My point is that by becoming an admin, that natural reduction process was not impacted at all.

As for disputes with others being worse if you are an admin. Well, only if your personality and character changes. You seem level headed and strong enough to remain calm during stress; and I don't see being an admin going to your head resulting in blocking people if they disagree with you!

The offer to nominate is open. If ever you change your mind, let me know. SilkTork  *Tea time 12:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having been involved in AfDs and other meta discussions for a while as a non-admin, I find that they can be huge timesinks. This can only be compounded were I to become an admin. If I were to gain the tools, I would probably contribute much less content than I do now and instead be drawn to administrative areas that are less oriented towards producing content. While I can remain calm—even impassive—during stressful situations, I try not to invite such occurrences, which would significantly increase for an admin. Contributing to the encyclopedia should be enjoyable. S Marshall wrote at his second RfA: "Admins encounter ... abuse on a daily basis and I've discovered that I'm not prepared to put up with it [from anyone]." I am mindful of how his words reflect my own thoughts on the matter. Thank you again for your confidence in me and for writing such a thoughtful response. Cunard (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Stats
Hi ST. Latest developments are here. If you  have a moment, your ideas would be appreciated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC).