User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 47

Reverted Merger of New Music and Post Punk
I discuss why and how I proceeded in the Post Punk talk page. Not sure I did the "unmerge" the correct way. Edkollin (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look later.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the New Music (music industry), and updated it with your edits in New Music (1980s music terminology), and then redirected New Music (1980s music terminology) to New Music (music industry). This preserves the editing history. I can change the name to New Music (1980s music terminology) if you feel that is more appropriate.
 * Though I have restored the article, I do question the notability of this term. I had a look in various music sources and found no use of the term. I did find people talking about "new music", but that applies to music of varying periods, not just the one defined in the article. Two of the sources cited do not use the term as defined. The article appears to rely on one source by one author; I find this quite dubious. It's also difficult as the source is print only. Giving it the benefit of the doubt I thought it helpful to move the material to the nearest parent article to expose it to more editors and see how it developed there; but perhaps it would be more appropriate to look closer at the notability issue. I am inclined to take the article to AfD to get a wider opinion, but would like to get more details first, as I may be wide of the mark here, and just not seeing the notability. Do you have any other sources that use the term "New Music" in the way described in the article? And can you confirm the usage of the term - is it "New Music", "New music" or "new music"?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Academic Source. Assistant Music Prof at Syracuse University (go to Page 5).  Explanatory 1984 Article "Newsweek on Campus" reprinted by Michigan Daily. The sources already in the article are from Simon Reynolds, DJ's from KROQ influential Los Angeles "alternative" station.
 * Even though I created the article the name was changed to it New Music (music industry) by another editor. "Music Industry terminology" is my idea. But maybe you can look at the sourced articles and see what you think. Edkollin (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those links are useful, particularly the second one. It does appear that the term was used by several people, and is being explained. The title should have a simple disambiguation to identify it for people who are already looking for it. The disambiguation in brackets should not be attempting to define or explain it, but simply disambiguate it. Looking at the New Music disambiguation page I see New Music being used in Classical music, so a simple disambiguation might be New Music (pop), as this New Music deals in pop music.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

RevDelete request
Hello, SilkTork.

I do not have anything especially specific to ask of you, other than that you aid me by permanently rev-deleting my conspicuous edit to the first sentence of the Scientology page, as I am afraid the organization might decide to make me out for a hooligan (on account of my obvious belligerence) and attempt to sabotage my peace and/or sanity.

Thanks for your help. Ratiuglink (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I sympathise with your position; however, the RevDelete rules do not permit me to conceal your edit. The edit itself is not offensive, and RevDelete is not for when someone later changes their mind. Wikipedia policy is that we keep a record of our actions in the interest of openness and verification. My experience of the Wikipedia community is that they like it when someone makes a mistake and learns from that mistake. It can be better to make a mistake and then genuinely apologise for it, and make amends, than never to make a mistake at all! Your edit is not something that should cause you any concern. Your behaviour in not edit warring over the revert is one that people will note as positive. You have done OK. No worries!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues of the Myth of Skanderbeg
Hi,

Thank you for your intention to review the article's GA nomination.

I know that every article should have all major issues resolved before getting GA status. I would not even nominate it before resolving all unresolved issues. The article has been created on February 24, 2011 and it was marked with tag for multiply issues (an hour) after its GA nomination.

I think that all tags which are added within multiply issues tag are unjustified and I explained why. Nobody presented any counterargument in the meantime. Although I announced that I will delete all three tags if nobody presents some counterarguments "within reasonable period of time (say one week)" I did not delete those tags because user who added them was inactive in the meantime.

I still believe that adding the multiple issues tag was unjustified. Taking in consideration that user who added them is (temporary) inactive I propose to wait another week for him to reply to my explanation. If he remains inactive during the next week I propose you to check my explaination and if you feel that I might be right to continue your review until he returns to the discussion during your review hopefully.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * NPOV dispute discourages drive-by tagging; however, looking at the talkpage I can see that the person placing the tag has given a rationale for the tags, and has engaged in discussion regarding the issue. GAN isn't dispute resolution - we cannot adequately or appropriately review an article over which a dispute is taking place. The dispute needs to be resolved first. As this article has been the subject of serious dispute I'd like to see the dispute resolved satisfactorily, and then a period of stability of around a month before reviewing. See Talk:Catholic Church/GA1. I am inclined to close this now, though will keep the GAN open for the full seven days to see what happens regarding the dispute resolution. If all parties agree to work together to ensure the article is balanced and neutral, then I will agree to conduct a full review, though I would keep it open for a minimum of one month to ensure stability.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the person placing the tag has given a rationale for the tags, and has engaged in discussion regarding the issue. That is why I proposed to wait another week for him to reply to my explanation. I understand your approach that we should resolve dispute before you continue your review. In case user who placed the tags remain inactive for more than seven days I propose to try to resolve disputes without him using other methods for dispute resolution.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

George Villiers
Excellent news. The text of the History of Parliament series has been or is being placed online. Villiers' article is here.

Thank you very much for the review. I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Taking the esoteric and specialized and making it interesting and accessible is one of the pleasures of Wikipedia editorship for me. Choess (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link - it appears to support the article. I'll take a closer look tomorrow.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's ready. I've added inline cites for the opinions (mostly Thorne), altered one to better correspond to the source, added a few other sources (including one to justify my description of the paymastership). The reference for Thorne now links directly to the online text. Choess (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

All done. Passed.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Very much appreciated. 01:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Somerton Castle
Thanks for your comments on the Somerton article at Talk:Somerton/GA1 which several of us are in the process of addressing, however could you look at the comments & sources about the (possible) existence of a castle. Would you be happy for the text you added to the article to be changed to something a lot less certain that it existed?&mdash; Rod talk 18:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Repairs
It's a long story, but it started with changes to User2. Unfortunately, GAN/preload was substituting this template, and the change made a big mess, since the substituted version was (1) taking up more than one line, and (2) the fact that it was taking up more than one line screwed up GA bot. This screwed up the main GAN page (see thread at User_talk:MSGJ). Once I made the repairs to all the GANs which were started over the past couple days, then GA bot was able to fix the problems (see these edits and notice the removal of the strange "toobar|separator=dot" text). So, this should be a one-time problem, and I won't be flooding your watch list again (hopefully). The only lingering issue is that the GA bot does not recognize the "user2" template, so either the code for GA bot will need an update, or we will need to fix the preload template so that it doesn't use a template. In either case, I am hopeful that this issue is now resolved. What a mess. Sorry for the problems, I should have been more explicit in my edit summary, but as you can see, it is a long story. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation. Good luck with fixing the problem!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jivesh Here
Hi. I am Jivesh. I read your user page and i was simply impressed. I wanted to ask you whether you copy-edit articles? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 07:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jivesh. I will do a bit of copy-editing sometimes when doing a GAN, but on the whole you are better off asking at WP:Copy editors.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. It does not matter. Actually, i needed someone who can write very good English. I love "Crazy in Love". All Beyonce's songs are my favorite. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 09:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just taken on a bunch of GA reviews, and also just started as a response volunteer, so I'm quite busy at the moment. You can try asking me again next month, I might have more time then. Regards  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That would be great because my exams will be over by then. I just want to let you know that the article i was talking about is related to music. I hope it is fine with you? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 10:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Live and Let Die
Hi there. thanks so much for the review - it's been a very positive process. I've added the extra info concerning the banning in Ireland, as you suggested. Please let me know if there is anything else you would like me to address on this. Thanks again. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Done.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review...
... of the Bastille - very much appreciated. I think the comments on the lead are very fair (NB: invariably the weakest part of my article work!); I'm hoping to have some time spare over the weekend, so will take a stab at some improvements then. If you get a chance next week to take a second look after that, your thoughts would be gratefully received! Thanks again, Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Somerton GAN
Hi SilkTork I'm sorry that I could not respond to the review quick as I have been busy with Year 11 but I've looked at the point on the review at Talk:Somerton/GA1 and I think that most of them has been appointed. There were several editors working on the article and I feel sorry to miss that, but I have given the article a huge copyedit yesterday and I need your opinion/views on it if it needs to be passed. Does the article now meet the GA criteria? Regards Jaguar (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll need to take a fuller look shortly - however on a quick glance I note that the lead still needs some work, and that the history section has at least one hole. I have extended the hold which will give everyone - including myself - a little more time to work on improvements.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I do like and appreciate a barnstar - though the amendments I made were minor - which is why I made them. The main work is yours.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Whitby GA
Hi, I wonder if you can cast your eyes over this again and give some neutral input and direction as you have the GA on hold at the moment. An editor from the GOEC has edited the article and reduced the expanded lead down, some of which has since been restored. The 3 main editors are unhappy with the changes made to the lead and the removal of sub-sectioning in the History section. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look yesterday, but then got called away by real life. I'll take another look soon.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Keith D (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look. Please continue editing the article as you wish it to be edited, and I will resume the review shortly.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Margaret Sanger
hi. I've made some good progress on the Margaret Sanger article. Could you take another look and see how it looks now? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I had this GAN down as a long hold, and have pushed it to the back of my schedule. However, I will take a look when I've finished a couple of other things.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Silk: I notice you have "end of October" hold date for the Margaret Sanger article.  I just want to make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding:  In the GA Talk  page for that article, I wrote "end of October" but what I meant was that we should be able to complete the entire GA process by the end of October.  I didn't mean that it would take until then for me to respond to the GA issues you listed (that only took a few days).   I'm available to work on the article now, and I think all the GA issues have been resolved.    --Noleander (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut naming
Hi there! I saw the shortcut you added to Manual of Style/Layout, named as Layout Images. While I agree it's useful to have a shortcut to that section, I think the name chosen was suboptimal. Shortcuts are conventionally named with ALLCAPSNOSPACES (check out WP:SC for official word). This convention has the benefit of making shortcuts easier to type and remember -- MediaWiki is case-sensitive, and spaces matter. It also helps readers identify shortcuts as shortcuts in usage. So I've taken the liberty of changing the name to WP:LAYIM. Hope you don't mind. Cheers! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 00:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll still use the one I created as that is easier for me to remember and to write, though it's good to have the "correct" one shown on the page. Well done for doing that.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Happy editing! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Genocide of Azerbaijani people in Iran
Hi.How could I get the content of this deleted article? --Orartu (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've userfied the page for you. You can access it at User:Orartu/Anti-Azerbaijani agitations in Iran. If you need further help, please let me know.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  08:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Orartu (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I do like stars!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Jenna Rose
Ten Keeps (including "Keep and LOL", "Sources exist, they don't have to be in the article", "Sources exist", and a claim that the nomination is due to misogyny) and 13 Deletes? Result - Keep? Surely No Consensus at best. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely an admin is to consider all parts of a discussion, pro and con, and not resort to simply counting heads?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, which is why I pointed out that a number of the Keep votes were weak as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) When considering an AfD discussion I take into account the wider consensus as shown through policies and guidelines. As the article meets our inclusion criteria at WP:V and WP:V, and this was argued in the discussion, it appeared to me to be a keep per that wider consensus. I considered the relevant arguments regarding local sources, BLP issues, and the subject being of likely passing interest and made comments on each of those in my close statement. I didn't find any argument to delete that was not outbalanced by either the keep arguments in the discussion, and/or by the appropriate inclusion guidelines and policy.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly bothered enough to take this to DRV, though I'd say that whilst it's fine to give less weight to poorly argued !votes (i.e. "It's notable", "not notable"), then if you're saying that you're discounting policy-based Delete votes (i.e. WP:BLP1E) merely by saying you don't agree with them, then that's not a consensus-building close, but a supervote. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite prepared to change the outcome to "no consensus" if that is seen to be appropriate, and if I have overlooked something. I do feel though that I considered the arguments carefully. The view that the subject was notable for only one event is countered in the discussion by pointing out that she has made other videos, and coverage has continued for over a year. When looking at the recent sources they are commenting on her recent activities. So on that point I felt that the keep arguments were more in line with policy and guidelines.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine. I suppose in the end I'm too wedded to the idea of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia rather than a collection of trivia, which is why I always ask myself when closing AfDs "would this article exist in an actual encyclopedia?".  Sadly, these days this is no longer the criteria for an article being here, and there is a hardcore of users who seem determined to ensure that Wikipedia should keep everything regardless.  Sad, but as I say, not your fault. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Jenna Rose
In checking the "oldafdfull" on the talk page, I saw that each was directed at AFD #1. So I corrected the discussion links to AFD#2 and #3, and added one for AFD #1. My respects, as it was not an easy close certainly.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC) == List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ==

I had bet with myself 10:1 that you were going to close that as keep after looking at you user page. No hard feelings, but you have dismissed all concerns with a straw man about another article being FA, an article which of course has quite a different contents. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I made reference to another article, but I based the keep decision on the arguments within the discussion combined with examination of the relevant guidelines. I kept an open mind while looking at the issue. I have no personal opinion either way on the scientific community's views on global warming, and was looking at the discussion based on our inclusion criteria, and the way that we resolve issues. The more I looked into the discussion the more I felt that this was a content issue that should be resolved via other channels. And this seems to have been a similar conclusion to the previous AfDs. You raised some good points in the discussion, and I was going to address your concerns directly in my close, but by the time I wrote the close I felt I had already said enough and that your concerns were already addressed within the discussion by Warden and Dragons flight.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Further to that, from Afd: "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept". I consider your statement in you closing summary that you used the featured status of the Global warming article as grounds for a 'keep' decision as tantamount to an admission that you based your closure not on a "judgement of the consensus of the discussion", but instead on your own judgement of the appropriateness of the article - this would clearly contravene the accepted closure policy. I suggest you therefore withdraw your closure, and ask for another admin to assess consensus, as required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I made reference to another article, but made my keep decision based on the discussion and on the relevant guidelines and policies. I'm sorry if my observation that the subject matter of the article has been problematic has been misunderstood. Do you think I need to reword it?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I support the above remarks. As an interested but uninvolved editor, it's clear to me that you did not give adequate weight to both sides of the debate. In fact, I don't see the least bit of evidence that you've read or properly understood any of the opinions of the delete !voters. If you are going to make arguments that did not appear in the debate- such as the FA status of Global Warming, and your personal opinion on MOS:LISTS- then you should have entered a keep !vote rather than closing it your preferred way by fiat. Reyk YO!  21:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I spent considerable time looking at all the points raised, and reading again the guidelines linked. And I felt I covered the concerns of fringe, undue, OR, and POV in my statement. What do you feel I missed so I can look again.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It would clearly be inappropriate to 'look again' - you have apparently made a decision based on your own assessment of the article, rather than on an assessment of the consensus of the discussion, and as such, your only viable action would be to withdraw the closure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

86 has filed a deletion review here. Hut 8.5 22:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come the HELL on, you're telling me that all the votes where people say it's fine because it supported their POV are valid? That it's not a WP:POVFORK? There were 18 deletes to 15 keeps and most of the keeps were not policy-based, but instead explicitly said they liked it because it promoted their POV. This was no consensus at the very worst, not fracking "keep". It should have been deleted, though. This is a WP:POVFORK of the main articles, which we have three other ones of. 86.** IP (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It was pointed out in the discussion that there are reliable sources which deal explicitly with "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", or "Scientist Deniers", or "Contrarian Scientists", so it appears that the topic itself is appropriate. It seems that the problem is the way that the topic is being handled, and that is an editing issue as per WP:DEL.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's bullshit. NONE of those sources were lists of this type. NONE of those sources consisted of nothing but POV-pushing quotes like this article was. However, ALL of that material DOES appear in Global warming controversy, put in context, and naming the important contrarian scientists. - so, yes, the material was notable. That's why we have the article Global warming controversy, and discuss it at very great length and detail there. Did you bother looking at the article this was a WP:POVFORK of, or looking at those sources and comparing themm with the article under deletion, and the article it was a POVFORK of?   86.** IP (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did look at it, and made a reference in my close that it was pointed out in the discussion that the List was prose referenced in related articles. The List is prose referenced in Global warming controversy in the On the assertion of consensus section.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You seriously think you can support 18 Delete 15 keep being keep, not no consensus or delete, because the article is linked to from other Wikipedia articles? I mean, the numbers don't entirely matter, but your closure isn't based on the arguments made anyway, so... 86.** IP (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a point raised during the discussion which seemed to rebut the notion that this was purely a POV Fork. If related articles wrote explicitly that there are scientists who disagree with the main body of opinion, and linked to the List, then that seemed to imply that the List was not purely a content fork. The arguments put forward in the discussion indicated that the alternative views given in the list are not those of Wikipedian editors generated by original research, but that of a documented group of scientists. And this group of scientists are remarked upon in related articles.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you let us know where you found a reference to a defined 'group of scientists', what the source stated the criteria was for inclusion in this group, and what evidence there is that the persons in our list were included on the basis of that criteria, rather that the WP::OR of contributors? Not that this matters - you have clearly close the AfD improperly, by taking into account matters not discussed in the debate, without allowing any opportunity to respond. Given this improper closure, any further discussion on the merits of the article itself are moot. What is at issue here is your apparently fundamental misunderstanding of what is required from an admin in closing an AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your question. My understanding is that there are "global warming deniers", and that this List is attempting to identify them and categorise them by their objections. That such a list is more problematic than a List of HIV-positive people doesn't mean, though, that it meets our deletion criteria. However, I would agree that my closing comment was not as clearly written as it could have been. I don't think the closing comment was one of my best. I do tend to close difficult and controversial discussions, and mostly they are problem free because of the clarity of my comments. In this case it was not so. Thank you for being civil in your disagreement with me.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly: "this List is attempting to identify them and categorise them by their objections" - which is to say that this list is WP:OR - the editors themselves 'identify' people, not on some external criteria derived from a cited source, but instead from arbitrary criteria made up by themselves. You still aren't answering the fundamental objection I have made however: that by taking into account matters not discussed in the AfD, you have effectively appointed yourself Judge, Jury, and Executioner. If Admins are to be allowed to close AfDs based on their own opinion of articles, and on factors that nobody else has had a chance to respond to, there is little point in having an AfD process in the first place. If you are not prepared to respond over this fundamental issue, I will have to reluctantly raise this elsewhere - though as a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I'm as yet not entirely sure of the appropriate place to do this. It seem so fundamental to the way Wikipedia deals with such issues that I'm not prepared to let it slide - admins need to be held accountable for their actions, and need also to respond to legitimate concerns over such actions. Can you at least let me know whether you consider your references to other articles, and to evidence not previously discussed, as normal behaviour in an AfD? If this is normal, then we clearly need to make this explicit in policy, rather than giving a misleading impression of the process. It seems to me to be dishonest to tell participants in a debate that their opinions will be considered, and then have decisions made by fiat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * SilkTork, I have asked a simple question, and I think it merits a response: do you consider your references to other articles, and to other evidence not previously discussed, as normal behaviour in closing an AfD? I can only see this as an abuse of process, and as entirely contrary to what is expected of an admin - and am currently looking into what is required to initiate an enquiry into your conduct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you are not content with my closing comments, and I wish I had made them clearer for you. I closed based on the arguments put forward in the AfD discussion and on my understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines, and made reference to a related article as an illustration of my opening remark that I felt the topic itself was contentious, and that the concerns were solvable through editing rather than deletion. I can see where you might have been misdirected by my comments; however, if you go back and read my comments again carefully - especially with these and my other above explanations in mind, hopefully you might see the point I was trying to make.
 * The DRV may conclude that a no consensus close is preferable to a keep close, and I see the value in that. A no consensus close is less contentious in cases like this, and that is an important consideration. I have closed as no consensus at times, though usually when a discussion has been relisted several times, and the outcome really is borderline. Where it is possible to make a decisive conclusion I prefer to do so, as that is the purpose of bringing the matter to AfD. I felt in this case that the concerns of original research and biased viewpoint were not proven in the discussion, and that the counter arguments put forward were strong enough and clear enough and grounded firmly enough in relevant policies to make a keep close. I understand, and always have, that when making a close decision that some people will disagree, or will not be satisfied; that is why I tend to explain my thinking. I am sorry that in this case my explanation was not clear enough.
 * I am now away for the weekend, running in the Beachy Head Marathon, so am unlikely to give any more responses until next week.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I do not feel that you have properly answered my concerns, and that you now compound this by stating that you have previously closed AfDs as 'no consensus' based in part on the results of previous AfDs on the same article, rather than on the relevant current discussion, suggests to me that your understanding of what is required, by policy, is fundamentally flawed. It is unfortunate that you will be away (and I wish you good luck in the Marathon), but I can see little course now but to take this further - probably at AN/I. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there has been another misunderstanding. By relisted, I meant WP:RELIST not renominate. Thanks for your good wishes, and I'm sorry you feel that you need to pursue this matter further; however if you feel my explanations have not satisfied you, then that is a course open to you. I am, of course, learning from this experience, so your questioning of my close is not without value.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Evidently I need to become more familiar with the intricacies of AfDs - I misunderstood, and apologise for that. This doesn't really answer my initial concerns however - that you based your decision on your own opinion of the merits of the article, and used 'evidence' that nobody else had a chance to discuss to arrive at your decision. The merits or otherwise of other global warming articles are utterly irrelevant to the majority of objections to the list, as raised at the AfD discussion, and that you considered it of any significance suggests that you had fundamentally misunderstood what was being argued - the the list itself was in violation of several fundamental Wikipedia policies, and was incapable of being corrected through editing. Any reasonable closure statement would surely have given a clear and reasoned response to such concerns - and a statement now that you took them into consideration is of little consolation. The fact of the matter is that even if you did take them properly into account, your closing summary gave no indication of this, and instead implied that you'd made your decision based on factors that nobody else could respond to. n this basis, the closing statement can, and must, be seen as an indication of a serious procedural error, at minimum. Clearly, I have no wish to drag this through AN/I (it is likely to be messy, and to boil over into yet another dispute about the merits of the article, which is not what is at issue here.) Can I suggest, one final time, that you consider withdrawing your closure, without prejudice, and permitting the AfD to be properly closed by another admin? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I was quite happy to look again at my close, then the DRV was opened which took matters out of my hand. There are people who support the close and as well as those who oppose it, so it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome. I have left some comments on the DRV discussion, but I don't think the comments add anything. What will happen now is out of my hands. Someone else will close the DRV.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Please reconsider making difficult closes like this just prior to a planned absence from the Wiki for several days. I happen to also disagree entirely with your close, but I'll leave that for the DRV. You should not close controversial AfDs when you don't have the time to discuss afterwards. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns. However, I am able to check in and make limited comments.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Friendly, unsolicited advice. Feel free to ignore this advice, but realize that from a person like myself who is just reading the entire affair from beginning to end it looks like you just closed the deletion discussion with something approaching a !vote rather than something approaching an attempt to describe the consensus of the editors who commented. I can understand that you might disagree with the (lack of) consensus in that discussion, but as Wikipedia doesn't have a constitution or case law (WP:IAR seems to dramatically declare this) I think it may cause you problems in the future if it seems like you made a judicial decision based on something like stare decisis when the consensus seems to be as lacking as much as it was in this case. My unsolicited advice is this: Voluntarily relist the discussion and try to get some more input by advertising on the VP, IRC, Signpost, and the like. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I am aware that my closing comments were not as clear as they could have been, and have allowed people to read into my close a biased decision. However, I felt that there was enough discussion and guidelines to close in the manner I did. When I feel that I do not agree with the way the discussion has gone, I do not close against consensus, but make a comment and/or !vote, as I did at this AfD in the same batch of AfD closes I did which included the List_of_scientists AfD under question. I am not going to divert the DRV. There are mixed opinions, and it would be inappropriate of me to change the close as somebody could disagree with that action. We have the DRV process for situations like this, and the DRV will run its course, and somebody will make a judgement call - but that person should not be me!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 October 19
Hi SilkTork. An SPA nominated your closure of Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (3rd nomination) for review at Deletion review/Log/2011 October 19 and has failed to notify you. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Scheduling telephone interview
Thank you for replying to my invitation to participate in our storytelling project. Would you be available to speak with me over the telephone soon? Interviews typically take between 30 and 90 minutes, and can be scheduled at your convenience. I even still have interview slots available today, as well as on Monday and Tuesday of next week. Aaron (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just off to the pub tonight, then early(ish) bed as I have a marathon tomorrow. Monday I'm out. Tuesday I have something in the morning, but should be free early afternoon, depending on my young daughter. I can try and keep an hour free between 2 and 3. I'll email you my mobile number.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Bilk (beverage) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bilk (beverage). Since you had some involvement with the Bilk (beverage) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)