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

Current messages

ITG link on trumpet page

Hi. I salute the excellent editing work you have done on trumpet - nice one! I am, however, unable to see why you removed the ITG link as "commercial or inappropriate" - could you please explain which of these it is, and how? It seems odder that you've left one personal/academic site linked, just some studies which as a genre are really quite widespread, plus a fingering chart from a yes-for-profit site who will be pleased with the extra traffic - it perhaps makes your decisions look a little arbitrary to the casual viewer. To be honest I would have thought that ITG should quite possibly be the last external site to be removed, preceded closely in 2nd-last place by the excellent dallasmusic, which I was delighted to see you'd left linked in. :) Cheers. 92.234.10.126 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. I was doing a quick link check and I saw the site was asking for subscriptions so I removed it under the Wikipedia:EL#Sites_requiring_registration guideline. But as you say, the ITG are a respected organisation, and should be linked. SilkTork *^YES! 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! That's very nice of you. And you can get to a bucketload of content without subbing, including nearly all the journal content up to a year ago. Best wishes, 92.234.10.126 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Admin

Hey, how have you been? I appreciate you wanting to nominate me for adminship, but I must respectfully object to this. I don't think that the RfA would go badly, but I would rather take on some coaching and be more familiar with the tools so I can have clear knowledge about the available tasks. I've been primarily a mainspace editor, and I would continue that no matter what. I'm not in a hurry to look into adminship right now, though -- I have a lot going on IRL (my edit count's been down the past month or two). I do thank you for your consideration! I will let you know when I feel I am ready to plunge into the RfA. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typewriter Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. Wish I could send this via typewriter ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keg and Keg stand

Hey, I readded and cleaned up the beer games section to keg, as it fits better there. Keg stand is about one particular game. I'm going to do some more work on keg. --AW (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my page that I don't think it should be moved. The other "games" in the "keg games" section in keg were not notable and were not really games at all, more like run around and drink beer. Keg stand isn't really a game either, it's more of a ritual. I think it should have its own article, and keg games be kept as a section in keg. I trimmed the section down considerably, removing the chaff. --AW (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hold up! Let's talk about this. I have a number of concerns. --AW (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to respond on my page --AW (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found poetry

Hey. I noticed you edited found poetry a while back. I was wondering if I could recruit you to expand/clarify/cite/at least watchlist it to help fight off the unfortunaly common vandalism that seem to take place to found poetry, due to the fact that there is no one taking care of it. --Justpassin (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cervecería Cuauhtémoc Moctezuma Brewery

Hey! I work there and will be glad to send you an official company logo as that one is missing some details.

Regards

chenzoc

--Chenzoc 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. The best way would be if you loaded it yourself using the "Upload file" link on the left hand side of every page - in the "toolbox" section under the search box. If you then copy the Summary information from Image:CuauhtémocMoctezumaLogo.gif and select "Logo" for Licensing you won't get a "Bot" nagging you to put that information in. If you have problems at any stage get in touch and I'll help out. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise me?

Hello and greetings from California. Many editors offer their services of advice and expertise, but I am seeking yours because your user and talk pages seem particularly friendly. I could use some Wiki-friendliness right now. I am a relatively new Wikipedian and make contributions relatively seldom; I've often made edits and then deleted them because I was unsure of documentation or perfect neutrality. On 11 June I, User: Lantana11, made a brief addition to article KCBS-TV, recasting the opening two paragraphs. My added material was factual and, I believed, relevant to the article. Within the hour my edit was reverted by User: Rollosmokes; the edit summary merely called my addition "unnecessary." I had a similar experience with this editor on another article a month ago--thrice in one day he deleted two brief but factual additions of mine, branding them "unnecessary" and even "ridiculous." After my fruitless attempts to reach a compromise edit, in great frustration I resorted to an episode of "sock puppetry'--unwittingly, because I did not know that using IP and username alternately to make a point was a violation. But I sat out my block, realized the edit conflict was not worth being angry about, and sent this user a lengthy apology and truce. It was rebuffed and even deleted from his talk page. In the first article edit I had made in a month (KCBS-TV) I received the same treatment at this editor's hands. It makes me a little uneasy about editing when I know there is someone out there waiting for the chance to "put me in my place." I have no intention of arguing or starting a new reversion war, but I do feel a need to stand up for my edit. If you have any advice or guidance for me I would be very grateful. Sorry for such long-windedness, but I wanted to put the complete matter before you, and as you can see this is important to me. Thank you, Nick Lantana11 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I'll take a look at your edits and get back to you in a moment. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Rollosmokes' history shows that user has been in conflict previously [1], [2], [3]. However a person's past history doesn't mean that all that person's actions will be bad, and some accusations may be unfair. That being said, it's not encouraging that this user has got three ANI mentions.

I also note that WikiProject Television Stations seems to have at its heart a group of editors who rule Television Stations very strongly, and Rollosmokes is part of this group. These individuals may have a reason for their strong attitudes - I have no experience of editing within the Television Stations topic, and it may be a target for vandals which sometimes leads people to have lower tolerance levels than in other less targeted areas. However, it does mean that unless you are working in compliance with this group, that you are likely to have ongoing conflicts.

Unfortunately not all editing on Wikipedia is done in a supportive, collaborative manner. For example, Cabals do exist. That is a reality. Also some areas attract more conflict than others, due maybe to the subject matter or to the editors who dominate that topic. There are rules on Wiki to moderate aggressive, intimidating and unhelpful practices, and to encourage a supportive, collaborative spirit - but the rules are sometimes difficult and time-consuming to enforce. If a user (especially a group of well-installed users) choose to dispute a complaint, it can take a very long time before that dispute runs its full course, and if the person pursuing fair action is less knowledgeable in Wiki ways, has few confederates, and is not as strong willed as those opposing, then the fair action may not be achieved. It is up to you to decide if you wish to continue editing in an area in which you have to fight your corner, or if you might prefer to edit in areas where you may be more welcomed.

My first observations are that you appear to have been very badly treated by Rollosmokes, and I don't quite understand the reason why the user has treated you so badly, nor why that user has reverted your edits. Not to suggest that your edits are right and Rollosmokes' revert was wrong, but that first appearances are that Rollosmokes seems to have handled your case in an unnecessarily aggressive manner which tends to cause more conflict.

I note that you have been blocked for sockpuppetry. I haven't looked fully into that, and would like to hear your side of the story. It appears that your editing alternated between account and IP. This can sometimes happen by accident - but it looks like you made a revert from your account to an edit by your IP in a manner that suggested you were using your account edit to support your IP edit as though they were done by separate people. I understand the frustration that may have prompted this, though if this was deliberate this was a silly thing to do. I hope, if this was deliberate, that you have acknowledged this, and are prepared to commit to never doing this again. We learn by our mistakes, grow stronger from them, and move on. "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." Confucius

Anyway - I think Rollosmokes has - for whatever reason - reverted too strongly in your case, and I will enter into discussion with that user. SilkTork *^YES! 23:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I am grateful for your words!

Hi again from Nick, otherwise known as User: Lantana11. Your prompt message almost rendered me to tears--and I'm a big kid now! Thank you for your opinions. I laid this matter before you not to promote the rightness of my edit to article KCBS-TV or to have my edits reinstated (in and of themselves they don't matter that much), but to receive some kind of feedback about my interaction with User: Rollosmokes. I have honestly felt that my discourse with this editor has been singularly and unnecesssarily unpleasant, and for the life of me I do not know why. The edits that he has reverted have been factual; I felt he deleted them not due to lack of documentation, or relevance, or even unwieldiness but simply because he did not want them included. I got the feeling that he had taken an attitude of sole proprietorship over certain broadcast TV articles, and he wanted no opposition. This idea also emerges from a brief glance over the talk pages he frequents. I know I'm being long-winded again--forgive me. But there are a couple of things you should know about this situation. First, Rollosmokes has quickly reverted some of my edits to my own talk page--he must have had my user page on his watchlist. That threw me. Second, I was guilty of sock puppetry; I willingly overturned Rollosmokes' reversions under my user name AND again under my IP address, pretending to be a different editor. Yup, I did it--I knew it was smarmy, underhanded, and foolish, but at the time I did not know it was an actual Wikipedia violation; I might not have done it otherwise. But I was so frustrated and red-faced mad that I did this in a matter of two minutes. I was rightly blocked and later contacted a couple of administrators asking how long the SSP template remained on my user page. I made it clear that I felt awful about this and would not repeat such an action; I received permission to archive the template. In my relatively brief time as an editor I have had only positive and gratifying interactions with all other users but this one--even when there was some small disagreement pending, I ultimately made new friends. Whatever may result from this episode I am fine with. I am not arguing with any other editor from now on--I learned the lesson that it is not that important, and I want Wikipedia to remain a fun and interesting part of every day. I am glad that you have heard me out and have some encouraging words for me. I'm in good Wiki-hands. Should there be anything else you might want to know about me please give me a buzz; "Stay in Touch" is the old expression. Thank you again and my warmest regards, I am yours truly,--Lantana11 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: KCBS-TV

I'm not surprised that Lantana11 has contacted a third party. He had no choice but to do so, as I asked him leave me alone as a result of our last disagreement, during which he labeled me as a "vandal". ([4], [5])

My issues with him over KCBS-TV, and other articles, is based on a professional critique of his work, and is nothing personal. I feel he is trying too hard to push his point across, and is ignoring the consensus built among other editors of television station articles. We do not label network-owned stations in Los Angeles (like KCBS-TV) as "West Coast flagship stations", nor do we have "East Coast flagship stations" located in New York City. The New York City station for ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC are the flagships of their respective networks -- period.

Virtually no one in the industry uses these regional terms anymore, though there were merit to these designations at one time. The need for separate programming hubs on each coast has largely disappeared as broadcasting technology (specifically the use of satellites to deliver network programming) as evolved. The Wikipedia article Flagship (television) has some incorrections, which needs to be clarified. I explained this with Lantana11, but he nevertheless continued to make these changes to the article, as well as similar changes at WCBS-TV. He even used an unregistered IP address, "67.180.135.133" (talk • contribs) to shield himself from attribution, both before and after changing his user name from "Nickfaitos" to Lantana11. The sockpuppetry got him blocked, and rightly so.

He is also adding lots of unneeded, over-expanded information into the introduction to articles. The point of the intro in an encyclopedia is to briefly introduce the subject, with facts that are few in number but important in context. There is no need to overload the intro with unnecessary, and in some cases, trivial information -- even if it is factual.

Compare the KCBS-TV article before and after the recent revision ([6]). The revised intro, which I originally rewrote, keeps the station's important information simple. Lantana11's version is full of stuff that either should be placed elsewhere in the article or is so trivial that it really doesn't belong in there. Along with the incorrect "West Coast flagship" line, he over-expands on the location of the studio and transmitter (trivial), as well as on translator station and cable/satellite coverage (redundant).

The community of Wikipedia editors who work on television-related articles have dealt with difficult editors who refuse to work with an consensus, or who make changes and tweaks without discussing them with the communuity first. I found Lantana11 to be one of these editors who cared more about making their point instead of trying to discuss and understand what really goes on around here. We are not cabals, as you implied in your comment to him. But we do have very little tolerance with vandalism and even less for editors who want to push their POV instead of discussing it first. Lantana11 is also aware of that, but he again only wishes to make his point anyway. And he'll go to any and all lengths to do so. He put the issue up on the Television Stations WikiProject talk page, only to delete his own thread after less than two days. And he has sought other opinions from anyone who would listen, as you can see from his contributions page.

My true intention is not to be harsh, but I have no control, nor do I care, how someone interprets my words. I did my part and discussed the issue with him, and got nothing in return except being called a "vandal". Yes, he did apologize for his harsh words, but it was too little and too late. My opinion on him was already made up. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I do have sympathy for your situation, and I understand that you feel very strongly that Lantana11's initial edits weren't helpful. But they were not vandalism. And neither is the edit under question.I did compare the KCBS-TV article before and after the recent revision ([7]), and it was that which prompted me to agree with Lantana11 that some intolerance was taking place. The first change in the edit is from "channel 2" to "Channel 2". You reverted this. Yet later in the same article Channel 2 is used, and the station appears to be referred to as Channel 2 [8]. You reverted the phrase "serving the Los Angeles, California metropolitan area." to "located in Los Angeles, California". If the TV company does indeed broadcast to the Los Angeles, California metropolitan area it would be a more pertinent fact than simply where it is located. And if it broadcasts to a wider area, then the edit could be amended and improved rather than simply reverted. Consider that at least one person feels that the channel's broadcast audience is important information. And I support the idea that such information is pertinent and should be in the lead section. The expansion of the basic information in the second paragraph doesn't appear to me to be trivial at all. Either the channel's audience is important or it is not. The state to which you reverted merely says "In the few areas of the western United States where viewers cannot receive CBS programs over-the-air, KCBS-TV is available on satellite to subscribers of Dish Network and DirecTV." While Lantana11's edit gave much fuller and detailed information: "KCBS-TV is included in basic-cable systems spanning the wide area between Ventura and Riverside counties. The station's signal also reaches some of the more remote Southland mountain and desert areas through relay transmitter stations. And in the few areas of the western United States where viewers cannot receive CBS programs over the air, KCBS-TV is available via satellite to Dish Network and DirecTV subscribers, and, in fact, KCBS can be seen by "dish" viewers in many parts of the United States; it is listed in program guides as "CBS-West." " which even if you argue is too detailed for the lead section (which is a point of discussion I agree) it is information which should appear somewhere in the article - perhaps in a section entitled ==Audience reach== or some such.

From your past comments and interactions, and your comments to me above I do feel you have grown too protective of the television station articles in which you are involved. This situation does happen frequently. So much so that we have a policy about it :Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. It's an understandable situation, especially in an area which has, as I suspected and you confirm, attracted either vandalistic attention or well-meaning but poor quality editing. Some Wiki editors have little patience with being supportive to other editors who may be struggling to come to terms with Wikipedia's ways - a snappy vandal tag, and a huffy, "I'm right and you're wrong" message when pushed for an explanation, does more harm than good, and leads to situations like this where third parties get involved. In situations like this I am never persuaded by comments that "but then he called me a vandal" because in cases like this people respond with like for like, and it is up to the more experienced Wikipedian to show how to behave. Simply put, if you see a stranger in your office and you ask if you can help, the stranger will explain what he wants, you give the assistance, and things proceed smoothly, and you have a future colleague who, when he has found his feet, may be of great profit to you and your company. If you shout "fuck off out of my office", no matter what happens later, you have created a negative and aggressive atmosphere from the start - and pleading that "but he then told me that I was a jerk" will be your own fault.

You are right that my comment above about a cabal can be read in relation to your group of fellow editors. It wasn't meant as a direct comment, but the use of the word to suggest that your group might be as difficult to deal with as cabal was - yes - implied. I was suggesting to Lantana11 that - for various reasons - he might have difficulty working in harmony with you and your group. I'd like to see you prove me wrong on that count. Would you be able to work with him, and consider the merits of the edit under discussion? SilkTork *^YES! 09:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to work with the consensus on television station articles, then fine. If he can understand the meaning of "Keep it simple", then fine. But on a personal level, no. We've tried it already, and it didn't work. I personally choose not to go down this road with this user again. Rollosmokes (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed by the attitude displayed here and here. I would suggest you consider putting your personal feelings aside for the needs of Wikipedia - continuing to snub Lantana11 after he has had the decency to apologise and offer to work with you is a little counter-productive to the harmony of the Project as a whole. You don't need to hold hands and dance in the flowers with him, but a little bit of civility goes a long way! But, whatever, if that's your personality, so be it - I can't change that! I wish you well in your continued editing of Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? All I see is you working with one or two others (at the most) to force your agenda and drive people away, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#It_gets_worse... being a prime example. You have been removing criticisms of your activities [9] while re-inserting POV ("WWNY was broadcasting Ottawa commercials and stealing their revenue.") and errors ("A series of one minute recollections by local vetatans and others of their war memories, to co-encide with the release of The War (documentary)" [sic] from KWSU-TV). Removal of template fields while they were still in use broke many pages, and even when someone tries to be reasonable with you, your response is often something like this. Please try to contribute more constructively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.212 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this user is threatening me with a ban from Wikipedia here (even though he is not a WP admin)? I believe the concerns raised were legitimate and "a little counter-productive" was a line crossed long ago. Thanks for your efforts, though. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually an empty threat. It's unpleasant - but some people do, unfortunately, behave like that. My suggestion is to ignore it. The IP address from which you operate has attracted a fair degree of criticism, though sometimes a little unfairly. Have you considered registering - some editors have a prejudiced attitude toward IP addresses. SilkTork *^YES! 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all your help and your concern.

SilkTork, I really am glad that of all the editors that have offered editorial assistance, I chose to contact you. Your efforts and your time in examining and analyzing my situation have been not only fruitful and valuable to me, but also gratifying--I feel terrific in knowing that such editors as you are available to offer not only advice but also neutral and rational observation and conclusion. It is true that I am a comparatively new editor and need some help in navigating not only the waters of factual editing, but also of dealing with other users. Common sense always helps, and sometimes it is in short supply--that is true of me as of anybody else. I also want to thank you profusely for taking the time to analyze the specifics of my edits with User:Rollosmokes. This was effort above and beyond. As I've already told you, the edits themselves now pale to me in comparison to just doing things right and enjoying Wikipedia. That's my goal, and I plan to avoid anything infringing on that. Being right isn't everything after all. We could use your mediating skills in many parts of the world! Your support has been uplifting for me; should our paths cross again on any other subject or for any reason it will be a pleasure to sit down and chat with you. Sincerely, Lantana11 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you well. Remember to be patient with others. There are a whole variety of people editing on Wikipedia, and not all of them are warm and friendly. That, after all, is not the point of the Project. The intention here is to build a free, accessible, accurate and reliable store of knowledge - to that end sometimes people's feet get trodden on and feelings hurt. This is, after all, not a playground or networking site. It is up to you to decide if you wish to continue editing in the field of TV Stations given what has happened. If you do, I would strongly suggest that you initially confine your edits to adding reference sources to existing information, and build from there. And make sure that whatever you add to an article is backed up with a reliable source. If you do decide to return to editing TV Stations articles, I would suggest first a period of editing elsewhere to get a better feel for editing and having your edits accepted. Sometimes it is better to edit in an area in which you have little knowledge, for then you are forced to do some research, and you can then use that research as reference sources for the information you add. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add...

After perusing your user page I should also say that I wish you the best of health, long life, family, and longevity in all your vocations and avocations. Lantana11 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Have Provided Me with a New Approach to Wikipedia

SilkTork, thanks ever so much for sending me this list of tasks and duties that need doing for Wikipedia. It seems that, as you already knew, that this is an excellent way for a relative beginner to learn the nuts and bolts of editing. By performing these tasks an editor can learn where weaknesses lie in articles, where the unnecessary diverges from the necessary, where re-organization and re-ordering is needed, and where an entirely new article is warranted. I think I am going to start making contributions to these tasks for a bit and get a good grasp of what Wikipedia needs. I see that you have been gracious enough to take more time to examine my interaction with User: Rollosmokes--I could never have dreamed that any editor could have lent me such support and affirmation. After seeing his comments I felt compelled to send him another message of apology and fellowship--well, you saw how that turned out. I knew it would, and honestly I did this so I could say that I had done all I could. On this subject--may I belabor you one final moment? As if you haven't done enough? I see that you communicate with User: Tomeasy. My situation had apparently come to his attention and he sent me some uplifting messages. In return I answered him with thanks and, being in a hurry, originally sent my note having forgotten to log in--the message was signed by my IP address 67.180.135.133. Within minutes I caught this and edited to show my username. This did not escape the attention of Rollosmokes, who, evidently interested in my activities, examined my IP address page and, seeing a couple of other similar mistakes made of haste, quickly reverted to a month-old version of that page with the old "suspected sock puppetry" template. His contributions page confirms this. I plan to get rid of this unwarranted SSP notice. Though I am starting to be a nuisance, I felt you deserved to know about this since you have been so willing to take notice of my situation. Again, Steve, thank you for your help and I sincerely hope that our editing or Wiki-paths cross very soon. Do you in the UK say what we do in the US--"Don't be a stranger?" All my best, Nick Lantana11 (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stop it

"This is unpleasant and total nonsense. You now appear to be stalking Lantana11 in some petty vendetta. You are walking a very fine line. Cool down and let it go - continuing to act in this manner will only cause more problems for everyone concerned."

Um, you must be kidding me. Last time I checked, registered users who utilize unregistered IP addresses to make questionable edits are considered to be practicing sockpuppetry. I'm not stalking anyone, I'm just calling it as I see it. If Lantana11 wants to edit, then he should do so from his registered account, not from an anonymous IP. As for a vendetta, I'm not the one who's gone to four different users -- yourself included -- to explain his "woe is me" story. I've let it go in my own way. Someone should tell "Nick" to do the same thing. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense. The guy forgot to log on and then corrected himself. It is, for your future information, within permitable Wiki practise to have more than two accounts for legitimnate purposes. It is also within permitable Wiki practise to make mistakes and then correct them. It is not permitable to stalk another user with the intent of being disruptive - and that is what you are doing. Your excuse does not cover up what you have done - it is clear and obvious that you are seeking to annoy him. Now - take a deep breath and let it go. SilkTork *^YES! 09:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaseline

Why did you erase my question about vaseline? What was wrong with it. Did not I have the right to ask ? [10] Waiting for your explanations... --Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is totally bizarre. I've looked at that dif several times now and tried to work out how that happened. I assure you it was not my intention to delete your question. If I want to remove material from the page I do so either by striking out or by moving it to another page along with a link to that page. I made several edits in that dif, but I can't work out how your question was deleted because it's not even close to anything I was writing that I might have changed my mind about. Bizarre! My sincere apologies. You'll note I have now given a response to your second attempt at the question. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've Just Turned on My Computer and...

I've got to say again...many, many thanks. I believe we are through with this and it's now time for us to go on to better and more constructive things. Do keep in touch if you care to. And by the way--as you know we in the US will be electing a President in the fall, and he will be seeking a new Secretary of State. Care to move over here and make yourself available for the job? Lantana11 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The EU Mediation

When making the decision about this painful issue, please consider that even proponents of the EU think it is a Unique organization and there is no other like it. Listing it with other monetary unions will not change anything.If the EU is actually Sui Generis and unique ( and I got some disgusting personal attacks for using this term "too often") how can it be compared to something else? If it is the only "of its kind" why should it be listed with things that are NOT "of its kind"..Why wont we make a separate chart and put it all alone because it is UNIQUE. If it is not unique then why are they saying that it is unique. That is what I am talking about and no one seems to understand. I was just wondering what was your opinion on this point of view?--Geographyfanatic (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not be making any decisions. I'll be helping you guys reach an agreement. As this has been developing I have, of course, had my own opinions - but these have in fact changed, and quite possibly will change again. I will make suggestions, but these suggestions will not come from my opinions but from ideas raised by the discussions. I am not keen at any stage in intruding my own views. This is not a case of persuading me, but of reaching agreement with those most involved in editing the article. What I am keen on is that all avenues are fully explored - even those which may initially seem daft. And that when all avenues have been explored the best solution will come forward. At the moment there is still a fair degree of arguing points by some of those involved rather than engaging in the questions I have set. The idea of the questions is to break out of the vicious cycle, and to reappriase the situation; to reach common grounds of agreement from which we can start to build consensus. I'd like to see more people address the questions so we build on that platform - but human nature being what it is, people will sometimes simply want to keep hammering away at familiar bones of contention than to address their mind to something new. It's not a complaint - we all do it. It's just accepting reality.

As for the notion that the EU is unique, that works both ways. It can be included because it is unique, and it can be excluded because it is unique.

We'll see how the discussion develops. SilkTork *^YES! 14:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silk, I'm getting disgusted by this mediation discussion. If Wikipedia is going to allow the changing of definitions and meanings, then I can understand how some feel that Wikipedia lacks credibility. If there are no immovable standards, then there is no comparison. If the EU is listed, then the UN should as well as the Middle East and other country groups. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What changing of definitions and meanings are you referring to? At the moment I am gathering information and looking at all aspects of the issue, and hoping that all participants are also broadening their mind to look at all sides - including considering why some other editors have a differing point of view. Disputes are very common on Wikipedia - we work through them by patient, civilised and intellectual debate. Well - that's what we hope to do! Mainly we get there by squabble, spit and hissing! However, in my experience articles grow stronger by going through a dispute. When all sides of an issue are examined, then we can be sure there is no bias or prejudice taking place. Or - rather - that the potential for obvious bias is reduced. Whatever - I have not been through a dispute yet in which an article has got weaker.

However, the process itself can be very frustrating. It's important to remember that this is not a battle in which any person is going to win. It doesn't matter whose viewpoint ends up being used to inform the article, what matters is that the knowledge itself is clear, factual, useful, reliable and unbiased. Your involvement in this process is helping to ensure that the article will end up being unbiased. I would rather you remained in place and stayed on course with the mediation. Answer the set questions and sign the statements that you most agree with. By doing that you help the process, you help me, and you help the article. SilkTork *^YES! 17:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

I do understand what you meant. and thank you for informing me but I have to tell you that I did not do it with bad intentions as I just tried to inform the owner of that IP that his/her actions were not favorable and instead of vandalizing the article, he/she could enter the discussion and communicate his ideas with others. Also, concerning your worries about sockpuppetry: if you believe that that is the case, instead of speculating, I would love if the IP would be checked and adequate actions taken if proved to be necessary.Regards, --Geographyfanatic (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely action that would be taken for a sockpuppet IP account engaged in a 3 revert edit war would be an initial 24 block to prevent further disruption, a sockpuppet tag placed on the accounts and a warning. If disruption continued after the block then the IP account might be permanently blocked. There may even be blocking consequences for the puppet-master account depending upon the severity of the disruption. At this stage the IP account is idle so there is no need for action. The main thrust of administrative actions on Wikipedia are to minimise disruption - if there is no current disruption there is no pressing need for action.

I read what you said to the IP account and much of what you said was commendable - however a gentle warning was in order, as you understand, otherwise your opponents might have complained. Anyway, no worries! I might pull together some thoughts on a suggested solution to the EU issue within the nest 48 hours. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible solution to gdp problem

I placed a chart and a clear explanation that you might want to look at on the talk page. I honestly believe that that is the ONLY Fair solution. Tell me what you think and I'll wait for others' opinions too.Talk:List of countries by GDP (nominal) --Geographyfanatic (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already received one comment by canada jack and he says that it is logical for the chart to be in descending order because of "nature" of the sources. According to him, i'm thinking, the chart which was in ascending order since the beginning and noone had problems with it,will be more logical to be converted to descending order after I started talking about moving the EU to the bottom.He wants the chart to follow the EU back and forth I guess.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SilkTork

Archives