Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SilkTork (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 5 August 2013 (→Agenda_of_the_Tea_Party_movement: commenting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

FAC: Trees (poem)

I decided to go straight to FAC, thinking the article had sufficient substance to be considered there. If you'd like to take a look and offer your suggestions and comments, the FAC is here: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1 Thanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made a couple of comments and watchlisted the FAC page. I'll try to get back and have a deeper look in the next few days. Please ping me if I haven't done so. SilkTork 10:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed your comments at the FAC discussion for Trees (poem) located here: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1. Could you please review whether your comments have been sufficiently resolved as I seek to improve the article and to obtain support for this article's promotion to FA status. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I appreciate your assistance. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Great rabbit photo above. ;-)

Thanks for nudging me. I'll try to give it a review against one or more the FA criteria in the next few days. Again - please do not be shy about nudging me if I haven't done so. SilkTork 18:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi SilkTork, recusal from the ArbCom case and including yourself as a party was admirable. There may be more who should be added judging by TFD's observations. However, I'm not here for that. Some time ago, you blocked me for a violation of WP:BLPTALK which I accepted without appeal. I have a question in regards to your blocking summary:

• 03:15, June 7, 2013 SilkTork (talk | contribs) blocked ThinkEnemies (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)

Is it appropriate to say I was blocked for violating WP:NPA when that policy seems explicit to interaction among fellow editors? I tried to find other examples to reference, but blocks for BLPTALK are quite difficult to locate. At least by my limited means. Thanks. †TE†Talk 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a drop down list for block reasons; that was the nearest fit to the more detailed reason I gave on your talk page. SilkTork 21:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the future, when using your authority to dole out blocks of uncommon causes -- Would you please consider using the edit/block summary for a "more detailed reason." After all, the entire purpose of these summaries should be to provide the most accurate description of your actions possible so others can decide whether or not they require further review. With blocks, in particular, it's even more critical not to half-ass the summary as review can't be done with a single click. Just something to be considered as this project moves forward. Cheers! †TE†Talk 13:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. SilkTork 09:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Agenda_of_the_Tea_Party_movement

P&W has created this page on the sly basically, as the agreement in the Moderated discussion centered on creating a subarticle entitled "The Tea Party and The Constitution".

The objective would obviously seem to minimalize the centrality of The Constitution (though it is described as such) in order to reduce the attention that would presumably generate, leading to scrutiny of the movements motives, etc.

I would like to rename the article, which I gather involved some sort of page moving operations with which I'm not familiar. Could you provide the relevant information for carrying that out, or perhaps links to pages describing the process? Thanks.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You should check this, too .--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am no longer involved in the Tea Party movement and related articles either as moderator or arbitrator, and have voluntarily withdrawn myself as editor for six months regardless of what happens with the ArbCom motion. That sub-article was not one I created, so it is possible there was no consensus for its creation. I suggest that folks have a discussion about it on the talkpage of the new article. That would also be the appropriate place to have a discussion about a new name. Provided the name chosen for the article is not in use elsewhere, then any editor can rename an article by clicking on the Move tab - see Misplaced Pages:Moving a page. If the desired page name is a redirect but has a history, then an admin needs to do the move as it involves some deletion.

You don't need to go through a formal process to hold a discussion and make a simple move, but if you preferred to do that, then you should follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. A neutral admin with some understanding of page name policy will then decide the consensus and make the move. This can take some time, but may be more satisfactory. SilkTork 19:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)