User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 9

← Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10 →

Organometalic1

Just as information we are now up to Wikitruths4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Wikitruths5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

He sent me an email saying he was going to continue doing this. So be it. He'll continue creating accounts, and we'll continue blocking them - same as with other vandals. Life goes on. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Review comment

Hi. Would you mind commenting on my question here? It's about whether a review source is professional or not. Dan56 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Responded. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference account

Hi Ocaasi. I filled out the survey form a little while back, but I must have made an error because I still have not received any details by email. When I click on the survey link it simply tells me that I have completed the survey, but doesn't allow me to check the details. Can you look into this for me? Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I received your response in the survey and sent that information to Credo yesterday. It appears some people have received their codes while some have not yet. I'll check in today to see what the overall status is. Either way, it should be all set up by week's end. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Same here : filled the survey, nothing happened. Thanks anyway. Cheers, — Racconish^Tk 17:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking into it now. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for chasing it up. I'll let you know when I get a response. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Our Credo contact is checking into it, as they were supposed to go out end of last week according to her. Hopefully they'll come through soon... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've got it! Thanks for looking into it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

John Keats

Hi ST, thanks for all your recent work on Dylan Thomas. I wondered what you think of the article on poet John Keats. I wrote it a few years back. Your general, brief thoughts on going for GA would be very welcome. Best wishes Span (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just having a quick glance, and noting down my initial impressions. The lead is incomplete - see WP:Lead. I checked the statement in the lead: "Today his poems and letters are some of the most popular and most analyzed in English literature", and it doesn't appear to be mentioned in the main body, and is unsourced. "The Keats at the Globe pub" appears to be called The Globe pub with an attached bar of that name - though that needs to be more reliably sourced than by FancyAPint! The prose appears to be clear and informative. No obvious problems there. Images are appropriate with acceptable captions - I've not checked them for appropriate licences. There is an acceptable reference section. The article appears stable - it has evidence of reverts of IP editors which I've not investigated, but at first glance that appears normal for an article of this profile. While there is a liberal sprinkling of cites, certain statements stand out that are uncited: "It was Lockhart at Blackwoods who coined the defamatory term "the Cockney School" for Hunt and his circle". "Otho (critically damned", "None of Brawne's letters to Keats survive; he requested that her letters be destroyed after his death." etc. The layout seems acceptable, though the section title "Biographical controversy" needs discussing. I am unable to comment on focus, broad coverage, original research, and NPOV as those areas require some background reading and source checking - with a topic as rich and important as Keats that would take from two weeks to a month. I would say from that quick glance, that the article is close to being ready, but needs a little bit more work on the lead, and on ensuring that everything is cited. It would also benefit from someone with some knowledge of the topic who has not been involved in writing the article looking it over to check that it does cover the main points of his life in a fair and neutral manner. Sadly, while we have a project of people willing to do copyediting, we don't appear to have one willing to check content. You could try a Peer Review, though my understanding is that they are very variable, and not always very helpful. I've not used one so I have no experience of them. Perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry for people to look it over. Good luck! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's brilliant. Thanks so much for taking the time. (I forgot to star your page). On the strength of this, I will work it up and take it forward. All best wishes for your weekend. Span (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

The use of the infobox image, File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg has been called into question here. As you were the user who added the image and FUR, I wondered if you could please take the time to defend/explain its use. Thanks and cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment left. Let me know if you need me to follow up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much! Hopefully your well-reasoned comment will put any concerns to rest. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the album images currently in use at Pink Floyd? Do you think they need to be removed? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I have an opinion on it really. If an album cover is significant in some way, then it would be appropriate to include it - as with the Sgt Peppers cover in the Beatles article. If the covers are not violating Wikipedia policy, and they serve a purpose, then it would be OK, but I've not been through the article to see if all the covers are appropriate.

I have left further comment on the lead image, and made some adjustments to the article to point out the importance of that image. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds

I have only just caught up with your large scale moves of articles on hundreds in April and May. The many moves from Foo (hundred) to Hundred of Foo have resulted in a WP:SORTKEY issue - (you may recall that this was one of the issues discussed in the debate on whether to move to Foo Hundred or Hundred of Foo). I have changed the sortkey of a few moved articles, but there are so many, I wonder if the process can be automated. Any thoughts? --Mhockey (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not good with automation, you could try someone who runs a bot, they might have some ideas. In the meantime I'll take a look and see what I can do manually. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

no surprise

Hi SilkTork, Remember when I said I would need protection, look at this [1]. Complete gaming of my sanctions.Factocop (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, protection is not appropriate. It looks as though you did the right thing, and are continuing to do the right thing. Provided you do the right thing, then you should not be sanctioned. As I said to you, you need to build up community trust. It is up to you how you do that, and if you are going to step back into areas where there are likely to be problems - especially articles where you may have had conflict in the past - then you can expect sharp questioning of your actions. I am supporting you in this instance, though I am unlikely to do so again as I tend not to get involved in these matters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Silktork. I was worried for a sec, that maybe I had mis read my sanctions or something. And in the past I have been let down by Admins not able to apply common sense and are all to trigger happy so I appreciate the time you and Elen have taken to look into this. Did not surprise me that it was Mo who turned up. This is the same problem I faced before. Users ignoring talk page and just reverting. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factocop (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverting where and what? I assume your talking about me, have I reverted any of your edits? No surprise that nothing came of it when admins can't see an editor back from a block reverting to a version that his socks did says it all. Mo ainm~Talk 12:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Factocop AE

Hi SilkTork I'd appreciate your view on some developments. Also I asked for clarification from both you & Elen re the IP issue. If you get a chance it'd help us to hear your views on either matter--Cailil ^talk 17:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left some comments. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply SilkTork - that clears up what the unblock terms were targeted at. However I will say this - the wording on Factocop's page does leave the interpretation I had of it open (i.e restoring old content = reverting), however I have no constructive suggestions to improve it to prevent hot-button reporting like Mo Anim did. As stated at AE I'm concerned about battleground issues WRT Factocop's behaviour. His attraction of an unhelpful supporter is not helping his rehabilitation and is unfortunately reinforcing some of the more borderline behaviour that Factocop is indulging in. We'll just have to AGF & hope that this works out--Cailil ^talk 20:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really annoyed by this. You can not hold me accountable for the actions of other users and whether a returning sock wishes to contact me is beyond my control. The returning sock, obviously a foe of Mo_ainm's seen that Mo had tried to get me blocked after a single edit and decided to chirp in. I for one and glad he came to my rescue as it seemed that both Baseball_bugs and Mo have a free pass to insult me. battleground? what have I done exactly. All of my edits have been constructive and discussed. I seriously don't understand wiki sometimes.Factocop (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you let the matter drop and get on with constructive editing. If you respond to comments made about you then you will likely end up in trouble. In the course of editing Wikipedia it is very common that people will say negative things. Ignore the negative comments and you'll find that your experiences on Wikipedia become more pleasant. It's your choice of course. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I get you Silktork. Its very difficult to say no to the bait. What is annoying is that in the past I have received warnings for off the cuff remarks but here is a user openly attacking me in front of admin noses, and nothing is being done about this. Ill accept this, but be sure that should someone accuse me of personal attacks ill point them in your direction.Factocop (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you saying, but in my experience it is people who respond to comments that get in trouble, while those who ignore them find that the negative comments cease, and they have a pleasant time. If you are going to edit in sensitive areas, then you need to control yourself. If you can't control yourself, then don't edit in sensitive areas. Wikipedia is vast, and there is plenty of work to be done. If you are not making progress with something, then simply drop it and get on with something else. Above all, put Wikipedia above yourself and your ego. It is a privilege to edit Wikipedia. Welcome and respect and enjoy that privilege, and don't do anything to have that privilege taken away. And be aware that if you do make personal attacks then I won't be defending you, so just make sure that you say nothing that could be interpreted as a personal attack. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind asking Factocop to remove his addition regarding me from his TP. It is a thinly veiled suggestion of sock puppetry on my part when read in conjunction with his immediately succeeding entry. RashersTierney (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RT, please can you assume good faith? In this case I made a note to remind myself that I was not welcome at your talkpage, even though we have never came into contact before(rather rude), and the other note was a rogue edit. I have them in seperate sections so they are unrelated. I was not aware that posting notes on my talk page like this [[2]] was not allowed. This was not a thinly veiled anything. Please stop getting so upset over the littliest of things....I am fed up of being hounded like this forFactocop (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't see how this is any better...[3] Factocop (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, I was not aware of WP:POLEMIC, and I have removed the comments at my talkpage. So why is this a contributing factor to my enforcement case? when it was originally based on whether I had made a 'revert' at [Lough Neagh] page? A comment which Elen supported and you already suggested that I did not break my sanctions. And now EdJohnston is now suggesting I get topic banned because of my edits on this page. This is a joke and I need you step in and highlight that I did not break my sanctions and hence the enforcement case should be closed. Please help?Factocop (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you do not appreciate the advice you have been given - this comment today is disruptive. You are making unpleasant, niggly comments about other people even when you have been advised not to. You have to stop. I am giving you a 48 hour block for conduct inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere. Take the time to consider carefully how you are to behave when you return. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Just to let you know I started (and prolly malformatted :P) a RfC here: WikiProject Music Mlpearc (powwow) 00:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've left a comment that essentially says that such a discussion should be held in a more open location than a WikiProject as the editnotice needs wide consensus. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

New Zappa project

Hello. Frank Zappa is going to get it's own project section. Go here to join it. We need involvement from as many users as possible so joining would be helpful to Zappa related articles all over wikipedia. Thank you. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Arrested Development GAN

Hello, SilkTork. I noticed you reviewed Arrested Development at GAN last (Talk:Arrested Development (TV series)/GA1). I re-nominated the article over a month ago and am wondering whether you'd be willing to take another look at it. Much has been done since your assessment, and any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actively reviewing at the moment - there's a few other things I'd like to get done before taking on any more GANs. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Poetry Association

Hello. Of possible interest:

1. Someone has done this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaunt Basmajian Chapbook Award
2. My recent edit to Canadian Poetry Association
3. My comment Talk:Canadian Poetry Association

I hope you can help me to find reliable independent sources for the article to ensure it sticks around. We need to reach consensus on the list of books before adding them back. I suggest letting the Shaunt Basmajian Chapbook Award article get deleted, it will probably be very difficult to win, and it doesn't matter since it can just redirect to a subsection of the Association article and no information is lost. Sorry if this was not of interest seemed like it might be from your past edit history there. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree it would be better for Shaunt Basmajian Chapbook Award to be merged with Canadian Poetry Association and that reliable sources be found. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:I Heard It Through the Grapevine

Thanks. I'll definitely be on the lookout. :) BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 22:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Brewing

Thanks. This article needs a lot more work. Unfortunately, editing it makes me thristy and I generally do not drink and edit. Generally. Cheers! Sandcherry (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not an inactive participant of the project, but I am disinclined to sign up for newsletters and other notices. I would prefer my name to be simply removed than to labelled "inactive"! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If you do not want to get newsletters via your talk page, remove your name from this page. The page link I sent out earlier today are to show who is active or not, not to see who wants to get newsletters. Therefore, if you are still active, just to keep everything organized, please sign your name here--Dom497 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, what I have done is remove my name from the project (I am a participant in many projects where I am not signed up). Would you please remove my name from any other list you may have already created, and not add it to any other list. Well done on what you are doing for the project - it is necessary to clean up project listings from time to time, and well done for getting it together, and also for your energy in moving forward with plans to reinvigorate the project. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Amend your close?

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankh-Morpork City Watch, you make the statement that the article in its current state "likely meets WP:PLOT which is a valid reason for deletion." However, WP:PLOT is not listed in WP:DEL#REASON, and for good reason: plot-only summaries can be expanded through regular editing, and thus is only a valid deletion reason if unsalvageable, since WP:ATD prefers regular editing to deletion, regardless of editor's inputs. Furthermore WP:NOT#PLOT was never mentioned in any deletion rationale, but only mentioned in passing by an editor who soapboxed about policy without giving a !vote in the discussion.

Furthermore, in numbers only four participants (including the nominator) advocated deletion, while there were 2 merges, 2 other inputs (an argument to close and a questions), and 5 keeps, not counting one registered after the close: The keeps have a plurality of all inputs, and a majority of all keep and delete votes.

More important than the sheer numbers is the number of votes changed: no editor changed to a "delete" vote, while two, AnkhMorpork and Shooterwalker, were themselves convinced by the sources found to amend prior delete votes to a keep during the discussion's course.

Your statement "My editing instincts (and experience with similar situations) supports such a view as it is likely that this article will remain in this state if this AfD is closed as a keep" combined with your subsequent "the decision as to which way to go rests on the consensus of the discussion, not with the opinion of the closing admin; and the consensus here is to keep the article" demonstrate that while you've said you're not supervoting, you have done precisely that by 1) assigning more weight to PLOT than ATD despite it never being brought up by a !voter, 2) espousing a particular timeline for future cleanup, contra WP:TIND.

Your thoughtful close rationale is appreciated... but unfortunately, your own reasoning appears to have moved you from the clear consensus to keep the article which you acknowledge in the article, to calling the close a "no consensus" with all but an invitation to renominate in six months based on WP:NOEFFORT. I ask that you reconsider, and amend your closing to match what you acknowledge as the consensus of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand your points. However, I did double check that WP:PLOT was included in WP:DEL#REASON before closing - it's the last point: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". The link for "not suitable" goes to the WP:Not policy page which includes WP:NOT#PLOT.

The difficulty with the article and the discussion is that the keeps were focusing on the topic, while the deletes and merges were focusing on the article as it stands. The argument to redirect or merge to the parent was very persuasive, and more in line with policy (and my own inclination), than that of keeping the article as it stands (because as it stands it violates policy and should be deleted). However, because a sufficient number of people felt that the topic was notable and that the article could be made to comply with policy if allowed to work on it, I felt that needed to be taken into account. As there was present both in the article itself and the discussion, this tension between the notability of the topic and unsuitability of the article, it seemed that No consensus was a viable result. If I was casting a supervote I would have gone for a merge solution as that would have been within policy and would, to my mind, been the preferred option. Though there is in essence no difference between a Keep and a No consensus defaulting to keep, I felt a Keep would have been validating the article, and as it doesn't comply with policy that would not have been appropriate. So for both avoiding validating an article that violates policy and to take into account the conflicting views expressed in the article regarding topic/article, the No consensus seemed more appropriate.

The "deadline" is not a condition but a suggestion. It is not uncommon when closing as Keep or No consensus articles which are in a bad state for the closing admin to make such a suggestion. There is no obligation for such suggestions to be carried out, but they can serve to remind people than an AfD is not the end of the matter, and that there are still problems to be addressed.

If you still feel that my comments referring to the future state of the article are inappropriate and unhelpful I will consider removing them. The intention, however, was to encourage some positive movement on improving the article. Perhaps I could phrase it in a less hostile manner? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that reading of DEL#REASON is that it ignores the overarching parenthetical "(subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)", which is entirely congruent with the lead-off sentence of the very next section, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." To the extent that you assigned any weight whatsoever to delete !voters who looked at the current state vs. potential of the article, you accorded them weight disproportionate to the policy basis on which they argued. If an article was only plot, and never could become more, that would indeed be a reason for deletion... but that's not a reasonable expectation take when we're dealing with a fictional element belonging to the signature series of the second-best-selling living British fantasy author.

I would love it if I had time to improve everything whose deletion I oppose. The fact is, however, that there are very few willing to work to upgrade fictional elements to Wikipedia standards, and there are far more challenges to the existence of poorly written articles with potential by those who do not understand WP:DEADLINE, who think that the encyclopedia can be improved by excising improvable content and don't understand how that's fundamentally at odds with our crowdsourcing model.

Yes, if you decided to remove the prod to re-nominate, that would be helpful. I still believe, however, that the most accurate reading of the discussion, in line with my points in the AfD and here, is keep rather than no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made some amendments where I hope that my statements come across as less hostile, and more in keeping with my intention, which was not to reject the topic, but at the same time not to validate as acceptable text that had been selected as a cause for concern. I had to reject a viable (and to my mind quite sensible) course of action, and felt it was worth mentioning my dilemma over that - though I can see how that would be distracting and essentially not helpful, so I have removed my opinion regarding that. I understand that time and inclination means that just because we support an article in an AfD doesn't mean we should become responsible for it, and I have adjusted my urge to improve wording to be inclusive of all those involved in the AfD (which by extension would include me!). I hope it's a little clearer now - and thanks for bringing this to my attention. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey SilkTork, you may have noticed my comment after you closed that same AfD. In fact, you closed it while I was reading the comments, and, of course, the browser didn't update. Anyway, sorry for modifying it outside of your close. Cheers,  The Steve 

No, I hadn't noticed it because it came 15 minutes after the AfD was closed, and I had already logged off by then. By consensus we don't accept new comments on an AfD after it has been closed. To avoid confusion, you should remove your comment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem.  The Steve  09:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)