User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

WP:CENT

I believe my addition was appropriate, as an issue that is Wikipedia wide. Is there an appropriate venue to discuss this, such as the talk page or WP:AN? Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The talkpage of the source of the conflict is acceptable - no need to move the venue. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is a common place to announce a discussion on article content, as are the talkpages of any related WikiProjects, and perhaps a request for input on the talkpage of any relevant guidelines where editors experienced in such matters are likely to come forward. People who tend to have Cent watched, are those who are interested in policy related discussions. Wikipedia:Canvassing gives more advice. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've notified WT:Norway, which is the only appropriate WP I can think of. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re your comment of 10:29, should that be moved to the "comments from uninvolved editors" section? Feel free to move it there if you wish it to be seen as a specific comment on the issue. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Brown Jug of Renu

I put the little brown jug of Renu in the Sato (rice wine) article in the first place, but someone else objected that my posting appeared to be an advertisement rather than an explication of the rather amusing advertisements on such jugs, and suggested I move it to its own article. I'm happy you merged it back where it belongs, though I've gone back and re-worded it considerably. Please edit my edit, if you please! --Pawyilee (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I've put in a quick cite, but otherwise left it as you did. SilkTork *^YES! 16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sapporo beer logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sapporo beer logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa atalanta

I moved this article in an attempt to use the common cultural name and disambiguate by the scientific name. However the name has come out incorrectly as the common name is in italics, while the scientific name is in Roman. If I can't find a solution, then I will change it back. SilkTork *^YES! 18:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to move to the common name only, but the insect people won't like that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have sometimes found it a little disconcerting and/or problematic when looking for an article on a plant or animal to either land on an article with a name I don't recognise, or to not land on the article at all because there isn't even a common name redirect. I understand some of the thinking behind the WP:FLORA guidelines because a number of plants have more than one common name - however, WP:Fauna name and Birds both suggest using the common name first. I had actually looked at the wrong guideline when changing the Red Admiral name, and quoted WP:FLORA. It's good to see that there is a move toward common name in all these guidelines. SilkTork *^YES! 08:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Organ transplantation in the PRC

Hi, Steve!

Guess what? I've been at it again. Hope all is well, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A Year Without Rain

I did some adjustments after your close of the AFD, and thought it best to explain. A discography isn't supposed to include unreleased material, so pointing an article about an unreleased album there isn't very effective. I removed the improper material from the discography, and then pointed the article names at the appropriate section of the band article.—Kww(talk) 15:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What you've done is fine by me. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What_should_not_be_included gives a little advice on the subject, though is vague. The notability requirements of a sub-article or list are normally lower than the parent, though I can see the sense of a discography being somewhat more formal and restricted, and there being room in an expansive parent article for speculation on future activities. Thanks for the head's up. SilkTork *^YES! 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam

Hello. In January you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [1]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 00:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Might be worth bringing it up at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

District Board

Hello. I see where you are coming from with moving St Giles (district board) to St Giles District Board. However I'm not really happy with either name. The reason being that the article (and others like it) are mainly about the district (an area of land) and not the board (the authority who administered it). If we kept it consistent with the contemporary local government districts it should be St Giles (district) as for instance Blaby (district) or Selby (district). A (clumsy) alternative is St Giles (board district) perhaps akin to Brentwood (borough)

The article now says "St Giles District Board was a local government district in the metropolitan area of London from 1855 to 1900."

Which is incorrect. The *local government district* was called St Giles.

What do you think? Lozleader (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite comfortable either. However, there is the church, St Giles in the Fields, and there is the parish, St Giles parish, and there is the district, St Giles district which was administered by the St Giles District Board. If we are talking about the area of St Giles, then we might call it something else, and it be be a place article, with a different focus. But the aim, intention, focus and categorisation of the article appears to be (quite appropriately) the administration of the area by the board. An article on the area of St Giles would start before 1855, and be a different article. There is the choice of St Giles District or St Giles district, both terms are used in sources. I only see the use of St Giles (district board) or similar, on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. The term appears to be a creation of a Wikipedia editor. I feel it might be more appropriate to return to the original title of St Giles District as the one that fits both the sources and the sense of what the article is about (an administration area). SilkTork *^YES! 21:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ROH and info boxes

I suggest that you post your concerns re: this issue on the WikiProject Opera discussion pages, since there is a pretty consistent consensus from the group. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

TEFL

• I'm a TEFL teacher. I may or may not have wisdom to share – likely not – but feel free to ask. Vastly different contexts, though, with you in Europe and me in Asia.. anyhow, cheers! • Ling.Nut 03:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Ling. I'm not teaching at the moment - my time is fairly fully occupied with being a house-husband, and doing a bit of writing (mainly beer related - I am considering putting some of my beer writing together as the basis of a book - "The Kitchen Brewer", which would be about very simple beer making using equipment you find in your kitchen). The funny thing is that I taught TEFL without formal TEFL qualifications, but haven't done any since I qualified. My experience of TEFL teaching, however, did give me the distinct feeling (backed up by what other TEFL teachers have told me) that it would be little different teaching Asians in Asia than it would be teaching Asians in London. Anyway - how are you? SilkTork *^YES! 08:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK. Very much going on in real life. Evolving as a Wikipedian – WP:DGAS. Parts of Wikipedia are profoundly shitty. I've given up on believing I can fix them or even improve them to any degree. It takes far, far, far too much physical and emotional energy, and accomplishes... I was gonna say it accomplishes nothing, but that's wrong. It accomplishes making everyone think you're an a**hole, even though you may be right and they may be wrong... • Ling.Nut 08:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree about parts of Wikipedia being shitty. I have my moments of frustration when I look at a GA nominated article and find that it is more of a promotional magazine article than an encyclopedia entry, and then decide if I really want to fight with a bunch of fans of the subject who are reluctant to produce a neutral, balanced, objective piece of information, and would rather praise their own beloved interest/hobby. I sometimes feel a pang of guilt in walking away from the fight, but one cannot be responsible for everything. I don't do vandal fighting or speedy deletion, but there are plenty of people who do. I think the thing is to do one's best where one can, and to enjoy the experience. I very rarely get involved in dispute resolution these days, and you might have seen my talkpage notice where I am now mostly turning away requests for assistance. I have done my fair share of dirty work, and currently I would rather do some article building, with just a little bit of admin stuff here and there. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm tangled up in Six Day War at the moment. It has no hope of ever coming within sniffing distance of FA, due to edit warring and vandalism. My two sorta-half-maybe thoughts about potential FAs are Bayard Rustin and Grave of the Fireflies. I'm busy now and will be for a long while, but knock on my door if either of those two seems interesting to you. Later! • Ling.Nut 08:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Nobility

Hey, I saw that you did an edit to the template; I was wondering if you would know why it does not show the location's of birth and death?! It confuses me lol HRH the Prince of Piedmont (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not a code writer. I copy other templates when creating or editing them. As the template wasn't working well, I substituted it for the more generic {{Infobox person}} on the articles I was working on. I think the only difference is that Nobility uses colour. I would rather have a standard template that works than a non-standard one that doesn't. My suggestion would be to swap Nobility for Person. SilkTork *^YES! 18:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)