User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Round Hill, Brighton

Hi again – I've been through all paragraphs once and trimmed/completely removed various bits. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at it closely when I return from France. I'm going to chill out for a while now doing some trivial stuff while my wife finishes the packing. SilkTork *^YES! 21:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now taken a look. I see you've done some useful trimming and tidying. There is still, however, some more trimming to be done to meet GA criteria. I've put on hold for another seven days. I have left suggestions, though we can talk further about this if you like. Let me know. SilkTork *^YES! 14:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I've done a second sweep (diff). Further advice would be welcome – cheers. On the Jewish Cemetery subject: I am currently researching and planning an article to be entitled Cemeteries and crematoria in Brighton and Hove, which will include a large piece on the J.C. When that goes live (later this month, all being well), I will move a substantial part out of the History para of Round Hill. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help with this; it will be very useful for directing improvements to other B&H articles I submit in the future. Now it's time to start writing about those cemeteries! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Stub

If you feel like it you can check out my stub for Emilia Carr.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Emilia Carr has now been put up for Afd. I believe it is yet another similar situation as with the Murder of Joanna Yeates etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I am uncertain about the notability of this person. The reliable sources are local media only. Why do you feel this person would be of interest to the general reader? SilkTork *^YES! 14:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CENT

Hi SilkTork. Because you are experienced with WP:CENT, I have come to your talk page to ask you a question. Should Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Requested move and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Requested move be added to WP:CENT? Cunard (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In principle yes - they are appropriate topics. However, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Requested move has been raised many times and people may be fed up. Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Requested move is more unusual, but may not have legs. no objection to listing both, however it may be worth waiting a day or two to see how they develop. SilkTork *^YES! 14:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Turnpikes

Are you watching User:JaGa talk page? I had sorted an unhelpful regionally specific #REDIRECT when this gentleman intervened and created 200 false links. Frustrating, thought you may have a view. It occurred to me that you and Phocea, might like to walk over to Weston Road one day soon and share a spot of Tetleys- my number is in the book.--ClemRutter (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

we will take you up on the cuppa and look into your concerns on our return to medway on the 3rd SilkTork *^YES! 14:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I see what has happened, and I understand the reasoning behind your edit. The question is regarding if Toll road is the primary topic for "Turnpike". There would seem to be some evidence that would be the case for North American readers, but not necessarily so for other readers. Turnpike in British English has a more specific usage relating to Turnpike trusts in the United Kingdom. I can see a reasonable argument for having Turnpike as the disamb page, directing readers to the several possibilities, rather than having Turnpike direct to Toll road. As your move has been contested, the place to discuss this now is at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You would be requesting that Turnpike (disambiguation) be moved to Turnpike because Toll road is not the WP:Primary topic for "Turnpike" as in British English it has a specific usage relating to Turnpike trusts in the United Kingdom, and that a Google search and a GoogleBooks search do not provide a primary topic. Added to which, as you note on JaGa's talk page, the majority of incoming links to Turnpike are for the British English usage. Let me know when you have set up the request, or if you have any queries. SilkTork *^YES! 15:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have informed JaGa and tagged Talk:Turnpike (disambiguation) for Wikipedia:Requested moves.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Royal Grammar School, Guildford

Thank you for having a look over the article, and your comments, however I have a few questions:

• I've expanded the lead, but I'm still not 100% sure about it, could you possibly have a look and give me a couple of pointers?
• I think i've addressed all of your ambiguity concerns (founding date, cricket, etc), but I wasn't quite sure which figures/dates you were talking about which weren't referenced? I had a look through and all I could find unreferenced were the number of students at the school, which is now fixed, its probably just me being dense.
• I've cut out most of the links from the see also, but I'm thinking of just getting rid of the whole section, your thoughts on that?

Thanks. _TheAuthor²² _[Talk] 14:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall take a look at the article shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 15:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

- for your congrats. I know we've had some differences in the past, but it is very nice to know that you would have supported :) I look forward to working with you as fellow admins. --Kudpung (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki guides

Hi - thanks for the tea, do you have any butter?

I can only speak by my personal experience so far, but it has been around an hour so far per week, give or take 15 mins.

Most of that time has been writing the emails and checking to see if they have edited every day.

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I could commit to that. Thanks. And the scones is a nice idea - I'll supply the butter if you have some strawberry jam. SilkTork *^YES! 10:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the butter.

The Hunyadi pages are so often fraught with nationalism reverts, warring and puppetry...it can test even the patience of saints!

I have jam yes , and this as well - they are in my emergency cream tea kit lol

:¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack Duckworth

It's best that you failed it to be fair. I wasn't committed to helping any further because no one showed any interest in adding suggestions, which is a shame. However, I won't be taking it to the copy edit guild, I waited ages with one article and it received a poor copy edit. I know about the MOS btw, look at the other GAs I really put my time into. :P I'm gathering some more sources for it anyway, so thank you. Happy editing. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 14:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. SilkTork *^YES! 17:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just the same as the other editors really, not that bothered. You should have asked the others involved why they did not respond to my messages. Also you should have kept it open when you saw there wasn't any community reassessment going on at all. Unfair really, the re-assess was as bad as the review it received. Imagine if one editor put the word out, drummed up some support and they added their thoughts. How wonderful would that be. I like to think Wiki still has that collab thing going on, a feeling that were all responsible for improving the work on here. I know you are super busy on here, so I'm not digging, but a little more help is always splendid.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, help is always needed. We all do what we can; and while we can hope that others will be interested in the same topics as us and help out, sadly it doesn't always happen and we cannot expect help as a matter of course. Sometimes it really is a case of doing something because nobody else is doing it. The GA project has a number of facets - and you are correct in your view that it can and does help improve articles and can and does motivate editors. While the aim of a GAR is to maintain standards, it can often improve the quality of an article - and if an article can be improved that is better than delisting. However if no improvements are taking place then the GAR is closed. SilkTork *^YES! 08:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bert Jansch

Hi SilkTork, I notice you added (some time ago!) a template to the Bert Jansch article, saying that the lead section should be expanded. I am keen to address the problem...did you have any specific suggestions of what should be added please? Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

One way of doing the lead is to include a brief summary of each section. The lead should be able to stand by itself as a mini-article, giving a reader the essential information. People tend to structure the lead so that the main points go in the first paragraph - Full name and dates, where born, occupation and why notable: significant recordings and a brief assessment culled from reliable sources - it is permissible to use tertiary sources for such overviews, and people find AllMusic.com quite useful for that, though other sources can and should be consulted. The second (and if needed, third) paragraph is generally given over to a summary of the person's biography and career. The last paragraph is then generally awards and achievements and a little more detailed assessment of notability. Take a look at Chuck Berry and Van Morrison. SilkTork *^YES! 12:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll have a go at improving it if no-one beats me to it (unlikely!) Bluewave (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at a rewrite, on the Talk:Bert Jansch page. I didn't want to tinker about with the article itself until I'm confident of improving it...it is classified as a "good article", after all! I'd welcome your views on the draft. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That is good. Though, please, edit the article. We need editors to be WP:Bold. You clearly are capable, so don't hesitate to improve articles, regardless of their status. There is a current discussion regarding people not editing and staying on Wikipedia. I've just checked your contributions - you are the main contributor to Bert Jansch and took it to GA level. Why are you unsure about directly editing it? SilkTork *^YES! 13:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I did lot of the work getting it to GA status in the first place, then virtually all the work in getting it through last year's GA review process. Regarding my "lack of boldness", over the last year, or so, I've spent way too much time on quite a controversial article and maybe I've got too accustomed to seeking consensus before making edits to articles! Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Beer Project image

I take it you like that? They have another as well... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! It's so much cleaner and more professional than the previous image! SilkTork *^YES! 10:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the one you put on the Project page. SilkTork *^YES! 10:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

These are from the French Beer Project and is found here : Fr:Projet:Bière/Illustrations --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi SilkTork - receiving the Golden Wiki was a pleasant surprise. Thank you for the kind words! Also, I appreciate you entrusting me with the rollback feature. Take care,  Gongshow ^Talk 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping article Needs help

Please protect the page as an IP has removed cited content again. It seems too convenient that the same edits have been repeated. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork *^YES! 13:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Harp Lager

I've just copyedited Harp Lager as part of the GOCE drive. However, it seems that Diageo has pulled the original website about the product history etc., and I haven't been able to find much else to ref up the article with. Can you please have a look at how else to beef it up? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have the main points there. Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 10:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Great Northern Brewery, Dundalk

Hi SilkTork, I would be grateful if you could briefly explain why you have replaced the info box in the above article with a Company template in place of the prior Brewery one, as the Brewery one seemed more appropriate to me. Thanks, and apologies if I've missed something obvious. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a period when editors were using sometimes both brewery and company infoboxes, or articles had either one or the other without consistency, and sometimes an edit war occurred. As the general trend was toward uniformity and consistency across Wikipedia, the Beer WikiProject decided to use the more common company infobox. The company box contains more fields, and the only loss was the list of beers, and lists of beer had also been depreciated within the project. I incorporated some of this was into the Project's guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/templates and Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Guidelines. However, there are still brewery articles which use the old brewery info box, and it is taking time to change them over. I change them when I come upon them. I came upon the Dundalk brewery today in response to the comment on my talkpage just preceding yours. SilkTork *^YES! 19:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The

I'm truly shocked. I thought you knew better than to go barging in and doing something like that.--andreasegde (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. Consensus has NOT changed. At most, there is no consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Disruption at The Beatles article and talkpage and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

St Mary's

Hi SilkTork: multiple stresses make me feel I am going through a "screwing things up" phase, so your welcoming tea proved a warm welcome indeed! I hope you were not offended by my comments on St Mary's and that my comments helped smooth the waters. The author has made improvements to the article, including expansion of the lead. Were there other concerns that you had which remain unaddressed? Thanks, Geometry guy 23:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that. As you're satisfied, I've listed it on GA. I trust you! SilkTork *^YES! 23:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork: I didn't give the article a thorough review, but any remaining issues are likely insignificant. I'll give the article another read through: I believe the author will respond favourably to any suggestions for minor fixes. Geometry guy 23:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The issues were always minor on that article. I noted your comment that he was "too polite", and understand why you said that. But why is it that people get so heated over minor issues? And behave so inappropriately? Some people are somewhat rude, aggressive, self-interested and juvenile. We accept that people will unfortunately behave like that on the internet, and I have a tolerance for inappropriate behaviour - learned as both a teacher and a parent - so try to always deal with the underlying issues rather than the behaviour. But I would rather deal with people who are respectful, considerate and engage with the notion of collaboration. I have this hope of Wikipedia being a place where intelligent, cultured, co-operative and tolerant people work together to create a free encyclopaedia. But the reality is unlikely to match up with my hope. However, let's be honest, the bulk of people here are to be respected and admired - it's just the aggressive and selfish few that grab the attention and make things difficult (doubly so as we are so liberal that we take a while to consider and understand misbehaviour rather than slip into authoritarian methods of stamping it out). Keep well! SilkTork *^YES! 23:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Color of Money

Yes, I failed to noticed that the novel section had just been moved, rather than deleted altogether. The mistake was mine and I stand corrected. Thank you. 143.127.128.10 (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

ABC Radio

I think you got a lot of your Australian ABC Radio dabs wrong - ABC Radio National is a specialist "serious" channel, ABC Local Radio, is the collective name for the many local stations that are the main ABC stations. Sport, especially (ABC Grandstand) is almost always on Local Radio, not National (even if it broadcasted nationally).The-Pope (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll go back and make the appropriate corrections. I'm regretting I started this. I hadn't realised when I started just how many links there were to ABC Radio. Even though there has been a name change, it might have been simpler to leave Citadel Media as the primary target, and keep a hatnote pointing to the disamb page. SilkTork *^YES! 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles

It looks like there is a consensus for a ban. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. The discussion has, unfortunately, somewhat wandered so the consensus is not clear, and there is a fair bit of reading to be done. When discussions get complicated, it takes longer for them to be closed. SilkTork *^YES! 07:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom case regarding The Beatles

Hi SilkTork, this is just a friendly notification to inform you that the Arbitration Commitee has declined to hear the case regarding The Beatles to which you were a party. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

2 Editors Are Deleting My Citations In Violation of NPOV

The Pharaoh Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the collapse of the Old Kingdom and the beginning of the First Intermediate Period in Egypt. He has also been associated with the Ipuwer Papyrus, however an attempt is being made by those who have declared war on reality to censor this information and disassociate Pepi II Neferkare with the Ipuwer Papyrus and First Intermediate Period. Please help.76.216.196.209 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded. SilkTork *^YES! 09:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"The" versus "the Beatles"

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Diplomacy

I did ask for a simple Support or Oppose, with a brief explanation.--andreasegde (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Bader

Hi

I have time to do the article if you're still interested. I have also checked re: Hendon Air Show, as I remember you said there were basic mistakes. As it transpires, there is no mistake. Bader was in training for the Hendon Air Show in 1931, for the Spring, 1932 competition, but did not take part owing to his crash. The pairs competition you were talking about was the Spring, 1931 compeition, which he did win with Day. Dapi89 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm not taking on any GA reviews at the moment. I think the next time I will be doing that is probably in about a month's time. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Steph Cunningham

Hey there. I'm really disheartened that you didn't read past the lead, but I don't blame you. I'd like it if you could read the rest of the article and see how it varies. The review is a complicated one, I know you will not have noticed. The review three days earlier was a review of this version [1] (that lasted for weeks).. the second review was the version that exists now. They are in Stark contrast. I had a massive help from a editor with a lot of editing knowledge behind them. However the lead was untouched and remains the same from the previous version. The GA orininal review was weird and the editor was really harsh and asked for out universe information to be removed. It took me over a week to get her to fail it. Would you mind lending me a hand in editing the lead please, I wouldn't normally ask such things but apart from the lead I think the prose is much better elsewhere. I really did have a hammering during the subsequent copyedit it recieved.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, give me a nudge when the lead is built up and has been copy edited, and I'll take a fuller look. SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Military history page

That is a very minimalist look. I like it, although it would take some time to implement. I would suggest setting up a sandbox and building it up from the top down. I can help, tell me when you want to work towards it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the French Beer Project? It has a good, minimalist look as well. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"tell me when you want to work towards it" - I was hoping you might do it! ;-) SilkTork *^YES! 12:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Blooded (film)

The original article was certainly not worthy of Wikipedia, but I'd like you to look at the version now in Incubation. With its debut on the March 18, and with the additional critical commentary that became available in numerous reliable sources, I have addressed the style, tone, content, and sourcing, and believe it is now encyclopedic, properly neutral, and meets the criteria of WP:NF. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done an assessment on the talkpage. There are a couple of minor matters that should be dealt with before unleashing it on the public. Give me a ping when they've been attended to and I'll shove it into mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your valuable insights have been acted upon.[2] Please look in again, thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit more work on the article and have now moved it into mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 12:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

MUCH, much nicer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Silk Purse Award

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your improvements to the Blooded (film) article, helping to change what was seen as a sow's ear into a terrific silk purse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I really like that! Thanks! SilkTork *^YES! 11:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)