User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

RfA reform

Hi SilkTork. I've not seen you comment here yet. It might not be your specific area of interest, but I feel you would have a lot to offer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I will take a closer look when I get some time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. SilkTork *^YES! 23:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to looking over the next few days. SilkTork *^YES! 22:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Great project. Yes, I'll help out where I can. SilkTork *^YES! 09:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I am inviting you to take a look at this GAR. It need more outside opinion and the internal editors and myself have ended up in some kind of dispute. Basically I renominated because on a few occasions I have felt the use of fansite sources in a GA is not okay. However they maintain the stance they are okay in this GA. So an another outside look in addition to Nikkimaria would be good. I asked you because I noticed you had done some work there previously, and you have helped on FAC, and they are suggesting it should be nominated for FA on the articles talk.Rain the 1 ^BAM 22:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• The dispute is very wordy isn't it? It looks like everyone has the best intention, but people are getting a bit frustrated. There's nothing really nasty going on, but it looks quite wearisome. I'll take a longer, closer look at the sources when I get more time. The Writing style section did catch my eye as I scrolled down, as it starts with "Many readers praised....", which is a bit weasely, and then makes some quite specific claims which are sourced to one site. As the site is an interview that should be OK, but I'll look into what the guidelines are, and then get back to you. SilkTork *^YES! 23:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for agreeing looking into it. Very kind of you. :)Rain the 1 ^BAM 23:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've not had time to get to grips with the GAR. I have looked a couple of times, but it needs a period of clear focus. Hopefully I'll get around to it shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 22:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've looked at the article several times now, and left comments. I feel there needs to be more work done to get the article to meet GA criteria. I have taken the GAR off my watchlist, and will be archiving this discussion shortly. If nobody closes the GAR after a reasonable time, let me know and I'll close it. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

McEwan's

I've improved the McEwan's page substantially. My remaining problem is a lack of information. Farrtj (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I will look at this shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 22:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The page looks good. Yes, lack of solid information is a perennial problem for beer articles. Often one can get lots of blogs and forums and self-published material from enthusiasts, but little in the way of reliable sources. Sometimes one has to accept that an article will have to wait for further development. Second hand bookshops are often worth investigating for books on breweries and beer brands. Many beer books are not catalogued on Google. Libraries will also have books on local breweries. It's a long, slow process! SilkTork *^YES! 09:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tree shaping 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, Martin Hogbin

Arbitration case regarding tree shaping

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

undeletion of disambig Recensio

Hi, you deleted the disambiguation page after Recensio.net got speedied. As the article is back now with approval of the deleting admin, I'd like to see the disambiguation restored, too. The yearbook by the Miami University right now does not have an article, but it is linked from the Template:Miami University with quite a number of uses. So while it is not the most important disambig of them all, it serves a purpose. TIA --h-stt !? 12:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have created a redirect from Recensio to Recensio.net. I'm not convinced that a disamb is needed as the Miami yearbook article doesn't exist, and the yearbook doesn't appear to be mentioned in the Miami University article. I took a look at Template:Miami University which mainly consisted of redlinks, which is against the advice of WP:Nav box, so I cleaned it up, removing the red link to the Miami yearbook. None of these actions were admin actions, and would have been possible for any editor to do, and may indeed be built on or undone by any other editor in the course of normal editing. It was considerate of you to let me know the situation, and I do appreciate your thinking, though the recreation of either a redirect or a disamb in the circumstances was uncontroversial and fairly minor so it would have been acceptable for you to do it yourself. However, if in doubt, consult, so you did the right thing. SilkTork *^YES! 15:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed - Willie Nelson

Hi, sometime ago (if you remember) you reviewed one of the articles I've worked on (Heartbreak Hotel). Since I know that you're a fine reviewer, I just wanted to know if you would review Willie Nelson's article, currently on GA nominations. In case that you don't have time or any other kind of issue, it's OK. The article has been nominated for a while now and for your work as a reviewer previously, I know that you do it very well. Thanks for your valuable time.--GDuwenTell me! 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. SilkTork *^YES! 22:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and quick answer.--GDuwenTell me! 23:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Armbrust has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Armbrust 22:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi, SilkTork. I've sent an email to you in response to this. Regards, SuperMarioMan 22:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You alive?

I did a redesign of the Beer Project Page based on a couple of the European pages. Any thoughts? it is at WP:WikiProject Beer/Sandbox.

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that looks very clean. You do nice work. SilkTork *^YES! 20:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to take it live if you don't mind. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. Go for it - no need to check first. In the normal Wiki way if somebody dislikes it, then it will be questioned or undone. Well, in the case of the beer project, that is likely to be me, but I think you do good work, and I think there's not been much we've disagreed on - except for making beer a task force within food and drink, and that was a while ago when I think you were quite keen on sorting out the food and drink project and merging in less active projects. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Covent Garden

Refs consistency

Hi there, noticed that refs consistency was becoming a bit of a sticking point at the Covent Garden FAC and I really didn't want to see it get held up or derailed for such a small issue, so I went and (I hope) made the refs consistent for FAC standards (see diff). I really hope you don't mind and, with this out of the way, hopefully you can move on to more important stuff, like the actual writing in the article. Jenks24 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for that. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 07:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Just a couple of questions: can you access ref 38? I get this message: "Fatal error: Class 'XSLTProcessor' not found in /var/www/showcase.ascskills.org.uk/clone/index.php on line 159" when I try to and ref 41 gives me a bunch of computer gibberish. They're the only two I haven't tidied up yet, as I can't access them. Oh, and ref 60 (a London Encyclopedia one) didn't have a page number: any reason for this? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

38 has been updated - the web page had moved. I have rewritten the ref 41 section and used a book ref. page= 214 done. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

New release editnotice

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Template:TFA-editnotice. A similar edit notice has recently been developed at Template:New release editnotice. It is intended for films, video games and other prominent popular media items which may be subject to high levels of editing by newcomers around the time of their release date.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Covent Garden

Hi ST, I've made a few edits to this after seeing it at FAC—mostly delinking and tweaking the writing—and just wanted to stress here that if I do anything you don't like, you should feel free to revert, no explanation needed. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you're involved SV. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

YMMV

(Re the Covent Garden FAC) Doesn't seem to be a phrase we Brits are familiar with, does it? If it's any consolation, I had to look it up the first time I saw it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

William Stones Ltd

Hi SilkTork. At the moment if you wiki "Stones Bitter" it redirects to the MolsonCoors site. "William Stones" directs to a minor US politician. The majority of searchers will be seeking "William Stones Ltd". I don't know how to fix it myself so that William Stones Ltd is favoured. Can you help me out? Cheers Farrtj (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Stones Bitter" already redirected to William Stones Ltd - I have fine-tuned it to go direct to the section on the beer. This was not an admin action, and you can edit redirect pages as an experienced editor. For William Stone, I have added a hat note (see Wikipedia:HATTEST and Wikipedia:Hatnote for further information) to the article, alerting people that there is another William Stone. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 20:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Start Date bot changes

I'd be grateful if you would see: User talk:Headbomb#Snotbot 6 and confirm that my understanding, that when closing the RfC discussed you did not intend to deny such a BOTREQ, is correct. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The consensus in the RFC was that looking at the use of microformats on a case by case basis was acceptable and desirable. It was also clear that there was a desire to proceed with looking at the use of microformats with care. The conclusion was that "there is a consensus in favour of providing guidelines for the examination of appropriate use and deployment of microformats". However, "there were no views calling for an outright exclusion". There was, in other words, no call for any ban or denial of the use of microformats, though the spirit of the consensus was that attention should be placed on the creation of guidelines. While not explicit in either the RfC or in my close, this would imply that a guideline be drawn up before any widespread use of microformats. I think that Headbomb's reading of the situation is true to the ethos of the outcome of the RfC. I might, in retrospect, have drawn a tighter close, with clearer wording, and I apologise if my wording has mislead you. I think it would be appropriate to start a guideline for the use of microformats. There is clearly a desire to use them, but an equal desire that the use should be regulated and monitored. Does that help? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, no. Quite apart from the pre-existence of guidelines for the use of microformats (a whole project's worth; plus documentation on templates into three figures); the BOTREQ is not about applying microformats, but about improving those already deployed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful to link to those guidelines. There is, I see, a place on the bot request form for linking to relevant discussions. As for the question of applying or improving, that would still come under "using", and would come under the scope of the RfC. If a guideline has been written which covers the use or improvement of microformats in the manner which this proposed bot is intended to do, then linking to that documentation would solve your problem. If there is no such guideline, then it would be helpful to set about creating one. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I trust that the new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 6#Review request does what you suggest. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A difficult close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con Games (movie) was no doubt a difficult close. For myself, the article hovers slightly over the pointed edge of being just notable enough for Wikipedia, while for some others it does not quite make the cut. A no consensus was perhaps the best call, and I expect that after clarification of guideline elsewhere, it might return to AFD in a few months. At the very least, and in the interim, our having turned a very sorry stub into a somewhat better sourced and encyclopedic article serves the projects and its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Following the letter of the guidelines this was a probable delete. Following the spirit of the guidelines, the ethos of Wikipedia, and the fact of the article itself, this was a probable keep. Nothing definite either way - but more to be gained from keeping than deleting, except as a precedent for keeping future doubtful articles on non-notable films, so a non-consensus is the better outcome. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

CIR

thanks; I'm duly applying a trout to my forehead. sonia♫ 10:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy! SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Willie Nelson/GA2

Willie Nelson is going through a GAN, and is on hold for an initial seven days to allow issues, mainly prose, to be addressed. Help is requested and welcome. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the article to the Guild, and I will try to asses the issues of the article as well. As you said, most likely it will take more than a seven day period. I will do my best to invest my free time working on this (lately my work has been weighting heavy on my time), but still it can be done.--GDuwenTell me! 18:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks GD. I will do what I can as well, time permitting. Whatever happens, the article should improve. If the work cannot be done in a reasonable timespace, then the article can be nominated again in the future. The GA project is fairly accommodating. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

I feel humbled - it's one of my personal favourite articles, but I'm very conscious of the fact that it falls a very long way short of the standards to which you and others (quite rightly) aspire, and also that its contents are mostly drawn from many other people's contributions. But I'm very grateful, and will proudly put it on display! Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... not sure about going for GA - it's not been a process that I've found myself drawn to, and I think it may be more trouble than it's worth. But I'm always happy to improve the article. It certainly needs some illustrations - any thoughts on that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic?

Hi SilkTork. I've noticed your frequent patrolling of Template:Cent and your occasional closures of the RfCs listed there. Per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC Closure Request, would you consider closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? Stuart.Jamieson (talk · contribs) has made requests for a summary of the debate at both AN and ANI. The requests have been archived by the bot without an admin addressing them. If you don't have the time and the inclination to read through the discussion, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Closed. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Close, it's greatly appreciated. Stuart.Jamieson 12:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in writing an essay on transport I'd be willing to help. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 13:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do enjoy a nice cup of tea. Thank you for the closure. Sadly this does nothing to overcome the problem of a number of train/bus spotters who vote at AfDs to keep totally unencyclopedic and non-notable material just because they like it, resulting in its surviving by default when the result is no consensus. WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL are basically being ignored, resulting in great frustration for some of us. Can you see any way forward with this?--Charles (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The development of an essay/guideline on writing about transport issues. I think this - Medway Valley Line - is acceptable, but this - Halling railway station - is not. There are plenty of better examples, but that's one I can remember. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing and summarizing the debate! I've changed the formatting of the close so that your summary and the discussion are more visible. Cunard (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That formatting is fine. Thanks. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011

Task Force Information: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives , additional comments on the main page talk page, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to require autoconfirmed status - sig

Hi VoxLuna. I adjusted your signature in the autoconfirmed status proposal as it was breaking the count, making it appear that the statement you supported had fewer supports than it actually did. It may be useful to go back through your edits to check on other instances where your signature may have caused problems. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, I'm very sorry that happened. I've recently been trying to sort out some unfortunate issues with the signature... one of the tasks I had lined up was to fix each Talk Page instance in the past. I'll make this a higher priority now. I wish I could simply change the template, but transclusion itself is frowned upon, as it turns out. Thanks for fixing that, and bringing it to my attention. — VoxLuna (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed

Hi, can you block edits on Count of St. Germain for the time being please? A lot of very annoying Theosophists keep illiterately editing the page. They have a dedicated CoSG (theosophy) page for their views. The CoSG article in question is for the historic figure. Cheers. Farrtj (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just taken a look, and I don't see any obvious problems. Could you point them out to me? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I've corrected them as they've arisen, but it's always under anonymous editors such as "93.143.21.210". Farrtj (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I did look at the history ans saw what people had added and what you had reverted. I don't see a need to protect the article. There isn't obvious vandalism. There isn't obvious edit warring. There aren't any BLP issues. IP accounts aren't necessarily vandal accounts. IP accounts can and do add valuable content. Less so these days than used to be the case, and often the material isn't formatted or sourced to current guidelines, but the material may be of value. It appears to me that the IP accounts are attempting to add what they feel is valuable or interesting material. Reverting them without approach discussion is not helping Wikipedia in the long term, and there has been a lot of concern recently, much of it coming from the Foundation, that established editors are biting IP and new accounts so that new people don't stay around and help build the encyclopedia. There is a trend of declining new members, so there is a worry that with declining involvement Wikipedia will not develop in a positive manner. Try communicating with the IP accounts, welcome them, invite them to register, get them involved. Some of the edits are poor quality so they may either be young and need guidance, or non-English speakers so they may need help with the language. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)