User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 25

← Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26 →

Cotswolds

Thanks for your work on this. (I just became involved when I tried to link to 'Cotswold escarpment' and found it didn't exist.) I very much support merging together of stubby articles like the one on "Cotswold stone", but just a couple of things I have noticed on this page, which you might be able to take into consideration.

• First, I really don't think that (unlike Wenlock Edge, for example) the Cotswold escarpment is usually referred to as an "Edge": there are more googits for "C Edge", but usually as the name of a golf club or similar. But the term "Cotswold escarpment" is very much used to refer to the large-scale geologic feature, with the dip slope going way to the East, Oxford or beyond. I think there could be a better geological/geographical overview of the shape. Perhaps a map...
• I also see some go.uk publication claims that the northern Cotswold stone is "darker". This seems an odd choice of word: it is very distinctly yellower, but this is done with the "Saturation" control, not "Luminance".

HTH. I grew up in Painswick, by the way. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The wording is pretty much what I found in the Cotswold stone article. I haven't yet done any research on it, but will look into those aspects you mention. I'm having a long weekend in the Cotswolds next month, so thought I'd do some research on it before going there. I haven't looked very deeply yet, so there is something that is puzzling me - what is it that defines a place as being in the Cotswolds? I am suspecting it is the limestone bedrock. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Like most such things, there's no clear definition of the extent of "The Cotswolds". Bath and Stratford-upon-Avon are approximate outer bounds to the line of the escarpment, to the East is much less clear, but (off the top of my head) stopping short of Oxford. Oh yes, on thinking about it, I'm sure you can use the expression "Cotswold Edge", but this is not particularly a local term, and would usually be a way of pointing to some part of the very edge of the hills, in an informal way. But when you say "characteristic uplift of the Cotswold Edge" I think this really should say 'escarpment' (no capitals needed). The point is that this is a (slightly technical) term in geography. I think you have shown up the previous inconsistency of ideas about the name origin -- I'm sure the best answer is that no-one knows. Similarly, the Devil's chimney (was this a separate page, can't remember, but anyway) has a theory that it was left by quarrymen as a joke. This strikes me as utterly implausible, though it is repeated as fact on one of the references you gave. Well, it never ends, does it? I will leave you to do what you can, and will try to look at the page again when you have finished for now. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

River disambiguation

I think your multiple moves of river articles need discussion - I don't think WP:COMMADIS supports these moves. I have commented at Talk:River Yeo (South Somerset). Thanks.--Mhockey (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Other UK rivers are disambiguated the same way, and this does follow WP:COMMADIS. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is a lot of variation in disambiguating rivers (and there is nothing special about UK rivers). Which bit of WP:COMMADIS do you think supports your moves?--Mhockey (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There were two factors. 1) There were already more UK rivers that used comma disambiguation; 2): "Comma-separated disambiguation. With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses". The two factors appeared to work together in harmony. And that follows all other place names where commas are used in place of brackets. I think that at one time brackets were first choice, but over the years commas have come to be preferred as that makes it easier to link when writing article; for example: "light craft use the River Yeo, Somerset" is easy and natural. And such usage is found elsewhere: [1], "River+Yeo%2C+Somerset"&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=%22River+Yeo%2C+Somerset%22&safe=off&tbm=bks, while "River Yeo (South Somerset)" is only found in Wikipedia mirrors. It is clearly artifical, and is not a natural search term. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

But River Yeo, South Somerset isn't a natural search term either. The natural disambiguation for UK rivers in ordinary writing is usually the name of the largest place on the river, e.g. the Bristol Avon, the Stratford Avon, the Lapford Yeo, the Barnstaple Yeo.

Rivers are not really "places", and Bristol, Stratford, Lapford and Barnstaple are not "higher-level administrative divisions" than the rivers they are on. The present consensus on disambiguating rivers is at WP:NCRIVER, to use brackets. I'll move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers, to see if others want to change the current guidance.--Mhockey (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Opening up the discussion is a good idea. There is a distinction in the approach taken on UK articles to that taken on articles in the rest of the world. Be useful to have some consistency in the matter. I moved the handful of UK articles I found using brackets, but I didn't move any of the other world articles. The discrepancy is shown clearly on the River Avon disambiguation page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the comma notation works well for rivers. The Avon in S Glos/Somerset is often called the "Bristol Avon", but it is not _in_ Bristol, it merely flows through. So I think "Avon, Bristol" is very unnatural. I also think that while it is handy if article titles can be used as is (saving the piped link), this is not a reason for awkward constructions. And thus "Avon (Bristol)" is a better title IMO. Same goes for the others. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm right - I am explaining why I did the moves, and that the moves made sense to me based on the available information, the way that article naming has developed over the years, and common sense.

If the river is often called "Bristol Avon" then that is an appropriate name for the article, and follows WP:Natural.

I am also saying that there is a discrepancy between the way that river articles are named in the UK and river articles are named in the rest of the world, and so I agree with you that there should be a wider discussion. I may take a look at that discussion later, and add some of my views if it looks appropriate to do so. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles

I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

JJE

No problem. Dapi89 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Alberget 4A

Why did you delete the article Alberget 4A? Now I have to write the same article all over again. Bandy boy (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly promotional. It has already been speedy deleted from the Swedish Wikipedia. This is a non-notable product. Putting a non-notable product on Wikipedia promotes it, and starts to give it a notability that doesn't exist. When the product becomes notable (it is discussed by reliable independent sources), then you can create it again. Recreating it again with the same content would not be a good idea. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Alberget 4A

(I re-add this here, to hold the discussion together)

Why did you delete the article Alberget 4A? Now I have to write the same article all over again. Bandy boy (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly promotional. It has already been speedy deleted from the Swedish Wikipedia. This is a non-notable product. Putting a non-notable product on Wikipedia promotes it, and starts to give it a notability that doesn't exist. When the product becomes notable (it is discussed by reliable independent sources), then you can create it again. Recreating it again with the same content would not be a good idea. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not promotional. It has not been deleted from the Swedish Wikipedia, the article by that name which was deleted on Swedish Wikipedia was not about the beer. There is an article about the beer on Swedish Wikipedia now. If you want this deleted, I think you should discuss it first, before you delete it. Bandy boy (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alberget 4A

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alberget 4A. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bandy boy (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Askam and Ireleth

Thanks for the note- I've no doubt the article needs a looking at. Not one I've paid any attention to in a while. I'll take a look over the next few days. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I'll roll up my sleeves and see what I can do as well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Alberget 4A

FYI, Alberget 4A is not a rebadged existing beer, it is a special beer brewed and sold for Djurgårdens IF. I mailed the brewery and asked, and I got that answer. Bandy boy (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done for doing that. In my experience some brewers are reluctant to reveal that a beer is a rebadge, so they tend to word responses carefully; "a special beer brewed and sold for..." is surprisingly common wording for a rebadge as it is appears to say that the beer is unique, but could also mean the beer is, yes, brewed and sold for XYZ, but also brewed and sold for ABC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for creating the new Koka noodles article, and for all of your work to improve English Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 06:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice one! I'll munch that with my afternoon tea later..... SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy, and thanks again! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

microbreweries

I note that you have made a series of similar edits to a number of articles on microbreweries. I have to question why you have converted a specific infobox (breweries) to a more generic infobox (companies) and why you've changed a specific description microbrewery to a generic description of brewery. Is there some reason for these changes that I'm missing? Dan arndt (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2#Category:Microbreweries - consensus to remove the microbreweries category as too subjective. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beer/Guidelines are to use {{Infobox company}}. While removing the microbrewery cat I'm also converting the infobox, and doing minor tidying, such as removing "located in" as not concise per WP:TERSE, and being more precise and less subjective in describing the brewery as a brewery rather than "craft" / "micro" / "premier" brewery, etc, as those terms are not globally secure. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IWhy are you removing categories from UK Microbreweries, when there gas been no discussion to do so. ifail to see the connection between a microbrewery in England and the deletion of a category about microbreweries in America. Perhaps you could enlighten me further ? Richard Harvey (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, see comment above. Category:Microbreweries was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion and the consensus was to upmerge the category. The wording was to upmerge to Category:Beer brewing companies in the United States by state‎ as that was the main target because the majority of articles impacted are American. However, the concern that the term microbrewery is subjective and vague applies globally. If you feel that UK breweries were not appropriately considered, you could raise that issue at Wikipedia:Deletion review - I am not in a position to undo the close by myself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a similar question. It appears that you are also banishing the term "craft brewery" from the text of the article, for example here. Was that also part of the discussion? Also, I notice that you are changing the craft brewery link in the article to brewery, even though "craft brewery" redirects to microbrewery rather than brewery - and microbrewery really is a better description of many of these companies. At the category deletion discussion they may have decided to eliminate the Microbrewery category, but I don't think they decided to delete or merge the article "Microbrewery," or to ban the term "craft brewery" from Wikipedia. Your thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The reason it was decided to remove the category microbrewery was because it is a subjective insecure term with no global agreement on what it means. The same is true of the term craft brewery. They are not adequate or secure neutral identifiers for the opening sentence of an encyclopedic entry. What we can say with certainty is that they are breweries. That is a neutral fact. Later in the article under marketing or description, where the term can be explained in depth and context, microbrewery can be used, but in the opening sentence it is acting the same as the category - it is defining the company as something that is vague, uncertain, POV, and variable depending on the reader's own knowledge and cultural background. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that strikes me as going way beyond what the Category discussion said - but as long as you are talking only about the lead sentence, not the rest of the article, we can probably live with it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Rush Street

The other Chicago, and in fact American, street articles use parenthetical disambiguation where necessary, not commas. While neighborhoods might be thought of as geographic subdivisions of a city, in the US, individual streets are not. In that sense, the reason you cited for moving the article doesn't make (American) sense. Imzadi 1979 → 16:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The guidance is at WP:PLACE and WP:COMMADIS. A street is not a natural feature, it is a place within an administrative division (the village, town or city in which it is located). I think one of the main reasons why a comma is preferred is that is is quite common for people to use a comma when writing about locations: they are more likely to say, "it's in Rush Street, Chicago", than "it's in Rush Street (Chicago)". If other street articles in Chicago use parenthetical disambiguation, then it is likely they should be moved to comma disambiguation in order to ensure consistency across Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no American would say "it's in Rush Street, Chicago" unless "Rush Street" were the name of a neighborhood, or the feature was physically in the middle of the roadway. We would say that something was "on Rush Street in Chicago", or just "on Rush Street".

Then we have the issue of highways, which use parenthetical disambiguation where needed. All of the Kansas and Michigan state highways use "(Kansas highway)" or "(Michigan highway)" after their appropriate numbers ("K-66" or "M-28"), and state highways in India use the name of the state in parentheses after the name. For other states (provinces) in the US or Canada, they use a "natural disambiguation" scheme with the state name prefacing the highway name, but they will use parentheses as needed to disambiguate further. These are also not "natural features", but WP:PLACE does not really address non-natural features in this vein.

For the time being though, I would prefer that Rush Street be moved back to match the remainder of the ambiguous entries in {{Streets in Chicago}} until a proper discussion can be had whether or not to use commas or parentheses, since this deals with more than just Chicago's streets but has potential impacts on highways and other "non-natural features". Imzadi 1979 → 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is probably better taken up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. I landed on that article, noted that the title was not in line with Wikipedia:Article titles (a policy), and moved it. It may well be that the policy needs changing, or the wording clarified, or whatever, but that requires more of a discussion than just us two. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is all fine. I'd have invoked WP:BRD and just reverted it, but the redirect has been edited meaning I need an admin to revert the page move. I will also note that WP:PLACE is self-contradictory: Victoria (Australia) is listed as an example. As for WP:COMMADIS in WP:AT, it doesn't require comma-based disambiguation for places. (And, at least in the US, a street is not a "place" in the same sense as neighborhoods, cities, towns, villiages, etc. That may be a semantic difference between American and British English.) Imzadi 1979 → 17:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We have different interpretations so this does need wider discussion to clarify the issue. As this is about disambiguation in an article title, I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation is an appropriate place to have that discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Tim Huelskamp

Greetings. Thank you for your input to the Talk discussion for this article. Would you be willing to help enforce the consensus there?CFredkin (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus yet. Further discussion is needed. I have, however, restored the RfC, as removing it was inappropriate. I would advise you not to implement any changes on the article until after the RfC has concluded. I am not watching the page, but you can keep me advised of developments; particularly if there is any further attempt to stifle discussion or harangue users, or engage in personal attacks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. BTW, my most recent edit to the BLP was in response to this edit by smuckola, which I believe made the content even more inflammatory.CFredkin (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Opening up a discussion to get a broader consensus is always helpful, and starting the RfC was a good idea. Engaging in an edit war with someone you are in dispute with is not a good idea and can lead you into trouble. If there is an edit you feel is particularly bad, and you feel there is an urgent need to do something about it, but you have been disputing with the person who made the edit, then raise the matter on an appropriate noticeboard rather than make the edit yourself. If you are right, then someone else will make the edit, and you won't be subjected to stress and/or abuse, and you don't run the risk of being blocked. If you are wrong, then that will be made clear in the discussion, and you will learn from the experience, and will not feel frustrated or aggrieved. None of us are right all the time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. But my experience has been that a strong majority of the editorial community on the project has a left-leaning political bias. (I believe this is related to the fact that editors tend to be technically oriented and the technical community generally leans left. I'm part of the technical community in the "real world", and see this dynamic first-hand.) In any dispute on political topics, the party representing the other side of the debate (myself) is inevitably out-voted and requests for comment tend to attract more left-leaning editors.

In this case, I don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that the content in dispute is even remotely appropriate in an encyclopedic article, much less in a BLP. According to my understanding of BRD, after I reverted the initial post of the content, the posting editor should have started a discussion in Talk. Instead, I started the Talk discussion and yet I'm the one accused of edit warring and subjected to personal attacks. I would think that in the case of a BLP, inflammatory content that is under dispute should remain out of the article until the dispute is resolved. However in this case, the editors continue to polish their turd, while I wait and hope that more reasonable editors appear on the scene.

Here's a more extreme example of what I'm talking about. In this case, the behavior of multiple editors on a topic is adjudicated. An editor representing the right-leaning side of the topic receives the death penalty, while everyone else gets a slap on the wrist. Somehow it appears sockpuppetry that occurred 3-4 years ago became a factor in the decision.

I don't know what the higher-level solution entails. It may involve lowering the technical barriers to editing to attract editors from a broader community. It may also help to recruit administrators more broadly. I do know however that, given the present situation, the project will gradually become increasingly biased on political subjects until it loses credibility with its readers.CFredkin (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not politically inclined either way, but I hear what you are saying as regards bias in editing. Our WP:COI guideline says "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers", though in my experience we have greater problems with bias in articles due to personal beliefs than with business or financial interests. Fans of a pop star, actress, sports person, etc, will incline an article towards positive statements and load it with excessive minor details; editors with clear ethnic, political and religious beliefs will incline articles toward their personal preferences, and will engage in extensive and disruptive conflict with other editors who disagree with them. It happens all the time, and I'm not sure what collectively we can do about it. However, individually, we can recognise when we are engaged in such disputes, and simply walk away from them. There is much to do on Wikipedia. We have over 4 1/2 million articles, many unsourced, many biased, and huge backlogs of work to do. We can best help Wikipedia and the readers and ourselves, by putting our efforts where they would be most effective, worthwhile, and appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In any case, thank you for restoring the RfC tag.CFredkin (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kilgour Matas

Did you mean to renominate right after the failed review which pointed out some concerning issues regarding sourcing and accuracy?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The concerns were either minor and have been dealt with, or were disputed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck with the review then. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your finely organised GA review crusade. Hopefully to you it's its own reward, but maybe these pixels will add to that. CMD (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's nice! Thank you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

silkTork

{{Urgent}} add the rights again... Shane Cyrus (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) The instance you gave to remove the right was totally unreated to the reviewer rights. I am kindly requesting you to undo your removal or I will consider filing it at ANI. Thanks, Shane Cyrus (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You may bring the issue up with other admins. I took away the right as it appears you do not yet have a firm enough understanding of core policies, which is required of a reviewer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

Greetings. Me again.... At least one person from the dispute you weighed in on seems to be canvassing to have me sanctioned as part of an ongoing Arb Committee hearing: 1, 2, 3. It's interesting that they seem to be trying to coax others into making a complaint (perhaps because their own behavior is questionable?) Is this sort of thing considered acceptable behavior on the project?CFredkin (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Based on some of the comments in the first link above, I suspect that this editor is casting his net more broadly via email when that's an option.CFredkin (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not had the time to look into this. However, if this involves an ArbCom case, then the Committee will be able to make their own assessment of what is appropriate or not. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at WP Albums

Hi SilkTork. I just opened a discussion at WP Albums about the possibility of creating an article on the George Harrison bootleg Beware of ABCKO!, or perhaps making any such article wider in scope, to cover that and other unreleased or outtake material from the All Things Must Pass sessions. I'd started toying with the idea when you were doing the GAR for the album article, early last year. So if you happened to have any comments about the article I'm proposing, they'd be very welcome. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Left a comment there. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper FAC

Have you had an opportunity to take another look at the lead? After your excellent additions I made a few copyedits, and I am wondering if the issue you identified has been resolved. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a damn good article. I still have a concern regarding use of the Andy English / Peter Dean reproduction of the poster, which I cannot ignore, so I will leave that concern in place; other than that I fully support. My quibble is not going to make any difference, so the article should be promoted. Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Advice please

In the BLP on Abu Hamza al-Masri, who was recently convicted in New York on terrorism charges, there is a section headed Imprisonment of Sons. It names five of AH's sons and mentions their various criminal convictions, none of which are connected with the AH case. I removed the section some time ago (before AH's conviction) on "guilt by association" grounds. It has now been reinstatd by another user whose supporting argument is well articulated in his edit summary, and also on the article talk page in response to a post from me expressing uncertainty as to whether the material should be included. (I have left it in situ.) There is no dispute between us, and I have chosen not to engage in further discussion at this point. I think it would be more useful to invite opinions from users who are respected for BLP expertise. So far, the interaction between me and the other editor has gone no further than statements of our respective positions (including my desire for expert input) . As all I seek is an expert opinion, which help forum would be appropriate? None seem a perfect fit. Thank you for the tea. Writegeist (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a look. It appears that there is a lot of information in a wide variety of reliable sources on the sons' activities. It is fully appropriate to use that information. Some sources explicitly talk about "Hamza family's history of criminality" Telegraph, and "Abu Hamza fathers criminal brood" Sunday Times. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated. Writegeist (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for lending your talent to the Sgt. Pepper peer review and FAC. Because of some wonderful teamwork during the last month, the article is among the best on Wikipedia today. I couldn't have done it alone, and I hope that someday I can return the kindness and generosity that I've enjoyed during this process. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I do like a barnstar. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Belfast/GA1

This was only listed on the Ireland and NI projects 8 days ago, so delisting so quickly after trying to involve editors who may be able to rescue this is unfair. You need to give some more time to see what can be done. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of work needs to be done. Nobody came onto the GAR saying they wanted to do the work, asking for more time - indeed, the comments on the page have supported delisting. The only work done has been trivial, and some has been negative. The GAR has been open 27 days in total, with many people contacted, and no progress made. That is more than sufficient. Anyway - no problem. Do the work at your own pace, and nominate it when you are ready. I'll be willing to give it a look over when you feel it is ready for nominating. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Ahmedabad/GA2

Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Ahmedabad article for which you are a main contributor. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding sourcing and MoS. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I'm letting you know in case you're interested in helping to resolve the concerns, though you are under no obligation to do anything. See Talk:Ahmedabad/GA2 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You might have noticed that I haven't been editing much lately and I don't plan on doing so in near future. Ahmedabad for GA! --Kondi (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick look?

Hi! I remember an email you sent me a while ago. Could I ask you to take a quick look at what I've written here, just to check that I haven't stepped over any lines? I'd be grateful. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The advice you've given is in line with guidelines, and you've not asked him to reveal himself, merely advised that he could reveal he has a COI if he wishes to. The editor only has an interest in that article, but the subject does appear to be notable, and the editor does appear to be well meaning. As with most new or limited interest editors, they have only a small understanding of how to edit, and are highly unlikely to produce top quality work within all guidelines. They would benefit from some assistance and guidance, and you seem willing to provide that. There is always a fine balance between giving warnings and giving advice. Looking at his talkpage, he may be feeling a little battered and worried right now, as there are a lot of warnings. I like that in your most recent communication you are expressing some awareness of that and are reaching out to him and offering to help. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I just wanted that second pair of eyes on it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

GA question

As you are active there. I would like to ask if protected(from IP) article can be nominated for GA? Ping me. OccultZone (Talk) 11:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it can. A number of high profile and/or sensitive articles are IP protected; they remain open to all other aspects of Wikipedia editing, including GAN and FAC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I had replied you on my page. Thanks for telling. You had a typo[2], "talpgae". OccultZone (Talk) 07:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)