User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 28

← Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29 →

Critical history or Sources section, wherefore art thou.

Hi SilkTork; In case your recent move is progressing, I was somewhat moved by the comment made after your entry in the RfC there:[1], and would like to bring the Bloom material into the article at Romeo and Juliet jointly with your suggestion. If Bloom is a central literary figure in Shakespeare scholarship, and if the RfC was closed out as poorly formed by its initial posting, then at least some acknowledgement of Harold Bloom from Yale University seems justified. You had previously looked at it with an option of putting the edit into either the Sources section or the Critical history section. Either preference works for me since Bloom should be acknowledged as offering a useful opinion. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/GA2

Since I am new to GAR I asked for second opinion from Joshua Jonathan and in Good article help but I have not got a reply yet. If you could reply to them dispassionately it will be helpful. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have commented as requested. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added a review. I noticed that there was a previously deleted review page but I didn't read it. Feel free to reference it if any of my comments were addressed in that review. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. The deleted review was a quick fail under the impression that issues raised in the previous review had not been addressed. After discussion, it was agreed to delete the review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've passed the article. Thanks for your work improving the article. If you want to take it to FA, I would recommend poring over the report section closely. Lay out the nature of the evidence in a matter that serves a narrative (in this case just chronological) and the understanding of the concepts and relative strengths and weaknesses of the types of circumstantial evidence. So you can integrate later comments on the report--Ethan Gutmann can go inline as we discuss the reports conclusions as he has estimates of the scale of the problem (the report having just given us the scope). Or when we discuss the report's claim of lowered wait times serving as one piece of (admittedly very circumstantial but strong) evidence we bring in Tom Treasure to talk about how that may be a plausible causal link. And when we've covered some of the more circumstantial evidence (where there could be some possible alternate cause, e.g. not the telephone transcripts) we collect some comments on the lack of direct evidence. Then you can express the commentary below. And since you've taken out some technical knowledge needed for the response section (we're not explaining how reduced wait times are really hard to explain w/o a different regime in organ transplantation), it can be a bit clearer. Also some of the lower profile comments (though obviously reliable to comment on the report's outcome) can be removed from that section. I don't think you need to do that for FA, but it would preempt a lot of conflicting suggestions about what to do about the response section (vis a vis NPOV, RS, and individual preferences on anything that looks like a "criticism" section. Just a thought). :) Protonk (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And then the response section becomes a truer one. You have remaining state responses, responses from important medical or human rights groups, and potentially a summary of the medical or investigative responses from your report section. At that point you have the article as follows: introducing the historical background including the incipient event before the report got swung into action, then we talk about the findings of the report, introducing the major claims with the first report and interleaving commentary on the underlying evidence (where that commentary speaks clearly to that evidence). Then the second report can note substantive changes (with perhaps a cause to be covered in the response section, much as we do now, actually), then a simplified response section. I think it would be cool. Protonk (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry for the multiple edits) An easy way to operationalize this would be to take all your sources where someone makes a comment on evidence and put them in one pile. Then take all your sources where someone comments on conclusions or political impact and put them in another. the comments on evidence get integrated into the report section. The comments on claims become the new response section. Protonk (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, it was a pleasant and helpful experience. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Update of Savile Row tailoring

Hi, I noticed that you were responsible for starting the article Savile Row tailoring. I've been editing it some and will continue to do so, but I thought you might like to glance over it. There appears to be a lot of repetition and dead links. Also, a lot of self-referencing seems apparent.Richard Nowell (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Keep up the good work! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Persib Bandung

Hi, may I ask for help to move a page Persib Bandung to Semi-protected like Arsenal F.C, and etc. I propose, because it's vulnerable in the edit page of irresponsible people. Thankyou.-- Tommy1933 ^{✔Tea time} 13:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou, could you'll do after 1 november?--

Tommy (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello SilkTork:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Orphaned non-free image File:Coors Brewing Company Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coors Brewing Company 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Fly Like an Eagle

You were involved in the article; I invite you to discuss the page move proposal. --George Ho (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sam Adams Edits

I noticed that in all the great editing you're doing that you un-wikilinked Lager. What that intentional? Prof. Mc (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I was thinking of WP:LINKCLARITY and WP:SPECIFICLINK because what I unlinked was part of a product name, and the link went to lager rather than pale lager, so the intention was to link the pertinent part of the description of the product (as in "a 5% abv pale lager"), but I didn't come upon a description, so it got overlooked. I will look up the product shortly, and then write a short description of it, linking the part(s) of the description that may be helpful. If I don't get around to it in the next day or two, and you already know the product, then please go ahead and write a description yourself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Pure tone audiometry

Long back on 2 March 2007‎ vide this edit you made Pure tone audiometry live by copying text from User:PTApete&co's subpage. Instead it would have been better if you had moved the page to the new location after deleting the already blanked page then at Pure tone audiometry. Your experiences have grown in the meantime but thought it worth mentioning. Diptanshu^Talk 18:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)