User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 30

Hi! This is part of SilkTork's archives of past talkpage discussions.

Feel free to wander around and browse at will. Old archives from 2006 to 2012 are here. More recent archives are indexed here.

Tea and biscuits are available on request at my talkpage.

← Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31 →

Happy New Year SilkTork!

Happy New Year!

SilkTork,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 already

Hi ST. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on Wikipedia for a long time to come.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a really nice thing to say. I appreciate it. Happy New Year to you as well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Dear SilkTork/Archive2,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thanks! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band on the Run

Hi SilkTork. I saw your changes at Band on the Run and, since they were very constructive, it inspired me to begin adding some details I'd long been meaning to include in the article – things I'd come across while researching other albums. So I just wanted to say, because I notice you've since stopped working on the article: I hope you haven't taken my sudden busy-ness at BOTR as some sort of "It's mine, it's mine!" ownership issue. It is certainly not the case.

Hopefully it's not something that needs stating … but I guess I'd rather post an unnecessary Talk message than take anything for granted. Best, JG66 (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely stay with an article for long. I usually edit an article because it relates to something I'm looking into in real life, and I'm using Wikipedia as an information source, then while looking at the article I may decide to improve something on it. Sometimes the topic or the article holds my interest for a few days, and sometimes long enough to develop it to Good Article status, but that's fairly rare these days. I'm likely to return to Band on the Run on and off over the next week or two as I'm doing a project on it. I've not yet looked at your contributions - I'm sure they are fine. Please feel free to edit any article on Wikipedia - be bold, that's how Wikipedia makes progress. If your edits are good they will remain or be built on; if they are poor they will be removed or edited out. There is sometimes conflict on the right way to progress and build an article, but these conflicts are surprisingly rare. They tend to occur on sensitive topics such as religion, politics and ethnicity, and sometimes they occur because of the editors involved. Some editors can be fairly abrasive and intransigent, but such editors - despite the attention they get, and the bad feeling they spread - are actually very much in the minority. Thank you for reaching out to me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree – be bold – but I find that it pays to be mindful of how one treads at the same time. A couple of editors of music articles (and it is just one or two, consistent with what you were saying) act forever bold, but seem to also take that instruction as a licence to show complete disdain for others' points of view …

Anyway, I'm glad my burst of activity at BOTR didn't make you feel like you were being chased off the block, or something! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen what you've done yet. I'll take a look in a moment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking good - it's moving in the right direction. You might want to consider aiming for Good Article status. I'll help out where I can. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles Invite

Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.

Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!

Todo list:

Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Coffee nap into Power nap

My sense is these are two different (although related) terms. Still, a decision to merge one article into another, like you did here, is a major one requiring community consensus. If you wish to pursue merging the article, place a merge proposal tag on both articles and see what happens in discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I gave appropriate policy related reasons in the edit summary. This was a standard merge. You are welcome, of course, to seek consensus for splitting the article. See Wikipedia:Splitting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And thanks for bringing this up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SilkTork. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

care to look over a biography of a living person?

Just want to make sure I didn't flub things over any policies. If you are interested that is… --Smkolins (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll do that. I assume it's the one in your sandbox. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a read through and done a bit of background reading. There are plenty of reliable sources providing significant material about Dr Jim Turpin to establish that he is notable. The article is sober and factual, and there don't appear to be any claims made that are not supported.

There are, however, a couple of places which need some attention: "he was not satisfied that he had a meaningful life" is an opinion by whom?; "so he added going to the medical school" is not clear; and the war in Vietnam section contains a lot of quotes. While I checked and noted that most of the quotes were supported by nearby cites, it is expected that quotes from BLPs are given inline cites directly at the point of mention. Also, the quotes should come from reliable sources - local newspapers are sometimes a little borderline. If you are going to have a quote, rather than a summary, then there should be a good reason for it. Do you need ALL those quotes, for example "It costs $224,000 to kill one Viet Cong (and half of that)… can educate thousands" and "It takes $260,000 to kill one VC and one cent a meal to feed a Vietnam child." could perhaps be better summarised as "he felt the money spent on killing the Viet Cong could be better spent on feeding and educating Vietnamese children."

I couldn't find sources for "If you eliminate the pathological conditions, I firmly believe the pathological concepts will disappear too.", and "We must consider maturely and objectively, yet with all the love we can muster what is the answer to Viet Nam."

If the above points are dealt with, I think it will be OK to move into mainspace. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Got them all settled one way or the other I think. I did have to drop one of the quotes - I'm sure I saw it but now can't find it. Maybe later - but I think we need a disambig page for James Wesley Turpin, James Turpin, and James H. Turpin at least. But I'm out of time for now. --Smkolins (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of amended RfC

There is an RfC related to paid editing on which you commented or !voted, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Left comment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Sean Fagan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sean Fagan. 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. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Left comment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Gothic science fiction

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gothic science fiction, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 173.48.81.211 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done merge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]