User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 41

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 40

Archive 41

Archive 42 →

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 30, 2016

Hi ST, I'm working on this one now. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One question: I'd prefer to have a specific year, like so: "In 1631 the 4th Earl of Bedford commissioned Inigo Jones to design the Italianate arcaded square, something new to London, and it served as a prototype for the laying-out of new estates as London grew." But Francis Russell, 4th Earl of Bedford says "About 1631", and another article says the square was laid out in 1630. Do we know the year? - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many non-Brits won't know what "estates" are, so a link would be nice. Otherwise, I'm done for now ... any suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank, thanks for letting me know. I haven't looked at that article for around a year or so, and no longer have it on my watchlist so am unsure what is happening there. I'll take a look over the next few days and let you know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beer discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer#Awards which you may wish to participate in. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for Covent Garden

I have nominated Covent Garden for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Scott • talk 22:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. I get a note above that it's to be on the main page this month, then I get one to say it's being considered to have its featured status removed. I haven't looked at the article for about a year, and it's not on my watchlist; so, as I said above, I don't know what's happening to it, but I'll take a look over the next few days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

Hi SilkTork. I was wondering whether you had any thoughts about this change. I ask because I seem to remember you replacing formal section headings in instances such as this (in table or list formats) with those, more incidental headings triggered by a semicolon. And you also gave a good rationale accompanied by a link, if memory serves me right. Personally, I think the use of subsection/level 2 heads in this example is way over the top – the attention afforded a single line under "Touring musician", for example; the fact that each heading now appears in the contents list – and would like to reinstate the previous style, preferably with an appropriate rationale. Apologies if it wasn't you at all: whoever it was, they made a convincing argument(!). Thanks, JG66 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That situation is what is called a definition list or association. The section is a list, sorted into categories or associations. See MOS:DEFLIST. Using level 2 is inappropriate, and against Wikipedia style guide. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's the one. Fabulous – thank you. JG66 (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Wrestlers

Hello again,

In 2014 you had helped me with an issue where a user (User talk:Reza.lagsharidze) was editing Iranian wrestler pages and providing false info. They have now returned and are doing this. Can you please help again. Thanks very much. Nokhodi (talk)

I have given him another block, this time for three months. There was no need for a warning, as he is simply back repeating what he has already been blocked for, so he knows what he is doing. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your quick response. Much appreciated. Nokhodi (talk)

Brunei GAR

Hey SilkTork, I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at Talk:Brunei/GA4. The GAR was opened by a new editor who hasn't edited since then, or I'd ask them to look at it. Similarly, the editor who was willing to fix the issues has also not edited in many months. I feel slightly too involved with the article to approve/remove its GA status, or I wouldn't consider asking someone else. I'll take a proper look if you don't have time though. Thanks, CMD (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, yes, that's been in limbo a little too long. I'll take a look, and take over the GAR. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. The GAR has been on my radar for awhile, but I really focus on it until today. Apologies, CMD (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention - you did the right thing as that is a poor article. Should not have been listed in the first place. As I was going though, it looked like it would fail pretty much on everything so I stopped at the point where it was obvious. It is essentially just a series of rather messy notes on the topic, with little genuine research or organisation. If you see any more, let me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janis

Hi SilkTork -- looks like it was you who fixed up the Janis article ? (I'm not that good at figuring out Wikipedia's history records.) Lovely job, thank you very much. I was dreading getting in there, but it needed to be done. I couldn't stand the one-dimensional, sneering way it was written before. There's still a couple smarmyisms hidden in there but 95% is good enough for me :-)

You might enjoy this, it's a kick

http://www.marinnostalgia.org/portfolio/sam-andrew/

via con dios 210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I only did a little bit. I would have liked to do a little more, but I have limited time and energy these days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork : you seem to be in the know around here. Could you take a quick run past

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_NXD_Advert_Overriding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timothyjosephwood#vandalism_my_rosy_red_...

I'm gonna get out of this before it turns into a fight. Disagreeing with the edit is fine but it's NOT "vandalism" ! :-) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your edits and agree that what you did was not vandalism. I assume the reason the other editor became concerned was due to a) you are an unregistered account (using an unregistered account usually indicates that the account is unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes and policies which raises a concern, especially as most harmful edits are done by IP accounts) b) the talkpage of your IP account has several warnings for disruptive behaviour c) your block log shows the account has been previously blocked for disruptive behaviour e) your edit summary of "Call a spade a spade" coupled with the edit itself which turned "service" into "hijacking operation" with no further explanation is suggestive of a malicious edit

Essentially, you have not helped yourself. I suggest you create an account, use edit summaries more cautiously and soberly, and use reliable sources to support your edits where appropriate. If your edit had said: "DNS NXD Advert Overriding' is a DNS hijacking operation...(cite[1])" it would have remained.

I hope that helps. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, SilkTorq. Actually, I don't mind if people disagree but this rush to call "vandalism" at the drop of a hat is ridiculous. IP editor or not, READ THE TEXT FIRST ! (Not directed at you but dang. Some vandalism-claimers really are retarded. And I had my own little stalker once, who decided that lane-splitting was unsafe no matter what the State of California said. Government website said the opposite of what he insisted but he preferred to label me "disruptive" for disputing his unfacts :)

My fault for being too upset at the moment, I had just wasted three hours tracking down a rogue ip that mysteriously appeared in my Call Manager via Barefruit, a dns hijacking operation. The article in question should perhaps be linked to "dns hijacking" instead, cuz that's what it is. "Advert" isn't even a word.

Anyway, all's well that ends well and grazie again. Did you read the funny Sam Andrew piece ? 210.22.142.82 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All sorts edit Wikipedia, and one of the keys to success is not to get too heated over things that really don't matter. If things annoy me what I tend to do is write out my angry response, then delete it before posting it. If I'm really angry I may need to do that several times (each post getting softer and more reasonable) before leaving the matter and going off to do something else. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHENTABLE & Geography

Greetings! I noticed you wrote much of WP:WHENTABLE's stipulations on the appropriate usage of tables as well as the clause on geography on WP:WPC, so I was wondering if you could perhaps help with a matter related to these policies. One such drop-down menu appears to be misused on the Eritrea page. It obscures much of the prehistory and antiquity text, and several files and one analysis hidden within the menu were also removed [2]. I tried in vain to explain that this was an inappropriate usage of a table menu since the text was prose and therefore not tabular in nature. Also, under geography, a generic file of the broader eastern Africa region was appended in lieu of a map on the local Dahlak Islands. This too appears to be contra best practices, as WP:WPC indicates that the geography area is reserved for "details of the country's main geographic features and climate" rather than the region's geography. Could you please fix these? Kind Regards -- Soupforone (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I know you're probably busy, but have you had a chance yet to look over the table menu & geography? Please advise. Cheers -- Soupforone (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay. I'll take a look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have left some comments, and I have semi-protected the page because it has attracted racist comments which have not been swiftly removed. I will fully protect it if the dispute between yourself and Richard0048 continues as an edit war. I have removed the table as you are correct that its use there is inappropriate. I am not often on Wikipedia these days, so I am unable to mediate the dispute, however, please keep me informed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I will be sure to keep you posted if anything untoward happens. Cheers -- Soupforone (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]