Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 →


Good afternoon, SilkTork! I see you have been rolling back some wholesale links to university archive collections. I too have run across similar carpet bombing recently – perfectly good faith, I am quite certain, by well-meaning researchers in college libraries, but apt to clog up our external links if not kept within reasonable bounds. Is there somewhere Wikipedia has collectively discussed the general point, and if not is there somewhere we should, do you think? On the one hand one doesn't wish to discourage useful links to collections of substantial importance to a particular WP topic but on the other we can do without links to minor collections, one feels. (Apologies if we have already come to a collective policy on this, but if we have, I haven't been able to find it.) Best wishes, Tim riley talk 15:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. I'm becoming aware that external links are getting out of control, viz: Aristotle#External_links, Charles_Dickens#External_links, William_Shakespeare#External_links, etc. But, like you, I'm not entirely sure of current consensus. My assumption based on my experience here and my understanding of WP:EL, is that we discourage excessive and pointless links, and indeed, when a single purpose account sets themselves up with the sole purpose of putting in links to their favourite organisation or website, and when warned, continues, we generally block them. But, when I explained this on the talkpage of one such user, and then, when I noticed they hadn't logged in for a while, set about clearing up their links, I met some push back from other users. See User talk:SBennett SpecialCollections. This has given me pause for thought, and I am wondering if there is a new mood on Wikipedia to allow links to libraries. I can't imagine how it would be a good thing to allow every library in the world to randomly set up links to their collections on every article, but I can see some value in setting up a link to a particularly noteworthy library collection for some articles. Now, to get some sense of how that is to judged and agreed would require setting up a RfC. These days I tend not to have that much time and energy spare for Wikipedia, and I wondered just how much I wanted to get into that. In the meantime, today, I looked at some pages, and noted a template had been created: Template:Britannica, which was being placed in the External links section of articles, contrary to the guidance of WP:ELNO#1. I started to remove them, but became aware that there are a lot of them, so perhaps the current consensus is to allow such links. I have stopped removing them, and have asked a question at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Britannica_template, though I may get a quicker response if I posted it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
As you can gather from my rambling response, I am - like you - a little uncertain. Policy, guidance, and my own experience suggests that we wish to keep external links to a useful minimum as we are not a collection of external links. But current usage appears to suggest that such a view may be changing. Either that, or these links are slipping in and there are not enough experienced users to deal with them. And, of course, as we know, once something becomes established, it can be difficult to reverse.
If you are of the same view as me, that some up to the minute consensus and clear guidance on the matter would be useful, we could consider together the best way to go about this. SilkTork (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate issues there, I think. I'm of your opinion in re Britannica as I am about exernal links, but I'll sit the former out, I think. As to the latter I can't improve on your wish for "some up to the minute consensus and clear guidance on the matter". I've never been much of a lad for RfC, but I think it might be the best way forward, and as neither of us is pushing a particular point of view it could be comparatively painless. I'm happy to set the ball rolling (but on what page? – thoughts?) if you would like to second the motion, as it were. Or vice versa, if you prefer. Tim riley talk 19:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. I'm OK regarding the Britannica template - unless someone comes up with a valid reason for me not to continue removing it from External links, I will be continuing doing that, probably tomorrow. As regards an appropriate venue for a discussion regarding External links - I think that Wikipedia talk:External links would be appropriate, using the {{rfc}} template, and perhaps advertising it via {{centralized discussion}}. I'm taking one of my daughters out for lunch today, but when I get back perhaps you and I can look into appropriate neutral wording for the RfC discussion, and perhaps possible wording for WP:EL on the use of links to libraries. No, maybe not possible wording for EL - I think we'd need to see how the discussion goes. I'm a little fuzzy on which libraries it might be appropriate to link to, and in what circumstances. SilkTork (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim. I've just come across this {{Library resources box}} at Education#External_links. That makes sense to me. Rather than individual libraries putting links on each article, they complete a form at FTL: Forward to Libraries, and if approved their library is added to the template. I think we have our answer. SilkTork (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think we still need to have the wider discussion. {{Library resources box}} simply links to books available at a library on the article topic, but does not include unique archive material. There is a template for that - {{Archival records}}, but that operates by simply housing an external link to an individual library, so is the same as the external links that SBennett was adding, just in another format. Looking at some discussion on Template talk:Library resources box, there has been some unease about the use of that template, and some feel that it duplicates {{Authority control}}. But it appears that each of these templates does something a little different, and it is unclear on when {{Library resources box}} should be used - with some feeling it should not be used on broader topics as the results would be too broad to be useful. SilkTork (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:GLAM#External_links_to_archive_collections for latest on this. SilkTork (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You put me to shame, with all the investigating you have been doing. I have carefully read the exchanges on that page, and I wouldn't demur from what you say. As I have nothing very intelligent to add, I shall add nothing, but I shall watch the page and may sail in later if I think I have anything much to add. (Do please ping me if you want the inestimable benefit of my thoughts at any point.) Thank you, SilkTork for taking a lead on this: it needed doing. Tim riley talk 15:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Shaping GA listing?

Hi SilkTork, quite a few years back you considering Tree Shaping for Good Article listing with a bit of tidy up. There is editor new to tree shaping who also thinks it a wonderful article and a bit of clean up. Maybe this is the time to have another look at it? Blackash (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded there. It is good that someone independent is getting involved. I don't have the time or energy at the moment to work on the article to bring it to GA status, but I may get involved at some point in the future. SilkTork (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Requesting Guidance

Hello SilkTork, I think it's been a decade since your much needed help arrived at Tree Shaping. I remember you as having a balanced and insightful approach. Now that I have started looking into the article once more, I think what is missing is more participation from neutral editors who won't leave when they see the depth of the conflict. So my first question is about "request for comments" notice boards, "reliable source" notice boards and or "COI" notice boards. I'm not sure where to start in looking for help from neutral editors as I see many unreliable sources and also conflict of interest edits. Please comment on this weirdness... When this article https://web.archive.org/web/20130925135631/http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/arborsculpture-artful-science-tree-shaping was first published, a wikipedia editor who has an admitted COI contacted the author Ansel Oommen and asked to have the article modified and it was modified. The modified article as is called “original” in the citation. The modified version, currently cited, has the word Arborsculpture completely removed as requested. https://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/artful-science-tree-shaping Is there any wiki policy that prohibits working with journalist in this manner. I'm pretty sure the title of the article should be changed to "Arborsculpture" I expect to post a "request move" on the talk page soon, unless you think that's a bad idea. I'm working on my request for a move hereUser_talk:Slowart#Move pointers and comments from you would be great. All the best, Slowart (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been stable at Tree shaping with alternative names placed in a separate section for some time now. Stirring up that beast would not be good. Tree shaping works well for Wikipedia as it is neutral, informative, encompassing, and understandable. Tree shaping covers all aspects of shaping trees, including artistic and functional. Let it rest there, and concentrate instead on working to improve the article.
As regards the permaculture article. I'm not entirely following your concerns there. The updated article still uses the term arborsculpture, including an explanation of when the term was coined and who coined it. The main change is a slight shift in the title and the opening from an assumption that "arborsculpture" is the accepted name for tree shaping, which seems to me to be an editorial decision which the publication is entitled to make in line with updated knowledge. If you feel the magazine is wrong in that regard, the appropriate thing to do is to contact the magazine. I know people at Permaculture (quick research into some of those people would turn up my name due to shared involvement in other projects), and they are reasonable folk. I'm not saying that they would adjust the name of the article back to Arborsculpture, but they would at least listen to your argument.
I hope this helps. SilkTork (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I didn't fully explain my concerns with the permaculture articles. Getting an article changed and then citing that article to support something in the main space, (in my mind) would be serious ethics violation. If there is no policy to prevent that sort of manipulation, there should be. As far as the name of the article goes, the passing years have shown that "arborsculpture" is the word that has been more and more frequently used in academia, science journals and the like and is precise. My reasoning for the move is more fully explained here User_talk:Slowart#Move. I really wanted to avoid making contentious edits on my own and that's why I seek comments and participation from other editors. Thank you for your time.Slowart (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More on additions of archives

Hello again, SilkTork. May I pick your brains about this edit? On the one hand Barry Day looms large in Noël Coward scholarship, and his archive is sure to be of top-notch interest, but on the other, the template - new to me - gives it a box of its own, which looks pretty clunky to my eye. Have you run across this box in your investigation of excessive adding of archives? Thoughts gratefully received. Tim riley talk 17:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the archival records template is one I have come across and I think should be talked about in the RfC. I suspect there are a number of templates which could be condensed into either the Authority control template, or something else. There are quite a number of external links templates, some library related, but some, like the Encyclopedia Britannica template I have been removing, simply offering a link to another website which contains similar information to ours, and so appear to fail ELNO#1. We have templates for Twitter, AllMusic, various encyclopedias, etc. But I think it would diffuse the RfC to include such templates. I think the RfC should concentrate on library and archive type links, to establish what should be done about those. I can see a value in them, but not at the expense of Wikipedia becoming a host to multiple links to various individual libraries and archives. Give someone one link to a useful source, and they will go there - give them links to 10, 20, or 30 sources, and it starts to become link noise that people shut off rather than listen to. SilkTork (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "clunky" is an understatement. It gives undue importance to something that is just one archive of likely many. Furthermore, writers and creators as famous as Coward have produced so much material that numerous archives and libraries hold them. I can see adding an EL to something that is proved to be a writer's *main* collection, but if we add an EL to the collection of one biographer, as here, we could probably add a dozen such links. Plus, some enthusiastic librarians from universities and other libraries spam Wikipedia with links to dozens or hundreds of their collections. I would like for there to be an EL subsection that says that if you want to add an EL to a collection, you have to show that it is the subject's main archive, or at least one of the top 2.... and no boxes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC? I hadn't realised there was one: would you point me in the right direction, please, SilkTork, and I'll add my two penn'orth. Tim riley talk 22:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't started it yet. We should workshop it together: /External links to library resources. SilkTork (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that we have a general problem with external links. We have several thousand pages tagged with excessive links, some since 2012: Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup, and I have been moving such links onto talk pages, such as Talk:Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups#External_links and Talk:H.323#External_links, so they can be considered. But I think it would probably be best for the RfC to deal just with library and archive links, in order to focus on that issue. I think our current guidelines are sufficient to deal with excessive general links (ie, move them to the talkpage to be considered, or simply delete them), but library and archive links are not general links. Following this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_39#Request_for_comment_on_finding_aids, the EL guideline was adjusted to allow Finding aids  : WP:ELMAYBE#7 - what is not clear from that discussion, is what qualifies as an appropriate finding aid/archive/library resource, and how we should link to the resource. Something I would like to see explicitly disallowed is such as the Archival records template link at Frances_Brody#External_links which simply goes to this: [1] - a piece of information that tells us that there are 23 boxes of letters and drafts at Leeds library, access to which is limited and has to be requested: [2]. I am very dubious of the value to the general public of such a link, and feel that the resource is far too specialised for us. However, I do see the value of such a link to researchers into Frances Brody, and that the link should be provided online in a link resource, and that Wikipedia should make a link to such a central resource. One link to one resource which contains all the links that researchers would require. SilkTork (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June

thinking of you in June, decorated with St. John wort and a rainbow, with some impressions of places, flowers and music for you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda. I always enjoy your messages. SilkTork (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! - added: missing SlimVirgin, and RMF festival opening --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
  • This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July corner

June continued ... last year's flowers match the image on the user page nicely, see? - DYK that her last reply to me was in a thread Green for hope? - The DYK set in honour of Yoninah appeared yesterday, including Psalm 85, with the kiss of justice and peace - we wrote that together.

Fourth of July: Brian's birthday, remembered in gratitude for his unfailing inspiration and support - remember the Chapel - the missed - the music? - Can I interest you in a user's first FAC, Carillon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More music: 2 songs, the morning song - about rising from being down, in more than one sense - is a GA, - there should be more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of those who recently died (now Esther Béjarano). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda. I love your energy and positivity and care. SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I feel encouraged! - + more music if you like, cello sonatas and a new song about a feast - a dear family member remembered today when she would have been 122 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFUND

Hello, SilkTork,

Just a reminder that if you are assisting at WP:REFUND, you have to make an edit to the restored drafts or they will be tagged for deletion. I just restored several you restored that had reappeared on the G13 lists and were deleted again last night. Editors and admins should check the page logs but many don't.

There is a tool that makes this easy for admins that you can get at User:SD0001/RFUD-helper...it'll take care of most of the restoration steps for you to prevent this from happening and about half of the admins who patrol REFUND make use of it. Thanks for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz! I wasn't aware of that. This is probably not an area I'm going to get involved in, but if I do do any more refunds, I shall certainly make use of the tool you recommend. Best wishes, SilkTork (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In His Own Write

Hi SilkTork. I've got John Lennon's first book, In His Own Write, up as an FAC. I saw you worked on George Harrison's FA, so I thought you may be interested in this one too, but I understand if not. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 00:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite - it would be an interesting project; however, I find I struggle to concentrate for long periods of time on Wikipedia these days, so my contributions are mostly simple maintenance. SilkTork (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand – thanks for the quick response. Tkbrett (✉) 11:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User rights

Hello, SilkTork,

I was noticing that when you made BusterD an admin, you left all of the other user rights that are included in the admin package. I don't do work at WP:PERM and haven't given or taken away user rights so I am reluctant to act myself and just thought I'd bring it to your attention in case something was forgotten here. Thanks! I hope you had a nice weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SilkTork (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's broken?

Hi SilkTork, noticed you had to do this - can you elaborate on what is broken, as it must be broken for everyone else then? — xaosflux Talk 16:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the editnotice (Group notice / Page notice) on article space anymore. I wondered if it was me. I found it useful to put in language notices in the page notice, such as at Beer: [3], but now if I go to articles I can't edit page notice anymore - the link is no longer there (unless there is already a page notice, as there is with Beer). See [4], etc. SilkTork (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xaosflux. I still cannot create Edit notices. I just gave extended mover rights to my alternate account, User:SilkTorkAway, and that account is now able to create Edit notices. But when I gave myself the same right, nothing happened. As part of the configuration of the SilkTork account there must be something inhibiting it from using the Extended mover right. Any thoughts? SilkTork (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed xaosflux. I don't see the red link Edit notice in my normal admin account on Wine, but I do see it when in User:SilkTorkAway. And I could access and edit the link you sent. SilkTork (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pasting in link created by SilkTorkAway: [5]. And I can copy in the Edit notice Wine link from the SilkTorkAway account, and paste it here (above), and access it from my SilkTork account. But when I go direct to the Wine article from my SilkTork account ([6]), I cannot access the Edit notice. SilkTork (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The SilkTorkAway access: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/Wine&action=edit&redlink=1
The SilkTork access: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wine&action=edit
What is missing is access to "Template:Editnotices". SilkTork (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: think we are making some progress! It sounds like you can create edit notices, you are just not seeing the convenience link on the top of the edit window, correct? Can you let me know which skin you are using? — xaosflux Talk 16:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I paste in "Template:Editnotices/Page/" between "title=" and "Wine&action" then I get access, but my account cannot generate the "Template:Editnotices/Page/" by itself. SilkTork (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: - I am using MonoBook. Shall I try another skin to see what happens? SilkTork (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try just using this link to load Vector. I think you may have some errors in your personal userscripts, perhaps at User:SilkTork/monobook.js, that could be interfering. — xaosflux Talk 16:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tried all the skins with no difference. I'll now try the link you've given. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't give me access either. SilkTork (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm 99% sure this is a problem with one of your settings - trying to guess the most likely one without asking you to blow everything away to defaults. By chance have you changed your interface language from en to something like en-GB or en-CA? You can check that here: Special:Preferences. — xaosflux Talk 16:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried removing the contents of my personal userscripts back in 2019, when you first noticed that I was playing around trying to solve the issue: [7] - that didn't work. I'll take a look at the language preferences. SilkTork (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: That's it! I had changed to GB. I've put it back to simply en, and I've got access. Brilliant! What made you think of that? And if it causes a problem for me, would it cause a problem, for other British admins? SilkTork (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work here xaosflux. The redundant user right being added surely piqued my interest. –xenotalk 16:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping methods talk

Hi, I've responded to Slowart's request edit at Tree Shaping methods talk page. I'm not sure if I need to do anything else eg should I change the template over at requested edit page or leave it the way it is? Please advice. Blackash (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience of that template - that's the first time I've seen it, but it does come with instructions: Template:Request edit/Instructions. SilkTork (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Blackash (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

28 August

August songs

Today, Teresa Żylis-Gara, the second soprano to impress me on stage, died, - long live the memory of her beautiful singing, remembered with thanks. 28 August 2013 was a special concert day: look. After Hillbillyholiday gave me a tree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September thanks

September songs

Thank you for improving articles in September, - a rich harvest! On Peace Day, I suggested to assume good faith, and was not happy with the question instead of a reply, "... was G. Arendt sanctioned some time ago for bullying about info-boxes?" Was I? Perhaps you can answer that? Or watch? Peace ... Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today: a woman in red (Omas gegen Rechts), two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I miss Geometry guy. He was a good guy. SilkTork (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, - he comes every now and then. The first-mentioned situation calmed for now. State-of-the-art articles about classical compositions look like recently promoted Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven) (not by me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with excessive further reading sections) counter has been nominated for discussion

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with excessive further reading sections) counter has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for note. Commented. SilkTork (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Hi SilkTork, I hope you are well. A week or so ago (with this edit) you moved Casino Royale (Climax!) to Casino Royale (1954 film). The problem is that it's not a film, which is a bit confusing with the management of the other film pages. The 1954 Casino Royale was a live television adaptation, not a film. Is there an alternative title that can be used that doesn't include the word "film"? Thanks - The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A8DB:6284:D2D7:F53D (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, good to hear from you again. If it hadn't been filmed, I would agree with you. However, it was recorded on Kinescope and is available as a film, as noted in the article and in the links, and in the sources. MGM have released it on DVD. So, it was a live TV performance that was filmed, the film was lost, but has since been found, and it is now available as a film. You can watch it on YouTube: [8] (though this is the MGM version, which is missing the ending). SilkTork (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‎It is a tv episode, not a film. The change of the article name( witout a discussion) doesn't change that. Also the given reasons are not making it a film.Lobo151 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi ST, I've replied on Betty Logan's talk page with my thinking. I'm only a very, very part time editor here, so I don't have as much invested in this place as I used to, so I'll probably drop out of the conversation and let the more full time editors come to a consensus on how to deal with this particular oddity. Cheers SC, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C874:46E5:B7A5:3989 (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll drop out as well. My experience on Wikipedia is that there are issues worth spending time on, and something like this is really not one of those! It's good to see you back, SC, even if only as a part time editor. Why don't you resume your old account? SilkTork (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean! I dropped away from most of the Bond stuff years ago because it's a bit of a time sink with the fan arguments, but was taking a spin over some of "my" old pages having seen No Time to Die recently.
I'm happy not to be in an account anymore - I feel much less pressure editing as an IP than as a registered user, and feel I have much less of a target on my back too. There are obvious drawbacks to being an IP, but nothing I can't live without any more. I've dropped in a couple of re-write articles as an IP (Ken "Snakehips" Johnson and Death of Kevin Gately), and it's nice to be able to do that without people magically appearing on the article just because my name is attached to. I don't have the energy to do any more for the moment, but you never know, I may get the desire again someday! Cheers - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:C874:46E5:B7A5:3989 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our own viewing of Die also prompted me to look up some Bond stuff, and the odd title of "Casino Royale (Climax!)" caught my eye. We all enjoyed Die, though it could do with some editing as it is plodding and dull in places, and the story telling, character development, scene setting, etc was weak, but the action sequences were awesome, and made up for the general weaknesses. It's probably the strongest of the Craig series (though the section of Casino Royale that follows Fleming's novel is actually quite good as well); however, the series was not really to my taste as most of what makes Bond special was missing, and Bond became a somewhat simplistic action movie thug in the style of Mission Impossible, Die Hard, Bourne, etc. Bold ending. "Bond Will Return". Hmm - is this going to be like Saturday Morning Movies, and it turns out he didn't die after all, or will it be that the nanobots reconstruct him so becomes like Captain Scarlet? I think people will be very curious as to what happens next..... SilkTork (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda's October corner

October songs

Today: DYK #1700, and I uploaded more images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned - hope was in vain in that case), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_61&oldid=1057325368"