User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8

← Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9 →

Richmond Park/Friends of Richmond Park merger

An explanation might have been helpful. Headhitter (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to provide one? I see that you have archived my comment: I've repeated it above. Headhitter (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The organisation is not notable enough for a standalone, but the information is non-trivial enough to be used in the parent article. Sorry, I hadn't noticed you'd asked earlier. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

I've responded via e-mail. Thanks for the heads up, I've been in and out this week. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nashville

Hi SilkTork, I appreciate your move of Nashville, but not everyone feels the same way. You may have been aware, but there's an ongoing requested move to revert it. It's a pretty close discussion, so I thought you might want to tell why you made the move. I don't know if you dislike WP:USPLACE as much as I do, but this sort of illustrates its shortcomings. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Interesting discussion. I have left a comment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Patsy Strang

A merge could be a good option...? GiantSnowman 10:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's worth seriously considering. There's already some material in Philip Larkin on his women, including Strang, but it's spread through the history section, and putting too much material there could unbalance it. There's a standalone article on Monica Jones, which contains a fair amount of material, too much for a merge - and I would have difficulty seeing that Jones has a significantly greater notability than Strang, given the intense relationship he had with Strang, and their important correspondence. My feeling is that if there was to be a merge, it would be more effective and useful to create a section in the Larkin article on his women. If the material proves to be too much for that article, then consideration could be given to having a standalone article on Philip Larkin's women, into which Patsy Strang and Monica Jones could be merged. Ideally I think it would be useful to have a dedicated section in Philip Larkin which summarises his relationships, linking to a standalone article which would be able to deal with the topic in greater depth. I'll copy this to the talkpage, see what others think. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll pick this up again on the article talk page. Thanks, GiantSnowman 13:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dylan Thomas review

We were hoping for a fair GA reviewer, and I'm sure the whole team will be glad to see that you have picked this one up, especially with your interest and knowledge on the subject. Please don't pull punches, but if you could give us time to answer your issues I am sure we could set this up as a GA great article. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My primary aim is always to get an article to GA status, and I'm prepared to expend some time and effort getting it there if it looks possible. I don't regard GAN as an exam to be passed by the nominator - I see the whole process as a collaborative effort at improving articles for the general reader. As such, I will extend reviews for as long as needed, provided progress is being made and there is reasonable expectation that an article will meet GA criteria without undue effort or time. At this moment I fully expect that the article will be listed, and I don't anticipate too many problems, certainly nothing that a team of enthusiastic editors can't solve! I never hold my punches - the point of GAN and FAC is that someone who has not been involved in editing the article will examine the article with fresh and critical eyes, and so pick up stuff that has been overlooked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, I've done some work on the article to address some of your concerns, hope they go someway to plug the gaps you rightly pointed out. I'm off line for the next week on holiday in a wi-fi free corner of West Wales, so I will be quiet for a while. I have already mentioned to other editors the size of the 'death' section. "Celebrity" or controversial deaths are often allowed their own article, so I don't think it would hurt to copy the entire death section, with some aftermath to a new article (Death of Dylan Thomas) and then shave the 'death' section by half in the Dylan Thomas article. Martinevans thinks that Thomas is not a big enough fish to deserve his own death section, ...but if people are writing books about it, I think it would be accepted. Yours, FruitMonkey (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That is certainly worth giving some serious consideration. As regards none availability of wi-fi, check your smart phone - most will act as portable wi-fi. I take my laptop and use my phone to connect to the internet when I travel. I went up in my loft yesterday to dig out some books. I found a couple, but couldn't find the main collected works, nor any biography. Either they're up there in some box, or they're at my ex-wife's house. I'll check out my local library tomorrow. Have fun in West Wales. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a smart phone! There's posh. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

£10 a month, includes phone (HTC Wildfire), unlimited internet, and more minutes and texts than I'll ever use. Cheap as chips! Certainly cheaper to use than my first ever top up mobile over 15 years ago! Tidy! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Takashi Yanase

Although information in English may seem to show that he has done nothing more than create Anpanman, professionally he has done more but also his life goes beyond that, so I think he should have his own article. For example, he was in charge of the creation of creating anti-Chinese propaganda during WWII. He didn't create Anpanman propaganda, so that information would be out-of-place to add to this article however, for an article about him as a person it should be there.

I originally searched for him to find information about his LIFE and the fact that it took me to a redirect to the Anpanman page was frustrating and obnoxious because it's not the same thing. Redirects to pages that do not give the information that redirecting implies can be found on the other page is one of the worst parts of Wikipedia and one that I think is not given enough consideration. There are other examples of this in which there is no mention at all of the redirected topic, but in this case I still think his fame warrants an article. The issue is most likely related to a lack of English-language information rather than lack of fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.83.129.3 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the article does not meet our inclusion criteria, I have again redirected Takashi Yanase to the nearest appropriate article - Anpanman, and I have now semi-protected the redirect to prevent edit warring. If you wish to spend some time working on the material, and finding reliable sources, I would be willing to userfy the material for you - this is, to copy it onto a sub-page in your user account. Currently you are using IP accounts - that is not a problem, as you would be able to edit from any IP account in the sub-page I would create, but you might consider registering an account for greater accountability and stability. Let me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert. I was not attempting to edit war, but I wanted to review what was on the original page since I did not write his article. If there are no sources in English (or I don't have them), is it impossible to show notability for the English Wiki? He is clearly notable in Japan and he has an article in Japanese, but if the sources are in Japanese are they nonverifiable in the English version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.83.129.3 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Non English sources are acceptable, though it is generally expected that a topic which is notable enough for the English Wikipedia would have sources relevant for the audience. That is, a person a company which may be of interest to people in Japan, may not be of interest to people in America or England: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." I would suggest that you would be able to mention Takashi Yanase in the Anpanman article as the creater, and add a certain amount of useful and interesting information to that article based on your Japanese source, and linking to that source. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

GAN for Impulse Control Disorder

Hello! I actually found your name on the 'Good Article nomination page'. I understand that with all these articles waiting, i should probably wait for my turn but I would Really appreciate it if you could have a look at the artcile on Impulse control disorder as well, that I elaborated recently. This is actually for a class project, and the class is ending by the end of the coming week. I would totally understand it if you refuse, but would really appreciate it if you could help me out :) Regards! Zoono92 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC Arbcom

Just in case you miss it; I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding this: [1]. It might be better to chat about it here (?) or somewhere alternative to the request page rather than extend that page too much :D Up to you! --Errant ^(chat!) 11:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond there as I don't think there is much to say. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well; I could collate all the evidence of the various players and put it somewhere - perhaps several RFC/U's and some AN/I threads. All of which will probably come to pass anyway (by one or more of the entrenched editors). But the point I was making that there is a wide ranging clash here where we have several factions of editors who simply don't like each other much - and have become focused on the politics of that dispute. The Arbitration cases such as BLP, Jayen, Fae and now Rob (to name just recent examples) are simply the result of those factions manoeuvring someone into the firing line. I could post evidence of this ongoing battle - but it's rather self-evident (or at least seems so) and I can't realistically see which dispute resolution mechanism to use where I could present a problem involving multiple (as in 10's of editors) over a period of several years, involving private information as well. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an ArbCom request regarding the behaviour of an individual. Some Committee members find that the case is so clear cut that they are talking of a summary motion. My feeling is that the community should be allowed to finish their discussion regarding YRC. Your point appears to be that the case is more complex than appears, and that you wish ArbCom to look into the behaviour of several people. That sounds like a slightly different situation to the one ArbCom have been asked to look into. I would suggest that perhaps you might consider drawing up a separate request, naming the parties you feel are involved. Such a request could be considered separate from this request, and regardless of the outcome of this present request, or indeed separate from any decision the community make regarding YRC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Voice recording

SilkTork, I'm back. And I've uploaded a file of Thomas reading "and death shall have no dominion" from the sample you found. Will you have a listen and tell me what you think. I've never uploaded a file recording before, and although he sounds like he's reading from a bath tub, it may be better than nothing. Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm reading through the books I've got from the library. I've glanced now and then at the article and it's developing well. I think that it should pass criteria without too much extra editing. I'm having a thought about the balance between comprehensive (which is a FA criteria) and broad coverage (a GA criteria). I should be ready soon to make a decision regarding referencing and coverage in a day or two. I may do a bit of tidying to bring it into line, but as I say I think not much - if anything - may be needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I think we have most of his life history covered, to one extent or another. Not sure if we should mention Skin Trade or not? FruitMonkey (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, and thank you for your inclusive and hands-on approach to the review. It has been as always, a pleasure. I'm glad we nailed it before Sunday, as I'm back in school the day after and it would have sunk me. Now... FA for his 100th birthday. Where do we go from here? FruitMonkey (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgetting something?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Roberts (murderer) and that's before we even get to your prior involvement in Troubles disputes at Ulster Defence Regiment (and the talk page) and in particular Talk:Downing Street mortar attack/GA1. By the latter alone you've been in a previous dispute with me, therefore your recusal is required. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall those incidents. But I'll pass them by the rest of the Committee to see what they think. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the AfD. You were one of several who disagreed with me. I withdrew the nomination. That is very minor. I sometimes disagree with myself! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not clear how I have been in dispute with you in regards to this? I was acting as mediator between you and GDD1000, and from reading through the talkpage I don't see any dispute, bad feeling, or major disagreements between us. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see from Talk:Downing_Street_mortar_attack/GA1 that you might feel I was upset by your comments. I don't recall that I was upset, though I wouldn't have been pleased to have someone say those things about me. I will certainly bring the matter to the attention of the Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is that there is no reason to recuse. I have given it some additional thought, and I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

My comments of to you of "I have zero faith in your competence as an editor. As such I consider you totally unfit to review this article, and I will ignore everything you say from now on" mean we have a clear and indisputable previous history, and therefore you are unfit to take part in any decision relating to me, due to the inherent bias you may have as a result of that. It's that straightforward. There are more than enough arbs to vote on a decision without you whose judgement and neutrality has been called into question, and I don't object to any of them for the record. There is no precedent that "a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them", there is the basic fact that we have been involved in major disagreements before therefore your ability to deal with the current matter in a neutral manner has to be called into question and I request that you recuse, since "it wouldn't do any personal harm". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The "dispute" is entirely one sided. If I felt otherwise I would recuse. I have not argued with you or disagreed with you, said anything negative to you or about you. I have not taken any admin action against you. Our previous involvement together appears to come down to three encounters - one in which I was working to assist you in a conflict. One in which you voted against me in an AfD. And one where you were not comfortable with me doing a GAN, so I withdrew. That's not much for evidence of me being in conflict with you. Can you find an instance where I say something negative against you, or where I give any indication of working against you? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have some spare time

Several days ago, I put Joyce Kilmer up at WP:GAN. If you had a few moments, I would appreciate your suggestions and if possible a review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks fairly straightforward. I do have an existing GAN I am about to close (Dylan Thomas), but Joyce Kilmer looks fairly easy, and I think I'll pick it up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I happen to be a big Dylan Thomas fan. Thank you for your comprehensive review and copyedit of Kilmer. Excellent copyediting and a very attentive review. I appreciate your suggestions for article improvement and I'll look into them over the upcoming weeks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikitruths1

Re your message: Since the appeal has been declined, I take it you need no further comment from me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had updated my comment, that I had found the other accounts. Anyway - that's right. No action is needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Arrested Development GAN

Hi SilkTork,

I have renominated Arrested Development (TV series) for GAN, and since I know you conducted the assessment last time, I was wondering if you'd be interested again. Other editors and I have recently majorly revised the article, which is much better than it was in December. Please let me know if you are interested, thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a break from reviewing for a while. There's a couple of articles I've been slowly working to GA status that I'd like to concentrate on for a while when I get a moment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick query

Hey SilkTork, quick query: any particular reason you changed the way references and footnotes were grouped on Surfer Rosa and Green (R.E.M. album)? As both were established reference layouts for both articles (in the case of the latter it's one of my slower road-to-GAN projects, so I'm the one responsible for standardizing and formatting the citation style there) I've since changed them back. It's nothing I'm terribly fussed about; I'm just curious about your edit, as per Wikipedia:FNNR separating the notes and references is totally Fonzie. Personally, I like splitting the inline cites and overarching refs for clarity's sake, and TOC and layout purposes. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The layout in Surfer Rosa I'd not seen before - the usual set up is to list the sources used after the citations. When looking at the citations I noticed "Frank, Ganz, 2005", and glanced down to see what book that was, but didn't find it, then saw it at the top. I assumed, as it was non-standard and would likely cause other users some confusion as well, that it was a mistake, and so adjusted it. The same is true of the other article. I tend to go with what is standard as I find that's more helpful to the user. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned here: WP:CITESHORT: "... the list of footnotes is automatically generated in a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section, which immediately precedes the "References" section containing the general references." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

To me it makes sense to list the general refs before the footnotes, for kind of the same reason "Frank, Ganz, 2005" confused you. Which is, show the long-form reference, and then use its abbreviated form afterward (mind you, this is if you are looking at the article as a whole and scrolling down, not jumping to individual footnotes--I tend to look at everything from a macro level, mind you). Anyway, there are many ways of laying out the sections, and of course what works for some editors and articles doesn't work for others, yadda yadda etc. I for one never mind dealing with a previously established reference style or article layout in something I have no prior contribution with (though I'll tell you, I find citation templates more and more cumbersome at time goes on), so yeah, mainly wanted to understand your intentions, which I do now. Thanks for the reply, and keep up the good work! WesleyDodds (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)