User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

50 Albums that Changed Music

I love your list that you have posted on your website, but I had to make a correction on your list. On #20, you had Sweethearts of the Rodeo instead of Sweetheart of the Rodeo. The former was a country duo from 1986 to 1991 (discolsure: I am a fan of theirs, having owned three of their albums) while the latter was The Byrds' 1968 classic album. Just wanted to let you know of that. Chris (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction! That list is part of a long standing plan to make appropriate references to some of these lists in the appropriate articles. Under copyright laws we are not allowed to have articles (or lists) which simply copy the information. I am wondering if a Category would be acceptable - but I'm not sure, and I haven't yet got round to checking it out. SilkTork *^YES! 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

kehilla chovevei tzion in the skokie article

i read the discussion you linked on my page. the outcome was "'no consensus", not to merge in the Skokie article. this statement does not belong. Why not mention the other half dozen or more synagouges in skokie while were at it? also, why is it in demographics? the statement has no context either. its a complete non-sequitor. its garbage like this that makes wikipedia a DISpleasure to read. dont help muddy wikipedia. lets keep it clean!Cubguy83 (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The wording in the close was "The result was no consensus, noting an inclusionist trend as to places and buildings, suggest an editorial merge nonetheless." (my bold). There were three keeps, two deletes and three merges in the AfD discussion. The guidelines refered to in the discussion are: Wikipedia:Places of local interest, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline#Demographics. These guidelines indicate where to place information on religious communities, and that is in the Demographics section of an article on a place or city. Wikipedia is a complex place and I don't think there is a single person who is aware of all the guidelines for each individual case, so it's no reflection on you. Also consensus changes so you can challenge any current practise. In this case if you are not happy with the decision of the AfD then you can open a Deletion Review, and if you are not happy with religious communities being discussed in the Demographics section you can discuss that with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. If you are not sure how to present your case I'll be happy to help. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

its junk like this that makes wikipedia a poor resource. im not going to fight you. its not worth it. but the fact that this does not belong is not open to a vote as you prefer, it is clear from logic that some random synagouge out of many in skokie (or torah, young israel, etc...) should be mentioned in the article. its like an article on cellphones and i write that i like to talk on my cellphone. well woop dee doo! who cares? i really hope the good people of skokie read wikipedia and get rid of KCT (the shul is fine, but its mention here is totally irrelevant) and restore some order to this crazy universe of stupidity.Cubguy83 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right that there are a number of synagogues, so I have adjusted the article to reflect that. Thanks! SilkTork *^YES! 09:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And I understand your feelings. The situation was that a stand alone article had been created on this synagogue. The article was disputed. There was a discussion about it. The consensus was the merge. I agree with you that we shouldn't have articles on every building. However it would be inappropriate for me to allow the merge to be deleted because the consensus of that debate was not to delete, but to keep/merge. So either the stand alone article on the synagogue remains (which would be against the direction of the AfD and the suggestion of the closing admin) or the merge stands. We can't have a sly delete! Even if I agree with it! ;-) SilkTork *^YES! 09:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

so, according to that i could add multiple useless pieces of information that are not notable by simply getting a few people to vote for it? thats great. finally ill get the acknowledgment i deserve. wow this wikipedia place is in real trouble!!!!!!!!!Cubguy83 (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the tip re: the deletion review

Smith Jones (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC) =

That's OK. SilkTork *^YES! 07:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Lassie2501 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, and remember: "All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them."Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WP Food WP Beer integrated template

The issue you reported has been corrected. Please review the changes which can be seen as Talk: Narragansett Brewing Company. We ask that you please refrain from using the new template until it has been approved by the WP Beer members. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Breweries (buildings)

The existence of this category was the result of a discussion on a CfD months ago. It is for articles about the buildings and not the ones about the companies. If it does not belong in Category:Beer then that is a different issue. Simply removing everything from a category is against policy since that in effect sets it up for speedy deletion and category deletions need to be discussed before acting. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a cat for which sort of brewery buildings? Would you link me to the CfD discussion. Also, would you link me to the policy that says that a cat should not be depopulated. I have never known depopulating a cat to be against a guideline let alone policy. A depopulated cat is sure enough a target for a discussion on deletion. But it may also be repopulated so the act of depopulating a cat does not in itself speedy delete it. What is generally frowned upon is somebody depopulating a cat and then bringing that cat to CfD with the reason: Delete - empty cat. SilkTork *^YES! 08:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, just waiting for some quiet time to do some digging. Been busy with real world stuff. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Beer banner

I read your message on the talk page, and I must say it's far better worded than mine. :) The banner and tagging is well-intentioned, but I think that its creators haven't yet done a great deal of inter-group collaboration, so they approached it less cautiously than they should have. We're going to have to put it up for a vote pretty soon, but I think the writing is on the wall. Besides that, I'm doing well. Busy, of course, but that's a good thing. How about you? – ClockworkSoul 13:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What will we be voting for exactly? To keep our own tag, or for the exact wording on the shared F&D tag? I'm as yet still unsure of the benfits to the articles, the general reader, or the Beer project of a shared tag with F&D. I would appreciate an explanation of the potential benefits. And, like you, I am very uncomfortable with the manner in which F&D have done this - though that in itself isn't a barrier to future collaboration.

How am I keeping? Like you, often busy. I nibble away at beer articles, though not as much as I used to. And I don't participate as much in engaging interest in beer projects as I used to. There have been comments made about the augumentative and fragmented nature of the project, and sadly it is true. Healthy debate can produce some excellent results - but not all debate is healthy! Let's hope this tagging issue can bring people together in harmony. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more: this entire endeavor, though well-intended, cannot end well and needs to be started from scratch. The vote would be whether or not to accept the "omnitag", which I suspect will tend firmly to the negative. I'm writing a reply on the FOOD board now to Jeremy's reply to your reply to that effect. – ClockworkSoul 13:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol by volume

Please see a message for you at User talk:Wahrmund. Wahrmund (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Silky

No, I'm actually quite fine. You've actually taught me a lot, by tryng to keep cool, calm, and collected. I've just been so busy with work these days that I do not not seem to have the time to edit Wiki articles. I just check in on my watch list and make sure the articles I've contributed to are still in good shape and that folk editing are following the guidelines. I did run across of a bit of a disappointment recently. I had been promised a Sen. Obama photo shoot next week-end, but his campaign folk have their own photog, one who has been vetted by the US Secret Service. Oh well, them are the breaks. My best -- ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 08:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and linguistics: congruent but not identical

Hi, can only pop in for a sec, but nice to be here.

Point for your consideration, regarding "the pedia I love to edit" not being seen as a sentence: this pedia-thingy is viewable by a lot of non-native speakers of English, and so, it needs to hew to a careful standard of written English. In my view, of course.

Looking fwd to further discussion over there,

the one who is fond of listening to language as she is spoke, and writing it keeping in mind that future unknown audiences shall have a fair chance of easy comprehension, __Just plain Bill (talk)

Public houses

Got your messages re pubs, Steve, and have noted. Many thanks. (I like your style.) As for joining the task force, I am not sure whether I know enough about the subject. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Dieter Simon (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's interest and enthusiasm that matters more! You clearly have some interest. The knowledge comes from doing the research - and that's the fun part. By working on Wikipedia articles we discover more ourselves! Please join! SilkTork *^YES! 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have only just seen your page. I am very glad you re-integrated the "country pub" article/section into the main "public house" article. It was my original gripe in the discussion page of the "country pub" article at the end of 2007, that I intimated that the country pub as we might have known it is very rarely so nowadays. I will look into this and write the section out properly, but I fear it will not be in the idealised version but in the version as is. What with the motor car bringing the so-called country pub into the urban scene much more than it used to be the case and it being much more difficult for country publicans to maintain the C. P. status. It appears, country pubs disappear at the rate knots up and down the country for one reason or another, and to that effect there are some websites stating what the problems are. Though I haven't got that much time I will do my best. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Brewery categories

SilkTork, thanks for making me aware of the discussion. I haven't had a chance to review the whole story yet. In the meantime, however, I enabled your "rollback" right. I know you are making good use of Twinkle, but thought you may benefit from the "native" button as well. If you need any help retrieving deleted material, deleting pages to make way for a move, etc. just let me know. Keep up the good work! Owen× ☎ 19:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice one. Thanks Owen. SilkTork *^YES! 07:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey again

SilkTork, good hearing from you. I too have been fairly quiet on the beer project for a while, as I'm sure you've seen -- also just a light touch here or there when I see the opportunity. Life's busy, eh? Well, the project's certainly had some excitement lately, and it was nice that things didn't totally blow up! People seem to have adopted a comparatively more patient, empathic approach to WP, although of course human nature lives on. Anyway, it's great as always to chat with you and ClockworkSoul and everyone else.

I thought you made some wise additions to the recent beer discussions, and the new pub taskforce looks great. Thanks for writing, and I wish I had more time to chip in with this stuff right away, although I'm sure I will eventually have lots more time. For now I guess I'll continue to help out where I can, but down the road I hope to make larger changes again.

Hope everything's well with you.

Cheers! --Daniel11 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Human nature! And I agree with your comments on F&D talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Our Lady of LaSalette Catholic School

SilkTork, you seem to have incorrectly merged Our Lady of LaSalette Catholic School into Grand Erie District School Board#Closed_schools as it belongs to the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board (as indicated in the infobox). The BHNCDSB article was deleted many months ago so I cannot move the school there and thus I am considering reverting your edit to Our Lady of LaSalette Catholic School. I am just looking for your opinion on this before I go ahead and revert. Thanks. - Mmn100 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've requested that Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board be undeleted. When that happens I'll redirect the disamb page to the new target, and move the relevant contents of Our Lady of LaSalette Catholic School from Grand Erie District School Board to Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board. SilkTork *^YES! 21:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Working together on Beer cats

Thanks for the offer. I answered your comment on my talk page. Better to have the discussion in one place. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

All Saints Church, Bakewell move

Done. Owen× ☎ 00:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Downing Case DYK

On 26 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Downing case, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Beer categories

I won't object to their recreation if there is in fact a consensus to recreate them (which a quick glance at the discussions you linked me to looks like there is). I actually was going to delete them as C1 (empty) but noticed they had been deleted via CfD before and didn't see a deletion review overturning that so figured I would just select G4 as the deletion reason. I will say that bringing this to deletion review to make it "official" is probably a better idea before recreating to ensure someone else won't come along and do the same thing though, since a consensus on a talk page is not a substitute for that and someone who made the same observations that I did may re-delete them. I personally won't delete them as G4 again though per your request. VegaDark (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, and one I will take up. Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 10:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Beer style chart

Your beer style chart is brilliant. It shows the real relativity that definitely exists in the differing accounts of beer styles. Great job! — goethean ॐ 16:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:SilkTork/Apetito

Done. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We should probably merge histories to preserve contribution log per GFDL. I'll go ahead and do it unless you have an objection. Owen× ☎ 17:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I was going to ask you to do that. Thanks! SilkTork *^YES! 17:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yes, moving is always better than cut-and-paste, but in this case merging the histories was straightforward, so no harm done. I deleted your userspace subpage, as there's little point in having that redir left there. Let me know if there's anything I forgot. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I found the mistake--I picked the wrong rev as the latest. Check now; in any case, all revs--from your user subpage, as well as the deleted ones--are in the history, so you should be able to recover anything that was lost. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. That's sorted. I manually inserted the change that occurred just after the history merge, so now all is fine. Phew! SilkTork *^YES! 18:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard

Thanks for your silken words about the moves to give editors the power to choose whether or not to blue-splotch the dates in their text! There's a script for removing DA that works throughout the main text of an article, and in a limited number of those pesky citation and infobox templates, most of which are going to have to be converted to evolve with changing attitudes towards DA in the main text.

If you're interested in running the script, this should be done on a limited basis, and preferably a few days after posting a notice of intention on the talk page of the article. I've stopped using it for the moment, pending my gathering of data on users' responses to the notice over the past few weeks. Then we'll see where to take it. MOSNUM talk does look encouraging, I must say.

To acquire the script, simply go to your monobook page and paste in:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js')

Refresh the monobook page. Go to an article, click "edit this page", and you should see a tab at top-left called "all dates". Click it, wait for the diff to be automatically created below, scroll down, check for glitches, and save. See? Easy-peasy. Tony (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Deptford

Hello. I put a note about it here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#London_sub-district_categories. We had some discussion at WP:London about categorisation by locality a while ago and decided to use London boroughs only as they have definite boundaries. Then, to subdivide the categories, we use features such as Category:Buildings and structures in Lewisham and Category:Churches in Lewisham. The reasoning for not using sub-categories such as Deptford is because there are over 600 London district articles and there should not be a similar number of small categories. Secondly, the category scope will be different and inconsistent between editors. Some will consider everything in the SE8 postcode district to be part of the category and others will consider everything that was part of the Metropolitan Borough of Deptford to be part of the category. If this is expanded for further locality names in London, the result will be a too granular, overlapping and poorly-defined mess. MRSC • Talk 05:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a look back and found this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_26#Category:Marylebone. Reading the discussion I see the point about ill-defined boundaries of some areas, though I don't follow the reasoning that that in itself is a decisive reason not to have a cat. Not all categories can be finitely specific, and there will be enough smudging that articles will at times appear in neighbouring and related cats. However, I can see that there is a consensus on this, and I don't feel strongly enough about the subject to drag people through a debate. Thanks for your explanation, I'll leave the cat alone! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Community forum

A Community forum has been set up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Article guidelines for the various Food and Drink projects to develop a set of Manual of Style guidelines for use in articles under the auspices of all the related Food and Drink WikiProjects and task forces. This would be similar to the MoS guidelines for biographies or legal articles.

Please feel free to comment.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 09:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Philippines beer

I have nominated Philippines beer, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines beer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated Philippines beer for T:TDYK. Hopefully you could it expand it to a better article in the next days. Good luck!--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating! The article has gone from being proposed for deletion to being proposed for the main page, and it's still not yet five hours old! Yes - I'll take a look at tightening it up over the next few days - though I'll be out most of Sunday and Monday. SilkTork *^YES! 23:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine naming conventions

Could you please modify your proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (cuisines) so that it looks more like a self-reliant suggestion for a guideline rather than argumentation for a certain viewpoint. I tried to rewrite it to be more descriptive myself, but I came to the conclusion that I had no idea how exactly what you had in mind for cuisines of cultures, time periods, etc. Could you also try not to give your own suggestion the most prominent position?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I have updated the proposed guideline from Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article guidelines, which incorporates your suggestions.

There are various methods of writing articles, essays and guidelines - the most common one is a communal edit of the project page, with suggestions, debates, votes and discussions on the talkpage. That is the method I am most familiar with, and the one I have used on other guidelines I have taken part in. I am aware that sometimes an essay/guideline when starting out may have some discusion on the project page, but that soon gets moved to the talk page to allow the project page to develop properly. I moved the straw poll to the talkpage as that is the normal convention. SilkTork *^YES! 13:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Harar label

FYI, "Harar.jpg" is now Image:HararBeerLabel.jpg. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

...canal tunnels...

Hi Silktork, I've responded on my talkpage. Sorry, no time to stop for tea....perhaps another time  :-) Renata (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Philippine beer

On 29 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philippine beer, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wish I could say "Cheers" in filipino, but I can't...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

On September 1, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Disley Tunnel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Obnosis

Editor Harrassment from MovingBoxes in what appears to be a Church of Scientology misinformation agenda This user MovingBoxes is editing the obnosis page with tags that don't meet Wiki's policies. Using projection to state that my agenda is commerical or COI (no commercial site or affiliation exists with the page) to forward or clean up documentation that would prove the Church of Scientology "owns" the word Obnosis. The obnosis.com domain owner has long endured this since the UseNet Alt scientology wars in the 1990's through their fair game campaign. None can even edit the page without getting DoS flooded.

My protection tags are removed and replaced with consider for deletion after multiple small edits to make the page look inconsequential in subject. Please Assist to place permanent editorial protection on this page. LisaKachold (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into the matter. SilkTork *^YES! 23:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is in need of a clean up at least, and there is a serious question about the notability of the topic. It mainly appears from the article to be a word, and as such is best served by Wiktionary, where there is already an entry. My recommendation is to put it forward for discussion on WP:AfD where the notability of the topic can be examined. SilkTork *^YES! 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Thanks for your help SilkTork as Editor to assist me to resolve a dispute. The Deletion Tag was first placed on when NO DELETION PAGE existed. You voted for deletion when you got around to looking at it, but at the time I requested your help no deletion page exists. I rather need help to assist me to clear the dispute and edit the page to meet Wiki standards than for you to vote also to delete it?

Notability is served just as it for the following: gnosis, and LOL, and 'Anonymous' and other slang internet based neoglosism words? Wiki is not a dictionary but real live living encyclopedia?

How about listing a programmer Randal L. Schwartz and his program [Schwartzian_transform]]? Does this meet What Wiki is NOT?

Every IP I edit this page from endures dOs packets, (I have router logs) as the page editors are "fair game" from SCIENTOLOGISTS. MovingBoxes has removed tags and edited the talk pages so many times now he's trying to say the page was never temporarily protected. If this page is does not meet WHat Wiki is Not, then the Anonymous Page does also, the other online AOL derived or originated chat slangs like WTF do not meet standards? LisaKachold (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Any help or advice I give has got to be consistent with the aims of the project. I am sympathetic to your frustration that an article you wish to write is not going the way you wish it would. However, after looking at Obnosis, I couldn't see it had potential to be a useful part of the project.

The AfD was timed at 04:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC). An IP removed the AfD notice at 22:43, 31 August 2008. You got in touch with me at 22:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC) - so the AfD was already in place when you got in touch with me.

I'd like to help you create a useful and meaningful article on Wikipedia - one that will be of use to people. But I can't work out what you want to do with the article. My suggestion is to userify the article - that is, to move it to a subpage on your userpage where you can work on it with my help. I will be firm with you, and I will be honest. And I give no guarantee that we will be able to produce a page that will be acceptable for the project mainspace. However, here's an example of a subpage I set up for some students: User:PTApete&co/Pure tone audiometry which when ready was put into the mainspace as Pure tone audiometry. This is how the page originally looked! You see, it can work! Would you like me to do that for you? SilkTork *^YES! 22:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Beer in Mexico

Done; no nuisance at all! Owen× ☎ 19:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're a useful man to know! Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

refactoring the discussion on the editorial council

In an effort to consolidate all voting in one place, I have removed your "oppose" vote from Wikipedia talk:Editorial Council as you have already voted in Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll. Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Chrome

On 7 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Google Chrome, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

La Princesse

Cheers! I was a bit surprised to see her on the main page as I only made the article three days ago - luckily she doesn't seem to be attracting the vandals (maybe they wouldn't dare!!) Roisterdoister (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cask Ales.jpg

Something has happened with this image. The description is wrong, but I can't edit it. It looks like another image with the same name was deleted and somehow the description from the other image has been transposed onto this one. Anything you can do? SilkTork *^YES! 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what happened was that an identically named image was uploaded on Commons. You can edit the description there, and load your original image again to Commons under a different name, say, The Percy Arms. If this doesn't work, you might need help from an admin on Commons. Owen× ☎ 18:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I went into the Commons page and edited that, and then did another upload on Wiki. There is still a lingering bit of text about the Percy Arms image that someone appears to have uploaded over my image in 2007, but I can't completely clear that. I suppose it's my fault for not having chosen a better name than "Cask ales" when I originally uploaded the image in 2006! SilkTork *^YES! 20:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wort (brewing) / Wort

Done. We'll really have to get you your own adminship one day... Owen× ☎ 13:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, and I did request the tools last year: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SilkTork. As you'll note it didn't work out, and I withdrew. Bad timing, I know. Lar and I talked about it afterwards: [1] and have no bad feelings. I'm fairly OK with asking you to help out with the tools, as you're really cool about it. Yes, it would be easier to have the tools myself, but I think I'd rather wait for someone to offer to nominate me than for me to request the tools myself again. There's a validation in someone making the suggestion, that is not there when simply volunteering, and I feel I need that validation after what happened. SilkTork *^YES! 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Owen popped by my talk page just now... are you still interested and would you like me to look through your contribs and comment? let me know (you can answer there, or here, as you like) ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Lar, I'd be interested. And a validation from yourself would be both welcome and appropriate given what happened last time. My most controversial edits since the RFA have been to Architecture of Aylesbury and Robert Lawson (architect). As these edits were in conflict with Giano they may attract attention at a RFA, and it may be as well to bring them out now and examine them. I'd understand if you decided not to nominate me because of those edits. SilkTork *^YES! 20:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What matters more is not that you were in opposition to someone, or allied with someone, but what you think the outcome was... are these now good articles? (I don't mean "GA" or "FA" I mean is the encyclopedia better now than it was before you started because of how the articles, and their ranking, changed) And... did you help that outcome? If not, that was a while ago, after all... are things the same, or different? If you had to do it all over again, would you still do the same things? Why or why not? Can you answer those questions truthfully and honestly, and would a dispassionate observer would agree with your assessment? We are none of us perfect, but we should measure our actions against the yardstick of whether they advance the goal of the project... if they do, then great. Regardless of who or what. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would do roughly the same. Indeed, I intend to do more work on Architecture of Aylesbury because it's still unsourced and uncertain. I have Pevsner's Buckinghamshire on my desk, and when I have finished bringing the Beer article into GA status I intend to put in the appropriate sources, and correct the disputed intro. I came upon the Architecture of Aylesbury article when I was thinking of adding an architecture section to the Brussells article, and I was looking for city articles that had architecture sections. I had looked at a few, including Architecture of Atlanta. When I came upon Architecture of Aylesbury I found an article that was taking a very broad sweep and contained, to my knowledge, a few errors in detail. I didn't check who had contributed to it, as that at the time seemed unimportant to me - what I saw was to my mind a personal essay which contained mistakes and which was using the town of Aylesbury to build an essay on the development of English architecture in county towns. It irked me, which is wrong - and some of my comments as I edited it I'm not proud of, but the intention and my actions I stand by. Absolutely. I have no doubts of that at all. Editing on Aylesbury I did become aware that Giano had been involved, and somehow I was led to Robert Lawson (architect) where I noticed that some concern had been previously raised on the nature of the sourcing, and the accuracy of the information. I looked at that and agreed that it was questionable, so I finished the Featured article review on the question of referencing. There were some sharp comments on my actions on both articles which I didn't enjoy, but the Review was upheld. Work has been and is being done on that article to reference it. So that is OK. And I will work on Aylesbury myself to make it more secure and reliable. What would I do differently now? Not sure. I do communicate with people who question my edits, and I stop editing if there's conflict - and I did that in these cases. I don't ask permission to edit an article if I see a problem, but I certainly do engage in discussion if someone objects to what I have done, and I will go with consensus rather than create a drama. I am aware I am not always right, and that I may not see the whole picture. I feel in both the cases I did not escalate drama, that I made my views known, put forward my arguments and stood back. The Lawson is being improved, the Aylesbury is currently less controversial, and will have secure citations when I get around to it. So both articles will have improved through my intervention, as far as I can see. But I am open to a debate on my actions. I felt then and now that I did the right thing for the right reasons; though I would have preferred that some of my initial edit summaries had revealed less of my feelings! SilkTork *^YES! 07:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think my comment "I don't ask permission to edit an article" needs expanding as I may have worded that badly. I am conscious that a significant part of the criticism I recieved for editing those articles were due to the presence of Giano, and there may be an observation that I should have proceeded with more care. I do sometimes engage in discussion prior to making an edit if I feel that edit will create drama, but I don't as a matter of course check the edit history of articles I edit to see if there is a controversial editor involved. If I see that an article can be improved I will set about to improve it. If after I have started editing someone raises an issue with me I will adress those issues at that time. I hope that is clear. I didn't mean to sound arrogant. Gosh, this naval gazing is quite unsettling. SilkTork *^YES! 13:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to read all of the above carefully before I respond in depth but I think that with rare exceptions, no one should need "permission" to work on an article. Ownership is a bad thing. On the other hand, there's a natural tendency to not appreciate being told one's baby is ugly... even if it is. I don't think you sound arrogant, I think you sound like someone who is giving these matters a great deal of thought. Which is goodness. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I have been very heads down... I think maybe I should stand aside so that you are not held up in doing what you want to do... I still have some discomfort I can't put my finger on but I at least would not oppose an adminship. That may not be exactly the ringing endorsement you wanted. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kent and Medway

I wish that you hadn't started on these changes. I feel that they make the articles harder to locate.

• Chatham is in Ceremonial Kent. Fact. All of Medway is.
• Locals never refer to Chatham, Medway. Everyone on the Chatham Mainline or the North Kent Line, still refers to Bromley in Kent.
• Outsiders have never heard of Medway.
• The council was only named Medway, when Rochester-upon-Medway merged with Gillingham, because Gillingham folk would never accept the loss of the name Gillingham if Rochester was retained in the name- a sad compromise.

Look at the example of someone who is searching for Chatham, Kent- they will not find it but be directed to Chatham, Kent County, Ontario.

You have to distinguish between Gillingham, Kent and Gillingham, Dorset. (hard G).

As these changes are contraversial- wouldn't it have been better to discuss them first on the Chatham, Kent talk page. A clear case of Oops- I think. I would support a reversion- but won't initiate one as I am busy else where. You are similiarly welcome to pop round for a cuppa in Strood. ClemRutter (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but the places I changed are not actually in Kent, they are in Medway. Medway is an authority independent of Kent, though where Medway doesn't have it's own services (such as the police force) it pays for the services of an outside authority, (such as Kent Police). The change is recent (only 10 years), so there is still a lingering whiff of Kent about the place - same as some people still call The O2 the Millennium Dome (two different articles there!), but St Mary's Island is a part of Medway, not a part of Kent, and Chatham is these days in Medway. I feel, like you, that there should be an awareness of the part that Kent has played in shaping the history and character of the places within Medway, but we need to describe accurately where a place is, and Chatham hasn't been in Kent for 10 years. And, by gosh yes Clem, we need to meet up and have a drink and talk about these matters face to face. And get out our cameras on a bright day and take some stunning photos of Medway. Perhaps form a Medway TaskForce for working on Medway related articles. Meanwhile, yes, I'll take up your other suggestion and open a discussion on the Chatham talk page. SilkTork *^YES! 00:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving to Chatham soon from Leicestershire and I've had my eye on the various Medway (now) articles for a while. Obviously I haven't the background in the local sensitivities regarding Kent/Medway, but I think on balance SilkTork is right in making the change. I suppose the question is, for someone searching for "Chatham" and getting a disambiguation list, will "Chatham, Medway" be obvious to them in the same way that "Chatham, Kent" once was?

Most unitary authorities - e.g. Leicester, my local one - don't have this issue because their name is the name of the main town in any case. Medway is slightly unusual because it's an amalgamation of a number of towns with their own distinct identities. Perhaps this won't always be the case - the regeneration plans seem to talk about the Medway towns becoming a Medway city, and perhaps the five towns will become mere suburbs of that new City the centre of which will be what is now Chatham? MarkyMarkD (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rochester used to be a city until the Medway unitary authority was formed - then it lost that status. There has been talk within the council for years that we lost the city status because someone didn't fill in the right form on time - but I find that difficult to accept, and my asumption is that the process of making Rochester and Gillingham into a unitary authority required the loss of city status for a part of that unit. It would be interesting to research that. Chatham is the retail centre of Medway, and with the restructuring of all the main council offices into Chatham, is now also the administrative centre - previously the administrative offices of Medway had been scattered in Gillingham, Strood, Chatham and Rochester (a few offices in the visitor centre building on the High Street). So it's likely that Chatham will be seen as the centre. It's certainly the geographic centre as well. However, Rochester has the cathedral, the castle, the bridge, the pretty High Street, and the culture and status that Chatham lacks, so Medway would be loathe to let Medway be simply seen as the sprawl around the "chav town" of Chatham. That Medway contains two significant centres as diverse and interesting as Chatham and Rochester is part of the appeal and charm of the place. SilkTork *^YES! 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see that we have the nucleus of a Medway Chapter of Wikipedians here. I still disagree with your arguments- councils are transitory things, and Chatham will still be in Kent when Medway is a distant memory, we can revert it then. That said, my email can easily be Googled and there is a phone book- you are all welcome to come to our November 5th garden celebrations which will be bilingual (en-fr) and bring the bairns. ClemRutter (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very kind offer - thanks! We will have been in Chatham for one week by 5th November. I agree with SilkTork's point about Medway being interesting precisely because it has some entirely different towns in close proximity. MarkyMarkD (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Copy vio of legislation summary

I have found the government source at Talk:Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008,
Perhaps you can remove the tag. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Tag removed. Good work. SilkTork *^YES! 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

re:GA

Hello, SilkTork. You have new messages at Alexnia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deep Purple in Rock

Yes, User:Oxymoron83 should be the best one to help you. But of course, if you can't get hold of him, I can do it too, although merging these two histories will be no fun... Owen× ☎ 22:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind casting your eye over what I had done to check I have done it all correctly? Thanks SilkTork *^YES! 22:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Beer and breweries in Egypt

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Beer and breweries in Egypt, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Beer and breweries in Egypt has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Beer and breweries in Egypt, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

re:GA

Hello, SilkTork. You have new messages at Alexnia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copy vio of legislation summary

I have found the government source at Talk:Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008,
Perhaps you can remove the tag. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Tag removed. Good work. SilkTork *^YES! 14:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deep Purple in Rock

Yes, User:Oxymoron83 should be the best one to help you. But of course, if you can't get hold of him, I can do it too, although merging these two histories will be no fun... Owen× ☎ 22:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind casting your eye over what I had done to check I have done it all correctly? Thanks SilkTork *^YES! 22:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Direct Payments

Thanks for the vote of confidence on the article by the way. Will write more articles when i finally find something i know something about!NatashaUK (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork *^YES! 20:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

King's School, Ely

Looks like you can fail this; nommer hasn't edited since September and no editing has taken place. Wizardman 14:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to do that, and then edit it myself and resubmit for someone else to review. Then I noticed in the guidelines as I was about to Fail it this advice: "If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself." And I though I would do that. I have, however, been held up by heavy work and social commitments over the past couple of weeks. If I can't get to the article in the next couple of days I will fail it and work on it later as per my original intention. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 14:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab check-in

Is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-11 British Isles Terminology task force still active? Vassyana (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have closed it. SilkTork *^YES! 18:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Crystal Palace transmitting station/transmitter

Hi Silk, thanks for the message re the naming policy for these stations. There was a discussion a couple of years ago about what to do with these and the consensus reached was that we should use the correct name for all the articles i.e. "transmitting station" and then redirect from "transmitter". The reasoning is as follows:

• A "transmitter" is a box of gadgetry, usually a few cubic feet in volume. Describing a mast/tower, associated buildings, grounds and plant as a transmitter is more than just a small technicality, it is entirely wrong, and would be a poor precedent to set in an encyclopaedia.

• The broadcasters themselves describe their installations as "transmitting stations" not "transmitters". For example:

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/belmont/belmont1.php

• I do not believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Name#Use_the_most_easily_recognized_name should be applied here. This policy appears to be for a situation where an object has two legitimate names, and directs the use of the most common one. This situation is different however: although the public may use "transmitter" more often, they are actually wrong in doing so. After all, this policy is not used for London landmarks such as The Gherkin or the NatWest Tower. Both of these articles are called by their technically correct names, 30 St. Mary Axe and Tower 42 respectively, not their much more commonly known nicknames or previous names. IMO the same logic should be applied with the tx stations.

Regards Chillysnow (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Chilly. And thanks for the link - however, I think the point is not that the phrase transmitting station is never used, but that transmitter is used more often. And for every example that I have noted of transmitting station being used I have found rather more examples of transmitter. I noted the amount of books which use the phrase "Crystal Palace transmitter" - [2]. And I also noted that on the Google box on my browser which offers suggestions for words I type, when putting in "crystal palace t" it offers 10 suggestions, including crystal palace transmitter, but not crystal palace transmitting station - even when I type "crystal palace transmitting".

It is usually best to follow policy as there are reasons why policy was drawn up. The wording of the naming policy is very apt here, so I quote it in full: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

As the Crystal Palace transmitter belongs to the BBC, it seems they would be the most reliable source. [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. I found no BBC sources (other than a learning English blog) in which "Crystal Palace transmitting station" is used.

As transmitter is used more often than transmitting station, as most books on the subject use transmitter, as the most authoritative source uses transmitter, as Google defaults to transmitter, and we want the articles to be easily found by the most readers, then it seems the best action would be to move the articles to transmitter.

I did take a look at the discussion you mention. [[7]]. I see no clear consensus there. Indeed, I see this comment: "I don`t really consider all of this to be a big deal but I`m in the business myself (site www.aerialsandtv.com) and I have only ever once seen transmitters referred to as "transmitting stations". Even the BBC website (on its reception advice page) refers to them as transmitters. Furthermore we have a stats package on our site (and can see what search terms are requested) and I can`t remember ever seeing anyone request "XXXXXXX transmitting station".I would have thought this last point is the most relevant." by User:JustinSmith.

I will proceed with the moves as suggested as the evidence is compelling. If you still feel strongly that there is a special case here for these articles going against reliable sources and Wiki policy, you could raise the issue on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 00:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is too important to be hidden away on users' talk pages, or even in the talk pages for individual transmitting station articles. Please see Category_talk:Transmitter_sites_in_the_United_Kingdom.--Harumphy (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dartford

Dartford Can you have a look at the activities of a persistent ip spammer. Am I being too strict in reverting this link? ClemRutter (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right to revert. The link is to a business directory - guidelines suggest we do not use such links. I have left a message on the IP's talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 19:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Chatham

Do you have a thought about the issue I've raised on Talk:Chatham,_Medway#St_John.27s_church? I don't like the wording that is there but I don't know what the author/editor meant either! MarkyMarkD (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the St John's section to make it clearer. SilkTork *^YES! 08:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. That's infinitely clearer. MarkyMarkD (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Replies

Hi, SilkTork! In response to your post on my talk page (User talk:Rkitko#Quercus alba), you're right. That was a hasty move on my part and I will reverse it. We tend to get quite a few pages moved at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality log and the general agreement in the convention and at the project is to maintain plant articles at the scientific name, unless it meets one of the exceptions you noted. I should pay attention more when I make my rounds! Quercus alba certainly meets that exception. Eventually the goal will be to have two articles, one that describes the cultural use, properties of all the various products, and history thereof at white oak and the botanical properties, history, and life cycle, etc. at Quercus alba. But this article isn't nearly long enough to split.

And in response to your message regarding my conflict with Rotational, I really would appreciate mediation. It's drawn on too long and we've proven that we can't come to an agreement on our own. I had tried a WP:THIRD once (here), but I don't think it was very helpful. Of course the MoS is only a guideline and it is stated that exceptions are allowed, but I still don't see how Rotational's preferences (for images, infoboxes, and headings) are an improvement. It seems more to me like an editor trying to protect his articles to maintain his style preferences, not to mention his POINTy edits reported in the last AN/I. I would welcome mediation for this if you're up to the challenge. How would you do this? Set up a user subpage for this? Hopefully Rotational will agree to discuss our disagreements and maybe we can finally put this to rest. I won't have much time in the near future to dedicate to the discussions, so I don't promise swift responses, but I'm dedicated to a resolution or at the very least civil discussion. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Civil discussion is certainly the way forward. I'll get in touch with Rotational. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 04:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

/Rkitko - Rotational Discussion

Orphaned non-free media (Image:HobsonsChoiceDVD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HobsonsChoiceDVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA is ready!

SilkTork, your new RfA page is ready for you to accept my nomination and answer the questions. I'll transclude the page once you've done that. Good luck! Owen× ☎ 15:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Owen. I've accepted and answered the questions. SilkTork *^YES! 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Supported. Good luck! ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That means a good deal to me. SilkTork *^YES! 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also supported. You sound like a sensible and straight-talking guy. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 08:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Beer

Hi there. Can you take a look at the external links on Portal:Beer? If I start trimming, it's liable to end up a linkectomy. It would be better if somebody with some knowledge in the subject tidied it up. The portal doesn't seem to have any active editors from what I can see. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of plastic surgery. There's a couple of home-brewing websites I'm doubtful about, but left for now. I've certainly cut out the commercial sites, and the self-promotion sites. The bulk of what is left are acknowledged useful and widely used sites. I added BJCP, even though there are some beer Wikipedians who hate any mention of BJCP. But the site is hugely influential, and needs to be included. Thanks for the heads up! SilkTork *^YES! 01:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, I added my 70/- worth to your RfA too. Keep up the good work. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 05:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Same from me, good luck! Andy (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. SilkTork *^YES! 08:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have closed your RfA as successful

Congratulations! I have closed your RfA as successful.

On behalf of the community, thank you for submitting yourself to the trials of RfA and well done for coming through so well. Good luck with your new tools. You may find Wikipedia:New admin school useful, but don't be shy to ask other admins (or Crats) for help if in doubt.

Well done and enjoy your mop. --Dweller (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. SilkTork *^YES! 17:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Get weaving - {{Admin dashboard}} :P. Oh, and congratulations. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on moving "Anglo-Saxons"

I have made a comment on Talk:Anglo-Saxon about your moving of "Anglo-Saxons" to "Anglo-Saxon". I have read your remarks headed "My Wiki-editing style", and I accept you may not wish to go back to read my comment,but I thought I would let you know in case you are interested. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've responded on the talk-page. SilkTork *^YES! 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Mr.Admin

... Congrats on your successful RFA and Best wishes ! When is the Beer treat ? :) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I need to buy everyone a round. SilkTork *^YES! 08:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that was the best fucking RfA spam I have ever read. Fact. — neuro^{IT'S MY BIRTHDAY!} 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations --Banime (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thankspam

Thanks for the thankspam, but I'm underage ;). Sam ^Blab 21:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and well done, and an aside to Sam there wasn't an expiry date, so keep it until you are old enough or in a less ageist country. I was 14 before I was served in a British pub, but I'd been served over a year earlier on a school trip in Europe. ϢereSpielChequers 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thankspam... Congrats, though, just remember WP:DDTMP RockManQ^{Review me} 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also underage and I don't drink alcohol. Maybe you should have offered gummy bears? But anyways, congratulations! DiverseMentality 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Cirt (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt. Acalamari 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't have beer either, but hey, as said above, it'll keep :) You're welcome for the support, and here's a new t-shirt. Good luck. Acalamari 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're all underage here ;) Good luck! Chamal ^talk 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done on passing RfA, unfortunately I don't like beer and I am (just) under-age, but still I give you my congratulations. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, SilkTork! Apologies for the rather late reply, but I wanted to join in the chorus of thanking you for the particularly awesome thankspam. Seeing as I appear to be one of the only ones here not underage, I wanted to let you know that I'd be happy to grab a beer anytime. :) GlassCobra 08:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter

The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Barn

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For the hilarous rfa message from you! Bring out the weather girls! Andy (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice one! I love barns. SilkTork *^YES! 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom vote

You've brought up some excellent points in your oppose rationale, and I'd like the opportunity to address them.

First off, the Editorial Council idea was not very well presented to the community. It changed too much along the way and I never clearly illustrated some aspects of it. My intent in proposing EdCo was never to circumvent or ignore consensus, but rather to solidify it.

I view Wikipedia's encyclopedic content as a great ship, one which we all have built. We as the community are the sails, and when the winds of consensus come up we can carry the encyclopedia far. However, I've grown increasingly weary of the constant POV pushing and edit warring, especially in the nationalistic and ethnic conflicts. Those fierce storms are a great threat to the ship we built. They're distracting from the actual construction of an encyclopedia, which is why we're all here in the first place. Take a look at the most recent conflict to boil over in the naming of the Ireland-related articles as an example of how widespread within the content these disputes can be. These conflicts led me to decide that something had to be done, and so I proposed EdCo.

I saw EdCo as a rudder for this fine ship, something that can guide us through the choppy seas of editor discord and the powerful storms of POV warriors. I stupidly tried to find a middle ground between binding and non-binding, and instead of achieving both I got neither. I've learned from that mistake. I'm toying with the idea of proposing a purely advisory, non-binding content-related committee at some point after the election in response to the concerns raised about EdCo, but nothing's certain right now. This rudder is not meant to represent elitism or a power trip, but stability and order.

When I wish to strengthen ArbCom, I do not mean that I wish for its power to grow. Rather, I wish for it to use the power it has already been granted. This year was aptly described by one editor in their voter guide as ArbCom's annus horribilis. I completely agree. The Cla68-FM-SV case, with its ill-conceived merge, its shoddy implementation, the shady actions of some arbitrators, and the ineffectiveness that grew so bad it required the return of Newyorkbrad to sort out, represents all that went wrong with ArbCom this year. I want to fix these problems. I want boldness, speediness and common sense to return to ArbCom, and I believe I represent those three qualities. I may not hold every position you do, but I hope you share my belief that ArbCom needs to be fixed.

ArbCom does not deal with content issues. Period. That is a view I have been steadfast in, so much so that rather than granting that power to ArbCom I proposed an entirely separate institution (EdCo) to help with it. I give you my word that should I be elected to the Committee, I will not let it become a forum in which content disputes are addressed or resolved unilaterally.

I believe I'd written quite enough, so I'll end it here. I won't ask you to change your vote - your rationale is well-thought out enough to justify it. I'm glad to see voters like you are putting some thought and doing some research about the candidates, even the ones as minor as me. :) I will ask that you consider my views, put the same thought into them as you did my candidacy, and perhaps be a voice when I propose the non-binding content advisory committee after the election. Thank you, and happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I respect what you have said. And I fully understand the thinking behind the EdCo, and in some senses I both empathise and sympathise with the idea. However, in some cases (like the current Ireland dispute) there are no easy answers, and nor should we attempt to shortcut the necessary (and necessarily lengthy) discussions in order to propose a solution which prevents drama rather than arrives at the right answer. We are not building this encyclopedia (probably one of the really great things in the history of mankind - the people of the world coming together to store and make freely available the sum of all human knowledge) to make friends, and disputes ARE going to occur. I find that through the crucible of heated debate comes the clarity of balanced, fair, and hard knowledge. I would not like to support anything which attempts to circumvent that clarifying process in order simply to save the feelings of a few individuals. Where individuals behave so badly that they are preventing progress, we need some way of either influencing them to behave better, or if that fails, then removing them from the area in which they are causing problems. We already have several dispute resolution processes, and I'm not sure where EdCom would fit within that. Thanks for getting back to me. And I wish you luck with the elections. SilkTork *^YES! 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

cycles stuff (again)

Hi SilkTork, as a result of a request from a friend, I have put this request for help on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RayTomes#Need_help_with_regard_to_cycles_articles I thought that I would let you know as you previously gave some help. Ray Tomes (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I will assist you in creating an article on William Delbert Gann in your userspace and then transferring it into mainspace when completed. The reason the article was deleted was because there were concerns about copyright violation as some editors had simply cut and pasted chunks of text from other sources. SilkTork *^YES! 12:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom / wikibreak

Can I take you up on your kind offer to delete my monobook for me, to avoid even the appearance of drama at the arbcom elections? Thanks. Bencherheavy (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I didn't delete the whole monobook - just the section relating to the wiki-break. Let me know if you have any problems. And remember to put yourself back on the break after you have voted! SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And if I don't remember, I'm sure Mrs Bencherlite will be swift to remind me... Bencherlite^Talk 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

I was a commons admin for over a year. It is really unpleasant when people link to your own userspace as a rationale to oppose your candidacy you know... -- Cat ^chi? 01:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise that you found the link unpleasant. However, that in itself is indicative that you are an inappropriate candidate. ArbCom members experience intense scrutiny which means that people will point out things they have said and published on a public access website, so they need to have some emotional stability and confidence in what they have published. I find it rather questionable that you keep a public record of your RfA attempts. There's being honest, and there's ringing a bell to draw people's attention to your failures. However, while researching into you, I found you have a deep commitment to the wiki project and are a valuable contributor, so there's much about you to like and admire. Working in areas of nationality (as with working in BLP areas) does lead to conflict, so I am not surprised that you have gotten into scraps; however, people will judge you on how you deal with conflicts, and the community are uncomfortable with the way you have handled yourself in the past. This message you have sent me is an example of the sort of thing that doesn't inspire confidence in your maturity and ability to judge which issues are worth fighting over, and which should just be ignored. I wish you well with your future Wiki contributions, and I hope you take something of value from this ArbCom election process. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about your vote as an oppose. I wasn't demanding a support vote with my post to your talk page either. My post was more philosophical in nature actually. It is just that the page you linked to is something I feel should be good practice. Linking to your own history (failiures and successes alike) is what I would think is the honest thing to do.

I guess I am confused. Some people accuse me of trying to hide my past (which I make no attempt to do so I think) and there are some who complain about me not concealing my past... I am merely trying to figure out what the best honest practice is.

-- Cat ^chi? 11:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I respect honesty and openness (as may be seen by my own userpage in which I give information about myself, my real name, workplace and family, etc) so I lean toward you for being honest, and I warm to you for trying to figure out the best honest practice. Being honest is giving people information when they ask for it. Being honest is not trying to cover up mistakes, etc. But being honest doesn't involve pointing out all mistakes. It just means not attempting to evade scrutiny of these matters. People don't always need or want to know things. Situation: You are in your car and the parking meter is out of time. A traffic warden walks past. You call the warden back to point out you are in error. The warden now has to give you a ticket, when really all the warden wanted to do was finish his shift. Sometimes there is a social value in not drawing attention to something. People do not want to know how many RfAs you have failed. They want to know what you are like now. But if someone does ask, then you can tell them honestly. At the time they ask. And to the person who asked.

I understand your anxiety and uncertainty. When you do what you think is your best, and people do not support you at a RfA for reasons you do not fully grasp, then doubts about your own judgement come in. This happened to me when I failed my first RfA. It feels good to get the support and validation of the community, as that gives you confidence that you are doing the right thing. I would be quite happy to keep in touch with you and to talk things over now and again.

Have you given any thought to withdrawing your nomination from the ArbCom election? I'm not sure what benefit either you or the community are deriving from your continued presence there. A withdrawl on your own terms might be advisable. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to discuss various matters with you. Feel free to initiate a discussion on any topic you see fit. ;)

I do not intend to withdraw my nomination. Indeed it would take well over 400 support votes to change the tide in the % and I know that is not going to happen but I think my open nomination may generate a few useful discussions such as this one.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday Greetings from a California Friend!

Hey, SilkTork! I wish you all the best in your personal, professional, and spiritual matters--may you and those close to you be well and full as we close this year and lurch on towards another. In all candor we here in the US have our obstacles, but the new year does bring us new leadership and optimism and perhaps renewed hope for better days. Cheers, Nick Lantana11 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I think it's more than just the people in the US who have obstacles at the moment! However, humanity has the admirable quality of learning from our mistakes and moving ever onwards. I think the new year will bring new hope. Keep well. SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are right; in all corners we have our hands full and work to be done. Lantana11 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Sam ^Blab is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the star, and here's wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas! Vytal (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

David Mason

Hi - tea please, milk, no sugar. Delicious, thank you.

I feel - with all due respect - that it was a mistake to zap David Mason out of his own article and reduce him to a Penny Lane footnote. He's a lot more than that and indeed I can picture him more than a little narked over this! Not, of course, that the feelings of the victim - er, subject - are the wiki's primary concern, but even so... :) Now, I do agree with you that the current article is very very thin and I can see how you'd want to zap it. But do you think you could give me (and other interested editors - if there are any!) a time to try and fix it by explaining a little more about why he is actually more significant than he looks here?

Thanks very much. Shall I bring cake next time? Best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Biscuits would be nice. Chocolate Olivers in particular. Um, you would need some reliable sources for the article. David Mason (trumpet player). I'll have a hunt around myself, and if I can't find anything, or if there isn't an improvement by anyone else in 7 days I'll put it up for discussion at AfD. If it passes AfD then it achieves some kind of security. Regards. SilkTork *^YES! 13:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK and thanks very much. I am not sure how much I will get done over the next seven days (!) but I will have a try. Biscuits: probably Hobnobs though I am watching with care the development of chocolate digestives with a thin layer of toffee in. These latter are now vanishing very fast at certain orchestral rehearsals ... could be the Next Big Thing. Thanks and best wishes, 138.37.199.206 (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, me again. I promise I will shut up in a moment. I've always been lazy/clueless about citing, or I have since it got more complex. Is there an Idiot's Guide somewhere that explains how to do this properly - I mean using the nice new(ish) system with proper refs and everything??? Thanks! 138.37.199.206 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You can chat to me as much as you like, and ask me as many questions as you like. I'm on Wikipedia because I like the community spirit, the collaborative effort, and because I enjoy helping people. Don't ever hesitate to ask me a question, or ask for assistance. Anyway - citing sources.... There is a bundle of information on Wikipedia if you know how to find it. A very useful shortcut is using "WP:" in the search box, and then putting in a word or short phrase which quickly sums up what you want information on. so WP:Cite or WP:citing sources or WP:refs will take you where you want to go. Sometimes you may need to try a few times to get the right word - but you'll find in most cases someone will have thought of the shortcut that people might use and will have put it in! SilkTork *^YES! 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aha: perfect! Many thanks. I will make it my project for 2009 to learn to cite things correctly! Cheers 138.37.199.206 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just popped a couple of cites in the article and had a little tidy up. I'm not convinced the guy is notable, other than as a footnote in the Penny Lane article. We have a guideline which might well apply here - WP:ONEEVENT. But see what you can do over the next few days! Good luck. And any help you want, please ask. SilkTork *^YES! 16:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Me again, logged in this time. Thanks for all this and for the additional note regarding the AfD. It will be interesting to see how this develops. Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for offering to help. Yes, I do think making a sortable would be a good idea. --Feeling free (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start. Have a look, see what you think. SilkTork *^YES!

Thanks (images)

Thanks for the kind words re image uploads -- glad you like them. Did you see File:Phallic-Head Plate, 1536 .jpg?

If you are so inclined, have a look at [8]]. Support welcome -- I don't know what his problem is.... Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume his problem relates to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - read Wikipedia:Non-free content where it is placed in context. The image is a "non-free" one, so there has to be a good reason for using it. J Milburn appears to be challenging the image under the "significance" criteria. He offers a clue as to how to use the image - build a section in the article on Hayden's relationship with Fonda. Currently the relationship is mentioned only in passing, and so the significance of the image is not clear. SilkTork *^YES! 17:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		SilkTork/Archives, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Merry Christmas!
		DiverseMentality is wishing you a Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Stay safe! DiverseMentality 08:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

the quiet Beatle

thanks for your message - i propose keeping the conversation here on your page from now on, okay? to me "the quiet Beatle" is such a set phrase that it's a misrepresentation to distort it into "the quiet member" or "the quiet one". and i find the sentence as it now stands quite awkward: "Initially known as the "quiet one" of The Beatles,[3][4] with whom he played lead guitar, Harrison embraced Indian mysticism, and ..." - and besides being awkward, it really lacks internal logic. i strongly encourage you to change that sentence back to "Initially known as a member of The Beatles,[3][4] with whom he played lead guitar, Harrison embraced Indian mysticism ..." i feel the mention of this "nickname" fits in a lot better in the section entitled "The Beatles", where i moved it yesterday, but if you're really convinced it's important enough to mention in the lead-in, maybe you could add a sentence to the second paragraph somewhere? and it needs some kind of clarification/justification (eg "due to his relative reticence in media situations"), lest it sound like he was called that because he wrote fewer songs or something. hope that helps some. Sssoul (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC) ps: i really admire a lot of your great work on that article - i should've mentioned that right from the get-go! Sssoul (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Looks like we are mostly thinking along the same lines. I'd put some details on his reputation as the "quiet Beatle" in that section a few days ago. In the paragraph just above the one you wrote in. It currently reads: "The musical apprenticeship that Harrison went through playing at the Kaiserkeller, including guitar lessons from Tony Sheridan, laid the foundations of The Beatles' sound, and of Harrison's quiet, professional role within the group; [23] a role that would contribute to his reputation as "the quiet Beatle".[24] However, the first trip to Hamburg was shortened when Harrison was deported for being underage.[25]"

"Harrison was often referred to as "the quiet Beatle" due to his relative reticence in media situations.[26]"

That section of The Beatles needs some expansion anyway, so the repetition of "quiet Beatle" can be merged at the same time. Not a problem. Be interesting to discover when he first got called the quiet one / the quiet Beatle. I did consider putting in a section in the article called Personality, as his shyness and diffidence was a notable part of his character, and is mentioned often. But then I thought that perhaps that detail could come out in the general tone of the article and with mentions here and there - such as the "Harrison's quiet, professional role" line above. There is more to be written of his time with The Beatles, their success, the media interest, and Beatlemania, and it would be appropriate at that point to bring in some comment on his behaviour in press conferences. That however needs research I haven't yet done. Can you point me to any sources you have on that?

In the meantime I'll think some more on how to get mention of Harrison's quietness into the lead section without overloading it. Today, however, I'm going to go through and ensure there are cites in places that need cites. Then tackle the Beatles section. If I still have motivation left after that, I will look again at the later sections, personal life, etc, to see if I can tidy them up some more. I think this is close to being put forward for GA review as it is now well cited, organised, balanced, and detailed. There is still plenty of work to do in various areas, but that will be for building the article toward FA status - something I have little experience of, so I will leave that for others to do!

I'm pleased to have got Harrison's birth certificate, and I was able to get an image of that into the article. However, as it is a primary source, we cannot make any interpretations from it. Still, it's good to have it in there so people can see that on certificate it says George (not George Harold) and that it says 25th (not 24th). It may well be that his family decided to add Harold to his name after the birth certificate was done - that is not uncommon. And it may well be that Harrison made a mistake one day with his own birthdate - or that it was a joke, or that it may well have been a family error when the birth certificate was done. Whatever. We simply record the data that's out there, and let our reader's do the analysis and interpretation themselves. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

i'm glad you see what i mean about that sentence in the lead-in - i've now gone ahead and changed it back to just "initially known as a member of the Beatles" - which is after all the primary point to be made at that point in the article, since (believe it or not!) not every reader will know what band he started out in. how his persona was perceived in comparison with the other Beatles truly does need to be left until later - preferably (in my view) until the section about the Beatles; and since it was an appellation that the media came up with, to me it fits best in the part about the Beatles' rise to fame. but yes, of course the point shouldn't be stated twice - that was my carelessness, sorry. will you please go ahead and fix that? thanks very much for that and for the other good work you're doing. Sssoul (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I didn't quite say that. It is appropriate to have a mention of Harrison being the "quiet" one/Beatle in the lead, as a good number of leading reliable sources mention it prominently. It's a single word, yet adds a lot of information. It is notable that a good number of obituaries on the day had "quiet" either as the headline or mentioned early on - [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. Also that there is a book and a dvd called The Quiet One. What I was agreeing with was that there should be some later development on his "quiet" nature in the Beatles section. I was also agreeing that the lead shouldn't go into too much detail on the "quiet", that - in fact - a single use of the word in the lead, and then a later development in the Beatles section would be the best approach. I was thinking that your objection was to the actual wording of the sentence not the inclusion of the term itself. The wording of the sentence has been awkward - and you pointed that out. Fine. That was good. But I couldn't possibly agree to not using the term at all in the lead, given that the use of the term is featured so prominently in some very distinguished sources. If you wish to continue objecting to this I suggest we take it to Wikipedia:Third opinion. SilkTork *^YES! 13:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry if i misunderstood you; and to make sure *i'm* being clear: the term is "the quiet Beatle", not "the quiet one of the Beatles" or "the quiet member of the Beatles". if you feel that appellation is important enough to mention in the lead, okay - but it's surely important not to misrepresent the term, and to work it in in a place where it makes sense, fits the flow of the intro, etc. in other words i feel neutral about whether or not it needs to be in the lead, but i do object to distorting the term and/or "forcing" it into sentences where it doesn't fit. i reckon if you work on it a bit you can come up with a statement about it that quotes the term accurately and that *does* fit into the intro. if getting a third opinion seems worthwhile to you, by all means go for it! Sssoul (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ps: even something like this might be reasonable: "Initially known as a member of The Beatles, with whom he played lead guitar, Harrison was known as "the quiet Beatle" due to his relative reticence in media situations.[3][4] He embraced Indian mysticism, and helped broaden the horizons of the other Beatles as well as their Western audience.[5]" replacing the current ref 3 with one of the obituaries you've cited above (i don't know what the current ref 4 supports, so it's hard to tell where it belongs). as i say i am not especially eager to see the phrase used in the lead-in, so this is just meant to assist you in *your* aims without distorting the phrase or disrupting the sentence flow too much. hope it helps. Sssoul (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If you check out a few of the links I provide above you'll see that "the quiet one" is used by reliable sources as much as "the quiet Beatle". As I say, there's a book and a dvd which use the phrase "The Quiet One" rather than "The Quiet Beatle". As the term "the quiet one" is so well sourced, I feel it's appropriate to use the sentence: "Initially known as the "quiet one" of The Beatles,[3][4] with whom he played lead guitar..." - a wording I felt worked quite well - especially after my mess up with "Initially known as the "quiet" Beatle,[5] with whom he played lead guitar..."!

I'm now working on the Beatles history section from Epstein up to The White Album. I'd like to make sure I keep the focus on Harrison during this section, and don't just do a generic roundup of The Beatles. Keep an eye on the section as it emerges and let me know what you think. It really does help to have someone else working on the article at the same time - especially when we don't agree, as that ensures a balance, a focus and clarity. SilkTork *^YES! 13:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Initially known as a member of The Beatles, with whom he played lead guitar, Harrison was known as "the quiet Beatle" due to his relative reticence in media situations.[3][4]" I'm looking at it. Thanks. My initial feeling is that "due to his relative reticence in media situations" is too much explanation for the lead - that exposition belongs in the main body of the article. However, I'm considering the rest of the sentence. I've still got another window open on the Harrison article, so I'll finish my edit there and take a closer look at your suggestion. SilkTork *^YES! 14:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

hm, well ... yes one biographer (out of how many?) used "the quiet one" as a book title, and one dvd (out of how many?) was named after the book, but the "root" of those titles was "the quiet Beatle", not "the quiet one of the Beatles". the phrasing "the quiet one of the Beatles" sounds really really awkward; moreover, i feel (strongly, even) that the point that the article lead-in needs to make *first* is that he started his career as a member of The Beatles, not how his persona was perceived in relation to the others in the group. i agree that my "compromise suggestion" is not that red-hot, but maybe you can work out something in that direction. i'll keep contributing as time permits ... swing on ... Sssoul (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

ps: maybe something like this: "George Harrison[1]MBE (25 February 1943 – 29 November 2001)[2] was an English rock guitarist, singer-songwriter and film producer. He started his music career as a member of The Beatles, with whom he played lead guitar.[ref] Harrison, known as as "the quiet Beatle",[ref] embraced Indian mysticism, and helped broaden the horizons of the other Beatles as well as their Western audience.[5]" again i'm not gung-ho about working that phrase into the lead, but if you are, maybe that would do ... oh and by the way, the comma after "singer-songwriter" should be eliminated. Sssoul (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I like that. I like the use of "started his musical career" rather than "initially known". Nice one.

The serial comma is usually used in academic publications and supported by Fowler's. Publications that tend not to favour the serial comma are certain newspapers. As Wikipedia is more an academic publication than a newspaper I tend to go with the serial. It's not a fighting point, but unless you have a strong opposition to it, I'd rather it were kept in! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 15:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

actually something like "He first achieved international fame as a member of The Beatles, with whom ... " would be more accurate, wouldn't it - but i'm glad if the general idea suits your purposes. as for serial commas, the Wikipedia MoS specifies that both styles are acceptable as long as a given article is kept consistent; i guess the standard when there's disagreement is to stick with whichever is predominant in an article. Sssoul (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to make those changes to the lead section now? I'm working on The Beatles section so there shouldn't be an edit conflict. SilkTork *^YES! 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

well okay - but do you know what the current reference 4 is there to support? i'll change the current reference 3 to one of those obituaries you mentioned above, since a google list of links referring to Clayton's bio isn't indicative of anything except that such a book exists, but i'm not sure what part[s] of that sentence reference 4 supports. thanks for any clarity - or if it's simpler for you just to make the changes yourself that's fine with me too. Sssoul (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It looks like both 3 and 4 are in support of the use of the word "quiet" to describe Harrison. Any other source that uses the word would do as well. I have no problem with you using another source. SilkTork *^YES! 17:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"a google list of links referring to Clayton's bio isn't indicative of anything except that such a book exists". Yes, I see. It may have been that I had a page in mind, but did it wrong. No worries. just take it out. SilkTork *^YES! 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)