User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

When I saw this edit...

...I LOL'ed. – ClockworkSoul 21:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clock! I've ordered my pair - how about you? SilkTork *^YES! 22:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to order them, I just brew my own! Whee! – ClockworkSoul 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way

Just to give you a heads up, in case you haven't already noticed, I'm making an effort to clamp down on the rampant incivility and sockpuppetry that have been going on over at beer style. I know it's a little ugly over there, but there's a straw poll to get a general opinion about the BJCP link before we elevate the who mess to dispute resolution: would you mind just popping by and voicing your yea or nay? – ClockworkSoul 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. But I don't think the BJCP dispute will ever really settle down until someone sensible gets to grips with that Beer style article, writes it up properly, and then watches it like a hawk. But that ain't gonna be easy with so many beer editors following their own agendas and reverting sensible edits. I rarely get involved in ANY of the beer style articles these days, unless I want to waste my time and watch my work get reverted! I tend to avoid contentious subjects and articles which have ownership issues. Unless I am in a mood to do some mediating. But I do like to keep my mediating and my editing separate. When mediating it helps when you are not involved. So, as I am involved in beer articles, I can't mediate. So I simply stay away. SilkTork *^YES! 01:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tend the same way. I think, though, that the only reason I'm able to put up with the vitriol and ugliness is because I care so much about the subject in general, but I'm not all that affected by the presence or absence of one particular link. I'm not sure that I would call what I'm doing "mediating", however. I'm really just enforcing some long-standing policies regarding appropriate behavior. By the way, congratulations on your wife's pregnancy! – ClockworkSoul 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can tell you, she's VERY happy!

Do you think you may be the man to take a firm grip on Beer style? I might be coaxed into helping out if I knew there was somebody level headed around to deal with the nonsense. SilkTork *^YES! 02:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm doing what I can. I've already taken some decisive action over there to put a stop to the really over the line behavior, and in the process I've handed out a couple of blocks to some of the real troublemakers who should have handled long ago. We're still left with two parties who can't or won't compromise very easily, but at least now the background noise will be lowered enough that some progress may be made. We're working on putting together an arbitration case at the moment, and if all parties agree to abide by the ruling then at least we'll have a decision and can move forward from there. Your reasonable voice would be more than welcome! – ClockworkSoul 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh, dear: backsliding. I'm trying to avoid the quagmire of personal disputes, so moved to file a request with MedCom. – ClockworkSoul 21:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added my two cents. I'll be ready to take a look at the Beer styles article and the individual beer styles articles fairly soon. It takes a fair bit of research to build them up so it will be a commitment of time and effort. I hope that as a project we can settle on an acceptable way of proceeding with these articles so that there are no arguments or reverts later down the line. With you involved I do have hope - because in my experience with you, you are firm, you are fair, and you see things through. Happy New Year. SilkTork *^YES! 09:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What's all this then?

Wait, is that... could it be... progress? I can't really tell because it's so early, and my memory of actual progress is somewhat fuzzy on account of it being so long since I've seen it. I'm cautiously optimistic, though. I give you full credit: it was your comment that reintroduced the idea of reason and compromise. – ClockworkSoul 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's down to you Clock for taking everyone by the scruff of the neck and shaking sense into them. You gathered the tribes and made them speak to each other. I'll take a look at the Beer style article in the New Year and make my contribution. If it goes well, we can see about making it a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 21:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already started polishing it a little, if my eye happens to catch something I think cab be improved upon. A good article? I'll drink to that. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Beatles' Influence...

Hi, thanks for the award! Much appreciated - I'm not sure about the new title; having read Geoff Emerick's autobiography, I was planning to add a section about the change of attitude from classical musicians to "pop" music. Emerick considers that one of the biggest "things" about the Beatles, but it wouldn't fit in to the music technology title.

Apepper (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps use the material in The Beatles article itself? Though take care that the views given reflect a wide consensus. The difficulty with "influence" and opinion, is that unless the views are widely accepted and notable, they may not fit into Wikipedia's remit. Emerick's knowledge about The Beatles recording techniques are valuable, though I am less certain about the authority of any of his personal speculations about changes of musical attitude. Are you talking about his "Here, There and Everywhere" book? That has received a lot of criticism in some quarters - [1]. SilkTork *^YES! 22:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cottage garden GA

Thank you for the feedback, and also for the time to work on it. I'll chip away at it, take your advice to heart, and check back in with you at some point. It's a topic worthy of a Good Article. Best to you, First Light (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. While finishing up some other article work, I noticed you've added/divided some new sections—these look like some great areas to expand. I think my creative thinking for the article had reached a block, so this will be a great help. Thanks. First Light (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased. At the moment I'm merging some stubs and similar garden articles together into larger articles. As gardening is not my thing I may do some of this wrong. I may merge too much, or incorrectly. The intention is to bring similar articles together so they can grow together in context. Some articles may not need a full merge, but can have a summary style merge, and a link in the parent to the standalone. I'd welcome you taking a look at Garden design and Kitchen garden as they are the main targets for my merges, and checking that my merges look OK. SilkTork *^YES! 18:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see how much work the gardening and horticulture area needs. I think what you did was great, merging those small stubs into larger articles. There are a couple minor things that I would question, but this is just one person's opinion. Merging and redirecting vegetable garden into kitchen garden is overreaching, in my opinion, since many/most vegetable gardens wouldn't be considered kitchen gardens, at least here in the U.S. It may be different across the pond. The term kitchen garden here is almost unheard. In my understanding, Herb garden also isn't a subset of kitchen garden. But it may be those articles need to grow first before standing on their own.

The other issue is calling different types of gardens 'garden designs'. Better would be something like 'types of gardens'. It's also a question whether these different garden types all should be in an article titled garden design, since a kitchen garden, for example, may not always reach the level of being 'designed'. Also, I think herb gardens and vegetable gardens would actually fit with these other gardens better than under 'kitchen garden'. In other words, herb garden, kitchen garden, and vegetable garden are peers (along with all the other garden types), in my opinion. But again, that's a U.S. perspective (and usage of 'peer'). It would be good to get other's opinions. All in all, good work - the merges are a great step in the right direction - I'm just thinking out loud the details of 'how' it should best be done, rather than 'if'. First Light (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The task is bigger than I thought, and I was considering if I should carry on. Your message this morning has given me heart. Vegetable garden and kitchen garden on my reading from the articles themselves and a quick glance at sources (not an examination, just a google) were almost interchangable terms, except that kitchen gardens "may" be more decorative than a basic vegetable plot. As such it appeared appropriate to have a parent Kitchen garden in which would be sections that may be contained in a kitchen garden - such as vegetables and herbs. As a vegetable garden is a part of and a subset of and in some cases interchangable with a kitchen garden it seemed appropriate to have them together. A study of vegetable gardening seems to belong with a study of kitchen gardening. However, I can see that if the vegetable garden section grows large, then it could be appropriately broken out in WP:Summary style from Kitchen garden into its own standalone article. I'm not sure, however, that we are there yet. Having them apart at this stage would appear to gain little other than that work on one article would be duplicated on the other (the sort of vegetables grown, how to manage them, the history and development of vegetable growing in a garden (as opposed to agriculturally) etc), or that they would develop separately with people working on one or the other, when they could be sharing the tasks on the one.

Your second point on how to organise these articles, and into which parent they should go is a very important one, and I'll be guided by you on that. I'm off to work now, and I expect to be busy today, so I'll check back later this evening (UK time) to look again at how to organise these stubs. Perhaps we can involve some other members of the project? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is is complex tangle, and I'm also in favor of leaving Kitchen and Vegetable gardens together so they can eventually be developed better. As far as overall organization of the articles, I think that any type of movement, as you did, is getting it closer to the right answer ("you can't steer a parked car"). Getting input from others at the WikiProject Horticulture would be great, if anyone answers the phone there. I'm also about to step away from the computer for some hours, but there's no hurry in my opinion. First Light (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to put a note at WikiProject Horticulture to get more feedback on this, or let you do that. Either way, I strongly support the general direction of the merging. I've also begun working on Cottage garden, and will continue in bits and pieces. First Light (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be taking another look at the gardening articles in the New Year. I'll be looking at the categories in order to organise and group the articles better. There is a need for a category for types of garden - perhaps called Category:Types of garden - and other such cats. SilkTork *^YES! 14:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Layout issues

A fruitful New Year to you and thank you for your offer of help. Perhaps one could start with the matter of separating lines and headings, which you feel may stand a fair chance of success. The other issue which I think stands a reasonable chance of gaining support, is removing right-facing images from infoboxes that are right-aligned. I can't recall ever seeing a left-aligned infobox, but if that is possible then it simply becomes a matter of moving the infobox to the left if it holds a right-facing image. I suspect that the right alignment of the infobox is a holy cow to a lot of editors, but there might be a silent majority out there who don't agree with its undeserved status - however if we don't shake the tree, we won't know what's going to fall out. ciao Rotational (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let's start with the headings. I'll be in touch within a couple of days. SilkTork *^YES! 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

David Mason

Thank you very much for your kind and gracious comments and for your help with how to go about sorting the article out a bit. I would very much not characterize you as a "fool" for your actions over this. Without the AfD it is arguable that the article would have stayed in its undernourished state for some time to come (to put it mildly) and really all I needed to do was a bit of digging and thinking, which this certainly inspired me to do. I even found out some stuff I didn't know, and changed some vaguenesses into specifics! I'd like to improve it further though sources are a problem - it's very much a classic case of "but everybody knows that ..." versus reliable sources, and some areas seem more difficult than others to nail down. And of course when "everybody" turns out actually to mean "UK trumpet players" or "Trumpet players of a certain age" or "me" or whatever then it gets more difficult! It's been a useful lesson in trying a little harder to get things right and I am most grateful for it. With all good wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

My experience with Wikipedia is that "conflict" (if that is the right word) over an article will in many cases improve it. I do tend to distrust those articles which have been largely written by one person (or group of people who all agree with each other), as slight bias and institutionalised inacuracies will be present. Some of the articles I feel most secure with are those where there was some disagreement on how best to proceed and I was forced to re-examine some of my assumptions. I make most mistakes working on articles where I already know a lot, as I don't bother to check the facts (after all I "know" them!). People who have an interest in Pink Floyd "know" that they formed in Cambridge. That "fact" was present in the first sentence of the Pink Floyd article for years, and it was passed as a Featured Article in that state. I fixed it quite recently. It saddens me how many FAs I read with obvious errors. I care less for "brilliant prose" and rather more for reliable information. I expect a novel or magazine article to be brilliantly written, I expect hard facts from an encyclopedia. SilkTork *^YES! 14:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen to all the above, and thanks again. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Restoration House

A little gift for new year. Yesterday I was invited by Matthew to visit his garden and take as many pictures as I liked. Matt has been working there as the gardener for the last 14 years or so.I spoke with Jonathan, the owner who has given us the right to use any of his back catalog of pictures, most of which were taken by Matt- this should give you a ready source of images for your forays into Horticulture.

I have placed 10 images of mine on commons.

ClemRutter (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Clem. I haven't been to Restoration House and the garden for some years. My wife, Chrissie, knows Jonathan and his partner through her work at the VIC - though she doesn't know him well enough to get a personal invite to the house as you have managed. We've only been when there's been the crowds on open day! The picture of the knot garden with frost on it is particularly attractive. I'm sure I'll find a quick use for that! Happy New Year. And we must get together for a drink sometime! SilkTork *^YES! 15:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, SilkTork/Archives! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Galib is wishing you a Happy New Year. This card promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day much better. Best Wishes and Happy Editing!

Best To Reply At My Talk Page. Thanks.

Just Stopping by. Yours Truly, M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 14:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC) .

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 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) 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Moves

Howdy! A quick comment on the recent moves of advertising articles to more generic names - while the more unusual titles (such as Good Doctor) are likely only used for a single advert, some have been used for several different advertising campaigns, each of which could potentially have an article. Off the top of my head, I know that the title Surfer has been used for a Guinness ad, a Cadbury ad, a Pioneer ad, and an ad for the Volkswagen Polo, all within the UK and all of which won several awards. A brief search online also shows that it's been used for a Pepsi advertising campaign in Germany, a Lipitor campaign in the U.S., a Renault campaign in France, etc. The same type of thing is true for Dreamer, and a few of the other names moved. In addition, the character Michael Power appears in dozens of individual adverts, and one feature film - the new title is wholly inaccurate. Still, if you want the moving process to be complete, you may want to shift Pretty (Nike), Gorilla (Cadbury), Evolution (Dove), Grrr (Honda), and Sea (Smirnoff). GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there are probably some more adverts out there that I haven't caught yet. I put the Guinness adverts into a new category Category:Guinness advertising which helps with the sorting of the articles. I think you are right in your concerns that if there are other articles created with the same advertising campaign name there will need to be a rethink of the strategy - but the naming convention tends to go for the more obvious name first, and only go for more subtle names when the occasions arises. So we go for Great Expectations and disambiguate later, rather than starting with Great Expectations (novel) or even Great Expectations (novel by Charles Dickens). SilkTork *^YES! 22:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Brenthurst Gardens

Maybe I'm missing something, but looking at the edit you did on Brenthurst Gardens versus the prior version here, well, the original looks cleaner. But I'm not entirely sure what the cleanup was aimed at, so I'm loath to undo your work. Have a look? 9Nak (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a quick sweep through the articles in Category:Gardens and Category:Types of garden as part of a general tidy up I am doing of the Category:Gardening articles. The aim is to organise the articles into easily manageable categories - hence the creation of the Category:Types of garden, Category:Garden pest, and Category:Garden feature cats and the redirecting of Category:Garden Shows into Category:Horticultural exhibitions. I'm also looking to merge stubs (or larger if appropriate) articles together where it seems appropriate (White garden into Color garden for example. I'm also tagging all the garden articles with {{Horticulture and Gardening Project|class=start|importance=low}}, and then adding a fully formatted reference section (which is what you picked up I did in Brenthurst Gardens). The next stage will be to ensure that each article contains at least one reference source. I have recently become aware of the {{find}} tag, and will be adding that to talk pages along with {{Horticulture and Gardening Project}} so that people are helped both on the article page and on the talk page to find and add appropriate references and sources to the gardening articles. Any help in doing this maintenance task would be much appreciated. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai forts

I guess I'll have to give up on the forts then. See this comment [2] Its a bit too much to search for information to get this up and running for GA status. :( =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When there is a narrow focus there is an expectation of greater detail. Have you considered bringing information from the existing fort articles together as a starting point for a parent Mumbai forts article as I suggested? Being broader in scope you needn't go in for such detail, and as you already have done some research on the topic I suspect you really could pull together something meaningful. I'd be more than happy to help out if that's the direction you are willing to go. With what's already available - Category:Forts around Mumbai and info on the internet - [3], [/2/forts_mumbai.htm], [4], I think this would be very worthwhile. SilkTork *^YES! 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

My link to www. (indianetzone) .com was blocked as a spam site. SilkTork *^YES! 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Enrique_Máximo_García

Hi, I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a second look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enrique_Máximo_García. In this lengthy discussion, I see absolutely nothing that establishes his notability. This feels more like an inclusionist vs. deletionist debate, rather than a discussion demonstrating anything remarkable about the subject. Thanks. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've had another look. My thoughts now are the same. I can see arguments on both sides. There were references brought forth from reliable sources to show that the man has been considered of note. The article meets our base policy of being verifiable. The subject of the article existed, and can be shown to have existed. Beyond that we have our notability requirement. Notability is a community requirement, and the assessment of criteria for notability is ongoing. The guidelines mentioned in the discussion are suggestions and advice collected from previous discussions to help people in current and future discussions. They are not rules, but the advice they contain can be very useful. It was brought up in discussion that the subject met criteria 7 of Wikipedia:Prof - "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." - and this was evidenced by the Spanish newspaper articles. The articles are non-trivial articles. That the articles demonstrated "substantial impact" was disputed by others in the discussion - but unfortunately these people did not go on to explain why they felt the articles did not demonstrate "substantial impact". Given that the reasons put forward by those arguing for keep were explained and supported by Wikipedia guidelines and external sources, and that doing a tally count showed 6 !votes for delete and 7 !votes for keep, I could not see a consensus for deleting the article. However, I took on board the arguments from those who felt that the article did not clearly demonstrate the subjects notability and made a suggestion in my closing comments that the article needs developing. As you are clearly not happy with this decision I suggest you take the case to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'd be grateful if you dropped me a note if you do open a review. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do disagree with the rationale but that's okay -- I'm not going to pursue a deletion review. I may be a "deletionist," but I'm not a crusader. Best. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Garden articles

Hi SilkTork, FYI, I just posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening about the merges and reorganizing of the garden articles, as a way of trying to get others involved. I think the merges were a great idea, and I hope it gets others to start working on Garden design and Kitchen garden. Let me know if I didn't get the story right. Also, I'm chipping away at Cottage garden, and will continue to work there. Hope 2009 is a great year for you! First Light (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:SIBAlogo.gif)

You've uploaded File:SIBAlogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments about George Harrison article

Hi SilkTork. I happened to see the George Harrison article nominated at WP:GAN and skimmed through it. I spotted a few MOS-related formatting issues that may be kind of time-consuming to fix, but since it's GA standards you'd have probably had to fix it anyway. I'm not planning on reviewing the article for the time being (haven't even really read the prose), but I just left some comments at the talk page in hopes to give you as the nominator more time to make those changes. Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie. I took another look, and checked the ref layout in the article against the ref layout GA criteria, and the article meets GA standard requirements for the layout of the cites. Your points are well noted though, and people may take your points on board and use them as a guide to generally improve the article, especially if people wish to take it up to FA standard. SilkTork *^YES! 10:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a reply at the talkpage in regards to my reasons for noting what looks like FA standards sometimes. Best wishes with improving a major article and making it a GA! Jamie^☆S93 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

George Harrison

Nice work on going for a GA for George.--andreasegde (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

George Harrison

Hi, I am reviewing your article George Harrison for GA and have entered my initial comments here: Talk:George Harrison/GA2. All and all it looks very comprehensive. I did some minor copy editing which you are free to revert if you don't like what I did. Please to contact me if you have comments or questions, aside from putting responses on the review page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Work is taking place to bring the article up to standard. Pleasing to see so many involved. SilkTork *^YES! 19:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very nice to see. What I like about an article like this (and I don't know a whole lot about George Harrison - only the usual) is that it gives a chance to contemplate this man's life. What were his main involvements/contributions/themes, the arc of his life? The Beatles article is a former FA, along with Paul McCartney. (Ah, Teddy Boys - do you remember them?) —Mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I also enjoy discovering new things. Getting involved in an article and finding out new things about a topic or a person. It's one of my main pleasures in Wikipedia. I have a huge curiosity. SilkTork *^YES! 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) back to George for a minute ... i've left a note to Mattisse here that you might want to look at - thanks! Sssoul (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Echo & the Bunnymen (album)

Hi, the GA review appears to have stalled. I'm not sure if I'm meant to be waiting for you or you're meant to be waiting for me. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not stalled. Just going slowly. I was there on the 6th making a few minor adjustments to the article as I read through it again, and doing a couple of ticks on the review. My last thought was to consider putting on hold until a couple of minor things were done. But then I thought I might just as well do them myself, however I then wanted a closer look at other GA album articles to get a general feel for a GA standard album article so that has delayed matters while looking at those. I think the additions you have made to background have been excellent. I don't see this heading to a fail at all. I see this being passed as a GA, but I just want to look over it and tidy up a few things first. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I must try to be less impatient! Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if you're going to revisit this GA review? You had no involvement with it for over 7 days now. --JD554 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I intend to look at it tonight. Please accept my apologies for the delay. SilkTork *^YES! 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While the edits you're making to the article are okay, they aren't substantially altering the quality of the prose or the content. What specifically is stopping this article from being promoted to GA? As far as I can see, it meets all of the WP:GA?: the prose is well-written, it's factually accurate and verifiable, it's broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and has relevant images. Don't forget this is GA not FA. I'm struggling to understand what's holding you back on this. --JD554 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarity of meaning. Some additional information. As I said, when reading it I felt that there were things not quite right. As I'm working on it I can see what they are. Sometimes the information doesn't quite come across, either because of word order, or because there's some detail missing (and as I do the research so I'm picking up those extra details). It's honestly easier for me to just work on it and do it than it is for me to read it, do the research, try out a few ideas and then tell you that it's better to change the word order in the second sentence of the third paragraph, etc. The intention of both my attention, your work, and the GA process is the same thing (hopefully): - to improve the article so it becomes a decent readable article that succinctly and pleasantly informs people about the album. I don't feel at the moment that it's quite there (though it's close), and I would feel uncomfortable just giving it a GA status because of your impatience. I appreciate that this review has not gone as fast as you have liked, but I am currently actively engaged on the task of working through the text and making the minor improvements. As I see you are currently working on the article, and we've already had one ec, I'll let you work on it for a while. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --JD554 (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I've just be re-reading what I said yesterday and it looks (to me) as if I was "having a go". That really wasn't my intent and I can only apologise for coming across that way. I do of course realise that your intention is only to improve the article. Sorry, --JD554 (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I do understand your impatience. And I do understand that it can sometimes be frustrating when somebody is changing your words. We all get that! But what I do like about working collaboratively, is that the article always improves, even if it actually sometimes goes through a period of getting worse as people try out new ideas. I tend not to think that what I put in an article is the finished thing. It is a suggestion - a try out to see how it looks and fits. And usually it is others who see the mistakes in the idea first - which is why it's always good to have someone else looking at what you have written! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Oops, sorry about that flub - it looks like I have multiple threads titled "718 Bot" on my talkpage. Anyway, I was responding to an inquiry from you about being wrongly bothered by bot messages when a fairuse image you upload is converted to PNG - I agree that this shouldn't happen. This was my reply - "I can definitely work something out with Carnildo. I was under the impression that BJBot (talk · contribs) was the only bot that tagged orphaned fairuse images, and I've already made arrangements with its owner to not bother people about images converted to PNG. Thanks for the heads-up!" — east718 | talk | 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks for letting me know. And that's the first time I've experienced one of those talkback things - I've seen them around and wondered about them. I'm not sure I'm that keen on them after this experience. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Drum (2004 film)

Hi. I've replied to all your concerns at the GA review. I included every drop of information I could find, so length is not an issue. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Same with Hell's Gate National Park. The length issue is beyond my control. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing Maurice Kouandete? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly committed at the moment. But if nobody has got round to it when I have some more time, I'll take a look. SilkTork *^YES! 00:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can wait. thanks for the award, by the way. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Drum (2004 film)

You put Drum on hold until January 10. Today is January 11. There is nothing more (at least that I know of) that can help expand the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On hold for another 7 days. I've done a little bit of work on it to show examples of how the article can be developed further. The reviews here may help you with material, both in terms of writing about the critical response, and in terms of building up the Plot section. I will help out in writing the article when I can. There's no rush for me to make a final decision on the article, as long as work is being done in a positive direction I'm happy to keep the review open. I'll only close when either I feel it meets the GA criteria, or when you and/or I truly feel no more positive work can be done in a reasonable time frame. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. I've heard of Rotten Tomatoes, and even checked out its webpage for Drum in the past. Only now are reviews actually appearing on my screen. I guess I need to get my computer checked out - it's slow and unreliable too. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Failing a GA

We've been waiting for two days for you to respond to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Greece_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest_2008/1 so I'm surprised that you went and failed Portugal as we were waiting for your next response. We put any bold editing of the Portugal article on hold pending the outcome of the discussion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem. I don't think we can agree on how to proceed with the article, and I don't feel I can pass the articles as GA against the GA criteria. As such it is better for me to withdraw from them than to get into a conflict. It is your decision now as the best way to proceed.

• You could proceed with your development of them against your own criteria and go for A-Class in the WP:Assess scheme - or even FA status. Not passing at GA does not impact on that at all - indeed there is some dispute as to GA's place in the WP:Assess hierarchy.
• You can take Portugal to another GAR to see if there's a fresh viewpoint.
• You could consider what I and Geometry guy are saying and look to see if you can develop the article in the direction we are suggesting, and then resubmit for another GAN.

It is difficult for me to see what else I can do in this situation now to help you. I tried some editing to point the way that I felt the articles should be going, but this editing was seen as unhelpful, and taking the articles in a direction you guys didn't want them to go. I appreciate what you guys are saying, but we are at a point at which it's useful to say that we have a difference of opinion. When the people involved in the articles are saying that they are unwilling to make the edits suggested to bring them in line with the GA criteria, then a GAR is the best way forward. Unfortunately the only impartial commentator in the GAR has been Geometry guy, and his view seems to match mine. I think we'd like another impartial person to comment (that is, someone who is not involved in editing any of the articles under question). Failing that happening, I think the conclusion will be that Geometry guy will have to make the decision himself when he closes the GAR. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm ok, I don't know if you checked up on the Greece article lately, but Geometry guy is satisfied with the changes other than his wish that there is a little more info on the song. I would appreciate it if you could give Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 one last quick look before you withdraw completely and point out any major problems with the new layout which we could take into consideration. Thanks. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll take another serious look later. SilkTork *^YES! 17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Greetings, SilkTork. Have you any ideas what we should do with this article and its GA Review? It does not look like the author will be returning from his involuntary holiday anytime soon. The article has great potential and I'd like to find someone else to take over the rewrite of it (I might have a conflict of interest in doing so as the reviewer). It would seem a shame to fail it for prose and then abandon it to decay. Thoughts? Skomorokh 15:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that. I'll be happy to help out, though it's also OK for you to correct stuff in the article. The article appears to be very close to GA, and may even be a contender for FA without too much work. I'll take a look at it later when I have some time. SilkTork *^YES! 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks very much. I will probably address the prose issues; perhaps you might want to tackle the technical terminology. I'll review it against the GA criteria then and hopefully any outstanding issues can be resolved. Thanks again! Skomorokh 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai is being allowed to edit the article. I'll check in on it now and again, but hopefully Manhattan should be able to address the issues himself. SilkTork *^YES! 20:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship FAC

I replied to your comments at the FAC. My hands are somewhat tied here: the armament was a part of the construction, it needs to be addressed in this article somewhere; at the same time, their are other articles than are better able to handle the weaponry information. I've made a suggestion on the FAC page, and I will base my next move on your reaction to my suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on the FA talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented two of the three suggestions you left. You mentioned that a mention of the ship being panamax size would be nice, and I would like to know if there is anything else you may put in the construction section, the goal being to create another paragraph rather than add one awkward sentence in the construction section concerning panamax capability.

I've made some suggestions on the FAC talkpage. However, I don't wish my concerns to impede the FAC - I was simply raising the matter as a comment rather than an objection. I would agree with the GA reviewer that the Construction section doesn't seem right. It is likely that other readers would have a similiar reaction. I am not taking part in the FAC, I was just making what might be considered a "drive-by" comment. There was a choice of making the comment or not making the comment - I decided to make the comment, but make it in such a manner as not to impede the FAC. I now leave it up to your discretion as to what to do with the observation. I do not intend to return to the FAC or the article unless you request me to. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take it from here. Just in case you were curious, the reason I asked is that three other battleship article - New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin use the exact same format, and I am trying to ancticipate what the Featured Topic peolpe may object to before we get to the FTC nom. You comment therefore is valuable becuase its the first time someone has suggest such a retooling of the construction section, and if its occured to you it may occur to others when the FTC nom goes live later this year. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I wish you well with the articles! SilkTork *^YES! 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Bradman

thanks for the review. I've tried to do the fixes and clarify my position. Thanks, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a real nice article. Glad to help out in a small way. I've passed it as a GA. SilkTork *^YES! 18:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnes

I've replied for Barnes as well. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Passed. SilkTork *^YES! 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Confused templates

Hi, do you mind having a look at this and telling me what you think as an admin? ciao Rotational (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but the aim and end result is the same, and the usage would depend on the circumstances, so there is no need to alter the wording on the templates. I have left a comment. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cryptol

Sounds good. Give me a few days. --KP Botany (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cryptol & DRV

Hi, this one was on DRV kept delete/endorse. I kind of want to see it brought back in via DRV. I think the sourcing is too light still.[5] rootology (C)(T) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, having reviewed the sources, I've found they don't show notability. I don't want to just put a CSD tag on it (which would be justified but pointless). Would you be willing to move it back to KP's user space or initiate a DRV? I would be willing to start a fresh DRV for you, if you prefer. Please let me know. I'd like the article to live, but not be targetted by others later for sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That there were sources on the article when restored to mainspace means it does not qualify for a Speedy. And the AfD has already been through a review and there was no consensus to overturn, but the decision was made that if additional sources were put in the article it could be restored. That has been done. If you're still not happy, then the appropriate route is AfD. A redirect, as you did, is hardly appropriate, especially given the speed at which you did it. This topic is well outside my area of knowledge and interest, so I don't know how to work in the sources which indicate that Cryptol is a serious topic at university level. But removing such sources seems unhelpful. At the very least we have here a topic for which notability issues can be discussed. At best we have an article for which the sources indicate notability has been established. We don't really have a candidate for Speedy deletion or redirecting back to userspace. When you proposed the article for AfD there was only one source, and that was to the company who owned the programme. That was fair enough. But since then more sources have been found. Let it stand, or take it back to AfD and let the community decide. SilkTork *^YES! 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, per your suggestion and the discussions back and forth between Cryptol talk, my talk, and your talk, I fired up a procedural AFD as easiest resolution, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryptol (2nd nomination). rootology (C)(T) 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hartwood (lancashire)

on reading some information on the Blackburn to Chorley line, i must have miss read the passage about the railway line going through the area. The evidence in this text that i read did indicate a station at Hartwood, however i cannot find any more information on it, so it must not of existed. A1personage (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. That clears that up! A strong suggestion - when creating a new article in future please make sure you have a reference to support the article, and that you put the reference in the article. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAC reversions

You reverted my request for discussion at WP:NAC here saying to See [the] TalkPage, I have checked the talk page and there are no posts from yourself, or anyone else for that matter, since January 10th. I trust an explanation is forthcoming? I would appreciate discussing this change. Happy editing! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Foxy. Sorry for the long delay between restoring my edit, and then leaving the full explanation on the talkpage. I did get distracted by real life! I'm a little uncomfortable with your phrase "reverted my request for discussion". What happened is that you did a total revert of my edit, and then I restored my edit. I didn't revert any request of yours that I am aware of. Help:Reverting explains about the nature of reverting and gives some very good advice. I'm aware at this moment that there may be some tension between us now because I left you a message about a Snow close you had done, and then you revert an edit I made on Snow closures, and I overturn that revert. I do hope that you are not reading more into this editing than is there. I was not critical of your Snow closure in the Night of the Day of the Dawn AfD - as I said, I understood your reasoning, and I myself had left a comment in that AfD to keep the article. I was, however, concerned that the nominator might use the Snow close as a reason to call a DRV. And, as a general principle, I feel there is nothing lost and much to be gained from letting a standard AfD run the five days. I hope my fuller explanation in the WP:NAC talkpage is satisfactory, and I'm quite happy to discuss the matter further - though we should be aware that it's the wider Wikipedia consensus we need to be aware of when giving advice, not just the consensus on that essay. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 01:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A quiet word

Just thought I'd make an observation - problem with anything on wiki is that it is fairly easily findable and hence to all intents and purposes public. Ventilating feelings between two people is a great way to let off steam and can be therapeutic, but doing it onwiki and discussing others (especially negatively) can add to drama. I think if you carry this exchange via email, it will allow you guys to ventilate and avoid further dramas. It has been a pretty tough experience all round. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse was concerned that the chat would be viewed by others. Her concern was appropriate. There were a number of reasons why I wished to have the chat onwiki, but in a non-public subpage of my userspace. Those reasons are still valid, though I have removed the subpage and will move the discussion off-wiki. It is not helpful to have the conversation off-wiki, but so be it. The comment I made on Giano was not intended for Giano's eyes - it was a personal comment between two users. I understand that Giano is upset at the moment because Mattisse is challenging unsourced sections of the Buck House article. His decision to engage in the Mattissee RFC was unhelpful. He is known for uncivil behaviour towards editors whose actions he doesn't like. This is a matter of record, and he is under ArbCom restrictions because of that. Discussing that, as I am now (but in a more public arena), is part of what we do as a community. Some of us at some point will make a comment about Giano that he will not like. We cannot be prevented from that. I hold opinions on Giano that he will not like, and I will not put them here as that will simply escalate matters, but I do have those opinions, and I will express them now and again in discussions which involve matters related to him. SilkTork *^YES! 11:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, but you are not suposed to use your user space for the propogation of malicious lies, if you wish to defend your lies then open an RFArb - because I am now officially calling you a Liar! Giano (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

You wrote:

I agree. I've referred to the space within my userspace as "personal", which is a different matter. I said I would discuss with Mattisse in private over a new place to meet, and by that I meant by email. I just wanted to be clear on that. There are reasons why I wish the conversations with Mattisse to take place onwiki, and Mattisse also has her reasons. I made a mistake by making comments about Giano. I recognise that. I have apologised for that. What I am concerned with now is moving the matter forward. I would appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Fine by me - have at it. Maybe we'll edit some horticulture articles sometime, another passion of mine but one I have done very little on-wiki to date. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The horticulture articles do need serious attention. There is little organisation or control in that area. I've been trying to sort out what there is and bring some kind of structure and shape to it. Doing a bit of weeding and pruning and transplanting and other gardening metaphors! SilkTork *^YES! 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your further lies and trouble making

You are obviously seeking to make trouble and agitation [6] well you can have it. Giano (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I was passing a comment on what I observed. I have no wish to escalate this matter. I didn't raise it on the Buck House talkpage, nor on your talkpage. I gave a comment of support to an editor who was putting forward some good reasons for an InfoBox. My comment was intended for that editor's talkpage only. Yes, in retrospect I was rather strong in my comments against those who were objecting to the InfoBox, but the comments were in the same spirit as those made in the discussion itself. I apologise to everyone involved that I made those comments. It's what happens sometimes. We have opinions, and we express them - sometimes unwisely! We none of us are perfect. Would you like me to remove that comment from Pyrope's talkpage, refactor it, or add an additional comment saying that I was overstrong and I apologise? SilkTork *^YES! 11:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you weren't you are a stirring troublemaker trying to ressurect a debate, for no other reason but baiting. That debate was concluded 10 months ago, and has been amply and fairly discussed on that page by many including sitting Arbs,none of who seemed to feel as you do. You leave your baiting comments [7] where they are for the Arbs to see them. This is just the sort of baiting and trolling that has recently been discussed on ANI. Giano (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How would you like me to handle this Giano? I can feel that you are upset, and I do not wish to escalate matters. I assure you that it was not my intention to bait you. That is not what I do. I have views on you, and I expressed those views to other people. The intention was not to upset you. The comments were not intended for your eyes. The intention was to support other people who have come into contact with you. I can see and I understand that my views were expressed rather strongly, and for that I do apologise. I'm unclear now if you'd like me to leave the comment on Pyrope's talkpage as is, remove it, adjust it, or place an additional comment on that page apologising. Unless directed otherwise, I will assume the best action is to remove the comment, and I will do that. SilkTork *^YES! 12:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you've added a comment that you'd like me to leave the comment as it is. That is what I'll do. SilkTork *^YES! 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

After conflict:::::Are you unaware that if you plaster something on the internet that other people may just possibly see it? You leave your baiting and trolling exactly where it is. One thing I do do is colaborate on pages very well, in fact Architecture of Aylesbury the place where I suspect your current behaviour stems was a collaboration with (funnily enough a 'Crat), your attempting to cut that page in half was thwarted by specialist editors informing you politely that you were wrong in your beleifs. I ignored your behaviour then, as I have done for a long time with Mattisse's, I shall not continue to do so. You and Mattisse seem to make a fine pair with many similarities - very many in fact. I wish you joy of each other, but don't spread lies about me to justify your own behaviour. Giano (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been unwise in my comments in connection with Buck House. I admit that, and offer apologies. My intention, however, was not to annoy or upset or bait people. My intention was to offer support to Mattisse who does good work on Wikipedia, but gets into problems. We were doing fine. She had been invited back to work on FARC, and she returned to the Buck House article. You were not happy with her edits and left a comment on her RFC. She was disturbed by that. As part of the discusion - in which my suggestion was that she walk away from the conflict - I made some comments about the way you behave. The way you behave is a matter of record. You are currently under restrictions in your behaviour. However, it was an unwise comment. I made it in a personal conversation, but I do accept that given the circumstances in which I set up the dialogue with Mattisse that it was not the best thing I could have done. I also admit that on a personal level I over-reacted to some comments I read on the Buck House talkpage, and in a message of support for another editor I was a bit strong and a bit too sweeping. It was not a considered message - it was a spur of the moment thing, generated by sympathy for a different point of view. I actually don't like InfoBoxes, but it seemed to me that the editor was making some good points, but those points were not genuinely being considered, and that he was being ganged up on. On reflection, looking back, I can see that I over-reacted. I was poor in my reading and loose in my comments. There are times when we say things unwisely and not well. This was one of those times. I regret making that sweeping comment because I see that I have included editors who I respect, and others whom I have little dealings with. It was, as I say, more of a gut reaction than a considered reflection, and based on seeing comments like "a pokemon type card" and "Do not feed the trolls" and reading the observation by Bretonbanquet. I had just ingested some of your comments toward Mattisse, and then I read that, and it all rolled up in my mind. This is not an excuse, but an explanation.

However, I stand by what I did with Architecture of Aylesbury. I had intended at some point going back to that article and working on it with Pevsner by my side. Though I did get the Pevsner, I never did the work because I felt that it might just stir up problems. My hope was that someone else would do the work needed. There are plenty of other areas of Wikipedia in which to work, and I don't wish to cause conflict where none is needed.

My intention was not to stir things up anywhere on Wikipedia. And my intention now is to try to calm things down. I hope you see that I am making that effort. SilkTork *^YES! 13:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I will accept your appology and allow this matter to drop. You are welcome to edit with Pevsner "by your side", I have too have Pevsner's "Buckinghamshire" and as you will note from some of his comments he's not the most impartial of architectural commentators - I notice you use several times the words "Buck House" to refer to Buckingham Palace. - how amusing [8]. Perhaps it is time people stopped hacking pages to pieces without knowing what they are talking about - then others would become more understanding Giano (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"he's not the most impartial of architectural commentators" - that is part of the charm of certain commentators! I do think you have that element in your own writing, and you would write an entertaining architectural guide. Where we clash is that I feel your approach is not always the best suited to the more pedestrian needs of an encyclopedia - especially in the current climate of inline citation being such an important element of an article. My personal views on your behaviour I would not normally present to you. I would not decieve you into thinking that I applaud your outbursts, nor that I feel you are justified in making them, but I do not feel it appropriate or helpful to acquaint you with my feelings. I honestly had not expected you to follow my edits via my involvement with Mattisse. I am embarressed by this incident, as I feel I may have by a couple of silly remarks, undone some very positive work with Mattisse. However, nothing is ever broken completely as long as people are ready to talk. Thanks for getting back to me. SilkTork *^YES! 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So very sorry

Please forgive me. I am sorry you got dragged into this, out of the goodness of your heart, and that you had to delete our chat page, just as I was beginning to have a little trust. You were kind to me. I thank you from my deepest being. I did have reservations and did express in the beginning that something along these lines would happen, but I did not think the target would be you and the ultimate result would be the deletion of our chat page. I knew they would follow me around and note my every entry and it seemed too good to be true that we could have a quiet place on wiki, even though you though we could. I so wish. So very sorry! I guess this leaves me with nothing again. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't collecting diffs one of your specialities too, Mattisse? Giano (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to learn how to collect diffs, as I know I must learn to defend myself. I have not mastered it. I wish I had a helper to teach me as Bishonen helps you. But I don't. Sorry Giano, but I am really a nobody and now worth this amount of animosity from you. FAR's are encouraged on the FAC talk page. I did what I thought was right. I am sorry this has upset you so. I did what I thought the editors of FAC and FACR wanted. I will do that no longer. I no longer participate in FAC and will not in the future. Almost all my problems stem from FAC and FACR, so my self-banning should help. Most of my copy editing was formerly FAC articles, but no longer. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse, FARCing a page matters not, your arrogant removal of important, but easily checked, factual information does because you can't be bothered to look it up (just look atthe example mentioned immediatly above). Even now, you have to make snide comments and aspertions about Bishonen et al - perhaps you need to look at what it is about you that angers people. You play little and sad now - it fools no one. The second you are off the hook the will be exactly the same. Giano (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Giano, I fully acknowledged that I know nothing about Buckingham Palace, and that is why I though others could easily come up with the information. My comments about Bishonen were not intended to be "snide"; you chose to interpret them that way. I do not understand this. We are from different worlds, and I do not understand yours, nor why you see that as "snide". It seems there is nothing I can say. You win. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You did say I could edit the article, so I did add the references I could find, which were the same as the others added also. I corrected the referencing format. I was trying to help although you do not see it that way. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ary you able to help me or am I all alone?

What do you think? I knew that whould follow me and destroy the chat. Is is all over now? I desparately need help. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm standing by you Mattisse. I will set up a new space for us to chat. SilkTork *^YES!

Trix World

I had proposed a speedy delete on the redirect of "Trix World" to "Trix (cereal)" on the basis that it is an unlikely misspelling. You deleted the db tag on the basis that "Trix World" is an advertisement for Trix cereal. Yet the Trix article itself makes no mention of this fact. In order for the redirect to be valid, the target of the redirect should give the user SOME idea of why their search led them to the page it did. I.e., if I type "Trix World" in the search box, I should expect to find the words "Trix World" on the page I end up on. Don't you think? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If we delete Trix World then someone else will likely create it. The redirect is in place to direct a person searching for Trix World to the nearest article - Trix (cereal) is the nearest article, and once there a person can be satisfied by what they read, or can add to the article by providing information about Trix World in the most appropriate place. If there is no reponse to the search for Trix World the person is left nowhere - our software might offer Twin World as a possible target, but that's it. The person may then leave disatisfied, or may decide to create a new article called Twin World which might then be subjected to an AfD the result of which may be to redirect to Trix (cereal).

"Redirects are cheap" is a common phrase on WP. So common in fact that it has become a redirect to Wikipedia:Redirect - though when you get there, there is no explanation of the phrase, nor even the use of the word "cheap". So - redirects are cheap. And useful. And a redirect that is a mispelling of a word or phrase is appropriate, as people do mispell all sorts of words - The Beetles for example. Indeed, a redirect for a misspelling has a special tag: {{R from misspelling}}. The speedy rule is for "implausible typos", such as The Baatles. I hope this helps. SilkTork *^YES! 13:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnegans Wake GA Review

Hi SilkTork,

firstly thank you very much for taking the time to write your in depth and insightful GA review of Finnegans Wake. I've spent the last couple of weeks digesting your comments, and trying to reconcile them with my own reticence toward giving a "straightforward" and "authoritative" plot synopsis of the book; something which even its most erudite experts cannot do. However, your point is well taken, that Wikipedia is intended for the first time reader as much as for the expert, and I've tried to compromise as much as possible, pretty much along the lines you laid down in your review.

• I've cut (nearly) all critical commentary from the plot synopsis and moved it into a newly expanded response and themes section. However, starting this new section will require expansion with a few more critical comments to give it better shape, and I plan to do this over the next couple of days.

• Removed weasel words and unreferenceable claims as much as possible, but still need to track down a cite for the Irish mythology stuff. However, if I can't get a cite, I think it could be cut without too much of a loss for the article.

• I've added a publication history section, although it might have too much detailed information at the moment. I'm considering how best to manage it - I'd love to hear any of your suggestions, if possible.

• Trying to trim the Allusions/References section - my least successful endeavour so far. Essentially, this used to be a list, and in order to compromise (keep other editors' contributions), I just transformed the list into prose and tried to link and ref it up as best I could. However, I'm not really behind all of the content, so I'm not sure if I should be ruthless and cut most of the content, or just organise it more coherently? Please advise.

• The last matter is the lead, which I've expanded in the aim of including all the main points of the article, but I'm still not happy with it. I don't have much experience writing leads - could you perhaps advise where I need to take it form here?

Thank you once again for your very fair and constructive review, I hope I'm somehow managing to move the article in the direction of your suggestions. peace Warchef (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Pub

Input!

As the creator of the task force, what do you want in it? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 11:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks! 1) Location of the pub. 2) Date. 3) Type - Brewpub, Pub chain, Independent

Perhaps if it is a chain, then which chain, like Mitchells & Butlers, etc.

I need to get back and do some work on pubs! Thanks for the nudge! SilkTork *^YES! 11:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Take a look, I am working on some advanced features. This is the basic box as of now. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's looking great! I had considered types of beer, but that way lies madness. The template will end up with a long meaningless list of every sort of beer served at the pub, and some people will reduce the list, and others will add to it, and before you know where you are you have an edit war, or a long template filled with a list of styles of beer that nobody cares about or will read. If the pub is known for serving a particular beer, that will come out in the article. So what I am saying is remove the beerstyle section and salt the earth! Thanks SilkTork *^YES! 11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cottage garden

Hi SilkTork, Cottage garden has about doubled in size (and quality, I think) since it was first submitted. Any more thoughts? Before I tackle the references/footnotes, I wanted to be sure I go in the right direction. The options are 1. To follow the original approach, which was footnotes that only mentioned author and page number - and then I would add a link to each book in the reference section to the Google book. 2. Going with a Google book link and full book citation in the footnote for the first mention of each book. The first might be more traditional for print research, the second seems to be more common on Wikipedia. I'll do the second if you think that would be better. Either way, they need some cleanup - I'm just waiting so I do it right and just once. Thanks for all your feedback. Whether it reaches GA or not, I think it's now one of the best articles in WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. First Light (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet, but wanted to make a comment on refs. For GA it doesn't matter what format you use, just as long as there is citing. It's in FA that they are anal about such matters - and even then, it's usually in the head of the FA reviewer, as the criteria do allow a mix of linked and non-linked citations. The most useful form of citing is 100% the sort that takes people directly to the page via Google Books if Google Books has it - if it doesn't, then no worries. There is absolutely no need to have a consistent approach to sourcing. If you can Google Book 60%, but not the other 40% then do the 60% and every reader, except those with obsessive compulsive disorder, will love you for it. Also, Wiki guidelines do encourage linking: Wikipedia:Cite#Links_and_ID_numbers. SilkTork *^YES! 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That does look good! I've not yet read it all through, but what I skimmed was impressive. I'll settle down to it tomorrow night and give it a decent assessment. Nice one! SilkTork *^YES! 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I think I'll take the first approach and link to as many Google Books as there are available. What about a reference that is repeated several times, using different pages? Link to the Google Book the first time only? Or? Thanks. First Light (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to link to each page. I tried once doing a named ref (so they would be grouped in the Ref section), and doing a link for each page, but they all came out the same page so I had to go back and undo it: [9]. I love Google Books - it's a huge and wonderful project which has transformed our work on Wikipedia. So much easier now! SilkTork *^YES! 00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to Google Books for each page, and caught some duplicates to the same page, where I could use named references. Yes, Google Books makes referencing a wonder. And research, too, when you live hours away from a decent library. First Light (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cottage Garden

Thank you for all of your suggestions, edits, prodding, and patience. They all helped the article improve, which is the purpose of this exercise after all. Even though my userpage might give the impression of patting myself on the back enough to fall on my face, the process of improving articles is really where the joy lies. I do appreciate how much energy you give to the GA review process—it's uncommon. There is surely more to do with the article, and I hope your suggestions help the next editor who comes along. First Light (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Tree Shaping

I have been working around this Hort and Garden area and related bio's, Tree ShapingGrafting bio's John Krubsack, Axel Erlandson David Nash Can you give me suggestions for improvements, and look over my shoulder sometime? Slowart (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Grafting information is good. And you have used references, which is great. I changed the section heading back to what it was because that was more appropriate for the article title, and more helpful for the average reader looking for general information on grafting. Also, we don't link in titles. We either link the first use of the title word (or phrase) in the section, or use a {{main}} template. I put into the Grafting#Approach section a Google Books link. These are useful links, as they take readers directly to the page on-line. It's always worth doing a search on Google Books. I have put a {{find}} tag on the Talk:Grafting page which creates a link straight to a Google Books search for "grafting".

Tree shaping - when linking to a section within an article, we use #. So you'd have "name of article"#"name of section". As in Grafting#Approach.

You're making a good attempt to sort out David Nash (artist) - though you may have taken away some useful material in relation to his education. It would be useful to WP:Wikify the article with sections and internal links.

All in good a good start, though I note that your interest appears to hover around the someone contentious subject of tree shaping. Take care, because there appear to be deep issues there. Look at the Talk:Tree shaping page and read through the dispute section. As you are entering an area in dispute it would be worth pointing out that people have sometimes created what are termed Wikipedia:Sock puppets when there are disputes in order to create the impression they have more support for their views. You'll need to take care with your editing to ensure you don't get accused of being a sock puppet! I'll take a look at your editing now and again. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all that! Great I'll be adding Google books to my tool belt. And I'll be hyper sensitive to avoid possible sock pup charges. I tried but haven't found where I may have dropped useful material in relation to David Nash's education. Your Tree shaping talk was dead on, Bravo ! I hope to see that page progress with more input from more esteemed editors like yourself.Slowart (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Plant and Garden wiki

Hi ST, thanks for the note - now that is an interesting policy for wikipedia :-) But actually, I understand why they have it, I've seen many new wikis come and go fairly quickly. As far as wikis go, I would argue that a couple of years of consistent growth to thousands of pages puts it in the category of those with a substantial history of stability. Also, since the second stipulation for a number of editors I think is geared towards reliability of data, I would like to say that my *only* sources so far are wikipedia, or the articles from scratch using one of 3 prominent plant encyclopedias. So the information is quite sound, and that I keep an eye on every single edit. So although it is a wiki in format, up to now it's not really been functioning that way to a great degree, instead it's been more like a CMS like joomla or postnuke. I am (as you can see) trying to find some additional editors, and think the difference between the information on the articles written from scratch is quite important. Wikipedia is not a how-to and I think some of the articles are letting a fair bit of how to cultivate the plant, etc into the articles, which is obscuring the difference a little. Plants.am is meant as a purist site, with articles on how to grow plants. That is how all the new articles are being written and old ones rewritten. I think the wikipedia link is a very good compliment of info for those wanting to know about a plants usage, history, etc, and the Plants.am info is an excellent compliment for those reading wikipedia who might be curious on how to grow the plant... so I hope that with this kind of suggested guideline (the word "avoided" is not so strong), you'd agree that Plants.am is arguably in a gray/safe zone... --RaffiKojian (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sergio Zavattieri

I think the article as it stands is a valid speedy. The content does not evidence a status that meets inclusion requirements and the links given are not ones that meet notability requirements either, being commercial sites that add content to pad out the ads and/or user-generated. There are a regular succession of such articles with such links and they inevitably get deleted, so a speedy saves using further community time. However, I believe that admin actions should always be subject to a second opinion, especially speedy deletes, so I have no objection if you feel it would be in the project's interest to run it through a full AfD. If so, please list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Ty 06:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

References v bibliography

Dude, this is completely silly: adding an empty notes section and demoting what are real references to a bibliography makes the article worse not better. And it totally doesn't fall under the edit summary "Clean up using AWB". Hesperian 00:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• This one is even worse; you've effectively moved the reference into the further reading section, rendering a referenced article unreferenced! Oh, except that the further reading section is renamed and demoted to a subsection of the references, which gives the false impressions that all that extra reading has been used as references when writing the article. Do you understand that "references" are not just any old relevant text; they are the texts that have been verified as supporting the article content? Hesperian 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem dude! I was getting the articles ready for some inline cites. There are various ways that people list reference sources. The most useful are inline cites. Books listed at the end of an article are OK though - certainly better than nothing! Have you discovered Google Books yet? That's great, and that's the way I'm going. As Wikipedia develops so we discover more and more helpful ways of doing things. I hope to get around to putting inline Google Books cites in those articles soon, and then you'll have a clearer idea of what I am doing. Regards. SilkTork *^YES! 08:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just dropped an inline Google Books cite into Georgiana Molloy. There is no one agreed way of setting up the references section - as you are uncomfortable with the term "Bibliography" I have called the book list "Source texts" - but you are - of course - free to change this to your preferred terminology. There's no need to alert me to what you change it to, unless you want to. I'm really easy about it all! Regards again. SilkTork *^YES! 08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What I care about is that we maintain the distinction between the texts that were used to write and/or verify the article, and the texts that weren't. Hesperian 11:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am aware that some editors like to "double cite" a text. That is, it is given an inline cite, and then it is additionally listed as a reference text. It is not an approach I personally use so I don't set things up that way, though I have nothing against that method, and can see benefits (experts in the field can see at a glance which texts have been used to build the article, and can see if a significant text is missing). It was not my intention to reduce helpfulness, simply to prepare the articles for accepting inline cites. Forgive me if I blurred the texts in that article, I was doing a quick AWB sweep in preparation for coming back to them later. If my edit misplaced something then please simply put it back. I thank you for your consideration in bringing this to my attention, and I will look to see how I can avoid making such slips in future. SilkTork *^YES! 11:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant at all. I too, do not like to double cite my texts. This is a different issue. Your edit to Peter Good merged the non-inline sources in the References into the Further reading section. When I put an text into the References section, I am affirming that the text supports the article content. Either I have used that text as a source for material in article, or I have explicitly verified the article content against the text. When I put a text into a Further reading section, I am merely saying "This text is about the topic of this article; if you want to explore this topic further, you might like to read it." There is no suggestion that that I have read that text myself—I probably haven't—and there is no suggestion that it supports the article content—it may not. The distinction between References (i.e. supporting material) and Further reading (i.e. relevant material) is absolutely fundamental to sourcing; it you don't get the difference, you are the wrong person to be cleaning up these sections. Hesperian 12:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for clarifying that. And I'm sorry my explanations have not been clear enough for you. SilkTork *^YES! 13:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now added some inline cites to Peter Good and restored the ref section I put in earlier. I haven't removed the texts you put there, but as you see, they are now listed twice. I hope this demonstration of my intention is clear enough - however, if you are still uncertain please get back in touch. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 14:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression a generally accepted alternative is Notes with reflist, and References for the source books - I am sure it is in a MOS thing somewhere - creating alternative eccentric terminology is imho worse - source texts / bibliography are not a goer in my neck of the woods SatuSuro 08:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

btw the carl spitzweig pic is close to my reality i had to steal it SatuSuro 08:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look, and I think you are right. I've had people over the years tell me they do it one way or another, and it does vary over time and according to who is speaking. It's good when we're all working in the same direction so I'm happy always to go with common sense and consensus. I have no preference of one term over another. These essays attempt to make sense of it: Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Verification methods, Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style - though clarity and uniformity of approach doesn't spring out from them! One thing that has remained consistent over the years, and is clear in the guidelines, is that there is no one dominant approach, and that as long as it clear what is happening there shouldn't be a problem. What I like is that articles are cited, and that they are cited directly to the appropriate text and page, and preferably to an online source such as Google Books. As long as that happens I'm not that fussed what the section is called, as long as it makes sense. There was a time when books by an author were called ==Works== and books about an author/topic were called ==Bibliography==, though having just glanced through those guidelines this doesn't appear to be the case any more. It seems that currently the books about the topic are called ==References==, though this then clashes with the use of ==References== for footnotes, which is also recommended in the guidelines, and has been for some years! As I said above - I am content with whatever style others are happy with, and quite content for people to make ammendments to the ref sections to suit the needs of the article. All I was doing with my AWB sweep was preparing the articles to accept inline citations, and for these citations to be listed apart from the general works and external links on the topic (though I notice that I didn't create an ==External links== section as I normally would during such a sweep). If I have made an edit you are not happy with then please simply make the ammendment to whichever style you feel is most appropriate. In the meantime I will study the guidelines carefully and hope to use a format in future that causes least offence to the most people! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnegans Wake ref - quick question

Good morning; things are moving along quickly at FW, i think it'll be ready very soon. However, i have one quick question:

In the GA review you mention that you feel the statement "The challenge of compiling a definitive synopsis of Finnegans Wake lies not only in the opacity of the book's language, but also in the radically unique approach to plot which Joyce employed." should be referenced. However, isn't it born out in the rest of the paragraph, which lists a number of referenced arguments discussing the book's experimental approach to plot, and i think this argument is prevalent and well-referenced throughout the article as a whole. or, is the claim that needs referencing that this approach is "unique" - if this is the case would a minor rewording such as :"The challenge of compiling a definitive synopsis of Finnegans Wake lies not only in the opacity of the book's language, but also in the radical approach to plot which Joyce employed."? thanks :) Warchef (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would be wary of "unique", especialy given the existence of Tristram Shandy and its acknowledged impact on FW - [10]. Radical is acceptable as that implies an extreme approach to plot rather than one that doesn't exist anywhere else. SilkTork *^YES! 11:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks a million for all your help and sage advise, I can honestly say that the article is infinitely the better for having gone through the GA process, and especially for having received your excellent analysis. It was a pleasure :) peace Warchef (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes things work out well, and sometimes they don't. In this case we worked well together, and I'd put that down to your profound knowledge of the subject, an excellent work ethic, an ability to actually write well (unfortunately not that common on Wikipedia!), and your gentle patience with my petty quibbles. What are you going to work on next? SilkTork *^YES! 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse question

• I guess I can ask you questions here. This just came up on my watchlist: User talk:Geoff Plourde/oldtalk. Did you know this guy? He had a tricky signature and was with AMA, I think, and Esperanza. He was supposed to be a mentor, and our new mediator for an ongoing mediation a couple of years ago, after our old one vanished forever over a weekend. He ended up signing an RFC against me after one of the other two certifying it got blocked on his way to being banned. But...well, I won't go into all the details and how it all ended up. But who is he now? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I know nothing about him. Seems a fairly normal user by looking at his contributions and reading his userpage. SilkTork *^YES! 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why does the "e" in his Geo (at the top of User talk:Geoff Plourde/oldtalk) lead to User:Geo.plrd/Esperanza, which is what I first remember him from, and that is at least a good six months before the current User:Geo.plrd redirected to User:Geoff Plourde's edit history begins (which is something like June 2007). NOT THAT I CARE! But if you look at my first RFC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse and look down to who signed it as a "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" on 29 November 2006 (UTC), you will see Geo, with the redirects to Esperanza and to User:Geo.plrd etc. The other three people signing it where all found a couple months later to be sock puppets: User:999, User:Ekajati and User:Hanuman Das (who withdrew, and then Geo took his place).

This is by way of saying that if I was a jerk when you first ran into me, it was because this was a little bit of what I was contending with, unknowingly. You are the first person I am actually feeling trust for at Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He's not hiding anything. He mentions his old account quite openly on his userpage: User:Geoff Plourde, and says that he behaved badly, and that he's now matured. I find the mention of editing Conservapedia interesting, given what Wikipedia has to say about it - but it's appropriate that Wikipedia has a range of viewpoints in order for us to be comprehensive, and to ensure we strike a fair balance. I find it intriguing that some people have Young Earth creationism views in this day and age, but as long as they are open to discussion about these views rather than imposing them, then that's fine by me. I accept and embrace that people hold different views to my own, and I have tolerance for all views, except those of violence and oppression. SilkTork *^YES! 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Devon hedge

I've reverted your redirect from Devon hedge, if you want to make the move could you please ask for consensus first? The Devon hedge is an important characteristic of Devon and a biodiversity haven, important enough even to be mentioned in the Biodiversity Action Plan for Devon. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Platypleura divisa

Hi, SilkTork. Sorry to bother you again. You might want to review the edit history of Platypleura divisa. It seems we have, in our previous discussion, just delayed the argument. I'll keep my comments to a minimum as the history is clear and the point Stemonitis makes is a good one. I do wish Rotational would stop accusing me of stalking. I had watchlisted this article and had meant to get around to putting a taxobox on it, but I have next to no knowledge in arthropods and didn't know where to turn for current taxonomy. Anyway, I thought since you had been involved in the previous discussion, you might appreciate a link to the new incident. I certainly don't like Rotational's tone when he's defending his articles like that. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Buddy Holly

Hello SilkTork, I suggest that the "GA" review of the Buddy Holly article be placed on hold until the consensus taking place in said article's talk page is concluded. Reason being that the overall content of the article may change upon the conclusion of said proposal. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but my intention is to write up the article to GA standard and then nominate it. I'm not reviewing it for GA myself. SilkTork *^YES! 08:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello from Mattisse

It can't remember where are chat place is, so I am posting here. I am currently sick of Wikipedia again, as there is an editor that follows me around with mostly negative comments. I try to ignore him and not comment back. But today it has gotten to me and I am sick of it. Why do some editors follow me around, commenting on another's talk page after I do, and even commenting on my user page after someone else posts there. Why do some editors bother to do this, as it makes my life on Wikipedia so much uglier for no reason? How to stop an editor who feels compelled to do this? I have no contact with him directly and wish none. None of this is constructive. Is there a way to stop this? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Vegetarianism and beer

On February 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vegetarianism and 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Vegan wine

Hello, veganism and vegetarianism are not identical concepts, and the term vegan wine is well established. Therefore, your move of the article Vegan wine to "Vegetarianism and wine" was not appropriate, and IMHO definitely not "clearer" as your edit comment said. Therefore, I have reverted your name change. If you wish to change the name of the article please bring it up first on Talk:Vegan wine and give an additional indication on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine. In general, non-controversial name changes should always be discussed first. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Response: Talk:Vegan_wine#Name change. SilkTork *^YES! 15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Your protege" (Mattisse)

While I am sure some may have beleived her: "I believe it is best that I desist completely from any involvement at FAC or FACR" I, of course, never did [11] What a co-incidence for her - both pages being a double whammie, that must have taken some searching! Giano (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I love the term "protege" - though it doesn't actually apply. Mattisse put my name down on a list of people she would be willing to have as a mentor. I have not accepted the role, though I have developed a relationship with her as I feel she is a willing and well meaning person who has assisted the project and has much more to offer. She has had some difficulties, and through those difficulties has acquired a negative reputation which has resulted in a loss of confidence. My aim is to build her confidence. As part of that confidence building my feeling is that she should be working away from areas where people pounce on her because of her reputation rather than her edits. My feeling is that she should spend some working in areas without conflict and acquiring a positive reputation as someone who is able to negotiate her way through difficulties. As such I am grateful to you for pointing out the edit above. There will no doubt be an explanation for it, but without knowing that explanation it does seem in the circumstances to be an unwise edit. Hopefully Mattisse will be able to clarify. SilkTork *^YES! 11:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have sent you an email explaining. All I did was make a comment on two of the three articles left on the page entitled Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles that had no comments/review next to them. SandyGeorgia has suggest to you that I get involved in other unreviewed FA and those three articles were the only ones I could find that were unreviewed. One of the article, Restoration spectacular was fine in my eyes so I made no comment. My comments have no effect, do not move the articles further along some chain, and there is no Wikipedia policy/standard I have broken. If an article of Giano's was one of those two, then perhaps he will take the opportunity to add citations as required by the Featured article criteria, and improve the article as required anyway, not by me. I did not make the rules. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people)

I'm looking at the rewrite you did on 30 September 2007 and have a couple of questions about the nutshell as your language still stands today. You added "Notability criteria is also needed for a person to be included in a list or general article; however, this criteria is less stringent."

I don't see this supported in the article and am wondering what you used as a source for this edit or the nutshell.

Are you saying that if a name is used anywhere in an article that it needs to pass WP:PEOPLE? For example, an article may mention a person's parents, for example with Woodrow Wilson neither parent has an article and is unlikely to ever have one.

It seems WP:PEOPLE for list members is well defined. No problem there other than it creates a problem for list that define their own criteria such as List of passengers on the Mayflower where not every person is "notable" but should not be excluded from this list either.

Last we get to "this criteria is less stringent" which is presumably the wiggle room that allows for Woodrow Wilson's parents and the non-notable Mayflower passengers. This is not supported in the body of the article. I'm not sure if your intent behind "less stringent" means a person needs to be somewhat notable but not fully so or that it's ok that a list or article contain some entirely non-notable people, or both.

The reason this came up now is an editor's revert of someone adding a name to an embedded list (it was the list of notable residents for a town) stating they were deleting as the person did not have a WP article. Thus started a conversation and as a result I looked around and realized that the rules for embedded lists are not as carefully defined as those for standalone lists.

I'm planning on some edits to WP:PEOPLE plus WP:EMBED to clarify some of the points I brought up above. My play is to align the embedded list guidelines with the existing standalone list guidelines other than it's allowed to use the word "notable" in an embedded list title. That's why I want to make sure I understand your nutshell and WP:PEOPLE well. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a while back so difficult to recapture all the thinking and all the sources. However, the part "Notability criteria is also needed for a person to be included in a list or general article" comes from the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people section which was present at the time and is still present. The "however, this criteria is less stringent." part I can't clearly recall and may have come from WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NNC, WP:ONEEVENT, various merge to decisions in AfD and other such sources - certainly I don't recall any objections to that particular edit, though other aspects of the edit were challenged and had to be talked through before being finally accepted. It's always appropriate to challenge aspects of any guideline to see if they still make sense, have consensus, and are clear. As you point out, "criteria is less stringent" is problematic and unsupported; the statement needs to be challenged and clarified. All mentions of people in articles or lists need to be cited to reliable sources - that part perhaps needs firming up in the guideline. In addition, consideration needs to be given to the level of notability required to be included in a list or mentioned in an article. Family members of a notable person appear in an article on that notable person even when the criteria for a standalone article is not met, so by usage the "less stringent" comment is upheld. It just needs a little more clarity. SilkTork *^YES! 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - it looks like we are on the same page. I also had not seen the WP:AADD article before; it looks like good reading. So many articles, so little time. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 21:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 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) 00:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Happy, Happy New Father! A daughter I assume? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, a daughter! Seems that's what I make. I only have one son and four daughters! SilkTork *^YES! 14:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi SilkTork, I'm sorry to see that you've pulled out of dispute resolution although you're probably wise in managing your ulcers! I hope this problem will merit your attention. I think that Rkitko felt the arbitration talks which you managed had fizzled out, and he returned to his former habit of following my contributions and changing them to his interpretation of the MoS. Even worse, he made an ANI out of it and stirred up a whole lot of editors who had nothing better to do. My attempt at reverting the edits got me a 24-hour block for "edit warring". I feel pretty bitter about this, since I follow my old policy of not changing the layout of any article I did not start. However, some editors are not interested in extending the same courtesy. I now find that Rkitko and a few of his symphatisers are altering articles before I've even finished writing them and riding roughshod over 'in use' templates - see the latest article Katey Walter which I started last night and has already come in for a fair amount of hacking-about. I really am at a loss and would welcome some positive input. ciao Rotational (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and let you know. SilkTork *^YES! 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I do apologise Rotational that I haven't had the time to work with you on putting forward a proposal to look into the use of lines in headings. It is on my list of things I'd like to do, but - to be realistic - I may not get around to doing it for some time. There are a number of other things on my list, and some have a higher personal priority, yet are also delayed. It would certainly be quicker if you went ahead and did it. I would support you. You would need to put together a proposal and put it on the talkpage of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and then advertise it in various places, such as on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, Wikipedia:Community portal, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), with a link to your proposal on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. In the meantime it would really assist the proposal if you refrained from implementing it before it has consensus. You are annoying some editors who would then speak out against the proposal and muddy the water by saying you are disruptive. SilkTork *^YES! 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind passing this on to another mediator, linking the relevant discussions? Thanks, cygnis insignis 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the message I left for Rotational. I'm talking about a proposal to remove the lines on second level section headings. This is not a mediation issue. It's not an issue I feel strongly about, but I do see the sense of Rotational's observation that the lines do give a somewhat primary school feel to an article. It is a somewhat unusual layout convention, and one that is not followed by most publications, including our nearest rivals citizendium, encyclopedia.com, britannica.com, etc. It is unfortunate that Rotational's manner of dealing with this issue is to be confrontational about it, and to enrage editors, but that doesn't detract from the main point of the issue itself, which is that we have by default and inertia landed ourselves with a layout style that is aesthetically and stylistically less attractive than it would be without the lines. SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see above that congratulations are in order, and my sympathy if it relates to your first example. I'm asking to move this on because it would obviously be a very low priority in comparison. I have not misunderstood your message, I'm hoping that a solution to a problem going back some eighteen months can be realised. It has been suggested, with supporting evidence, that this has been going longer than that; I suspect it will return even after the impending indef block. It is for this reason that I have proposed that such a block be avoided, and that he is correctly engaged by the community. I can show numerous examples of how casual comments regarding aesthetics of formatting, bikeshedding in comparison to the more substantive issue, have been used by the user to endorse an ongoing campaign of disruption and vendetta. It is the perfect model for how to wage such a campaign and engage in personal attacks.

The term 'mediator' is one you used when you decided to initiate the process, though I believe that the scope should have been mediation between 'Rotational' and the community rather than virtually compelling a trusted and valuable user to engage in subpaged discussion. The user has advertised that 'mediation' in edit summaries in his recent expeditions to other areas of our document. So please forward this to another who you know and trust to bring about a resolution. Thanks, cygnis insignis 06:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have read both your messages several times and I'm still not clear on what you expect from me! I am rather tired and distracted at the moment, so forgive me if it's my fault in not being able to read properly.

I am not currently mediating anyone or anything. I acted briefly and unsuccessfully as a mediator between Rotational and Rkitko. There was a conflict between the two of them. The conflict remains, and I understand the reasons for the conflict and have sympathies with both parties. However, from out of the discussions that took place I indicated to Rotational that I would be prepared to assist him with putting forward some of his proposals as this might focus him away from the disruptive behaviour and toward consensus building. Though this grew out of an informal mediation process, it was not in itself a mediation process, but assistance from one Wikipedian to another, and the closest term one might apply to it might be mentoring - though that term in itself carries a formal baggage that I did not and still do not wish to place on this struggling donkey. I have expressed to Rotational that some of his ideas I don't like, and feel would not be accepted by the community, but that removing the ruler line from the H2 section header is one I do like, and that it would be interesting to explore it. So mediation has been left behind, but out of that came a personal commitment to assisting Rotational with a matter that I do have an interest in.

Given that background, what exactly is it you want me to do? Bear with me and try to explain yourself more fully. My understanding is that you feel that some form of formal mediation has taken place with files and assessments kept in a buff folder which I can hand over to some grey-eyed examiner. I can assure you that what happened was an informal process designed to assist two Wikipedians in conflict. Nobody was compelled to do anything, and I'm saddened that you got that impression.

To make it absolutely clear. I am NOT mediating. I have nothing to hand over. I do, however, have a personal (though minor) interest in the matter of the H2 heading, and I have made a informal commitment to Rotational to provide some assistance in that matter. My time on Wikipedia is currently limited, however I am reluctant to break a commitment.

I do not feel I can be of assistance to you. Though I may be misunderstanding what it is you want from me. If you have some form of interest in getting involved with any aspect of this matter, then please do so. You don't need my permission. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"To do" vs. "Tasks"

About the difference:

• To do list is for repetitive items that need doing continuously, such as rating articles, destubification etc
• Tasks list is for specific one-time projects plans, such as redoing the home page or an improvement drive for a particular article
• Current list is for "To Do" items that are being worked on by the community currently

The "to do" link does not point to the location you are speaking of, I believe you are mistaken in that. The community forum points to the Food & Drink community platform that was established last year.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 02:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

When I click on "Here are some tasks you can do:" it does take me to Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask.

It is part of the {{Tasks}} template that used to create the page. You might want to ask them. I actually have them backwards, the Tasks page should have the To do page stuff on it an the Tasks on the To do page. --Jeremy (blah blah) 09:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of the intention with this cleanup of the project page is to remove elements that can become (or already are) out of date, serve no immediate purpose, or are empty. Beer is not so busy that a suggestion for attention cannot be made on the talkpage, where others if they wish can then respond. If the project became so active that we had a number of one-off tasks, and where people were motivated to manually check on progress and maintain the to do list, then we could consider putting it back, but for the moment it's simply sitting there doing nothing. Well - it is doing something - it is saying that this project has nothing to do! If there are redundant, empty or out of date items on a project page it gives a bad appearance. When editing around Wikipedia I drop in on various projects to look for advice. I look at activity on the talkpage, but more especially I look at how well kept the main project page is. If a project page contains out of date material, then I have little confidence that I will get a quick or meaningful response.

What would be a reason, under the current circumstances, for having a To Do list on the project page which both reveals we have nothing to do, and which points to tasks away from the Beer project (thus taking potential members away from helping with beer matters)? SilkTork *^YES! 08:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I will answer your question with some questions to you:

1. What are you doing to generate traffic the project?
2. What are you doing to encourage participation once you get the visitors?
3. Instead of removing them, why do you not populate these things so people can help?

I am providing you tools that to encourage people to help on this subject, and you're not using them. I revamped your portal and project pages so to draw people in and you (as a group) haven't done anything with them. When is the last time you sent out a newsletter to the more than 100 people who claim membership? WHen did you last put an article on the portal? Instead of concentrating on removing useful stuff, use it. Be proactive instead of reactive. Drink Guinness, its good for you!

The problem with using the talk page is that it can be daunting to newbs, its like entering an ongoing conversation - awkward. Also, seeing the tone of some of the conversations there (remember our last one?) can discourage people from participating. If they see something on the front page that encourages them to be bold, that may give them the courage to make the small steps necessary to become full fledged contributors.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 09:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I have been going through some of the thinking process you indicate in your questions, and as part of that thinking is why I wish to make the project page more user friendly - both in terms of guiding people toward the areas where attention is most needed (such as the task page which, you may notice, I am, populating) and toward the sort of assistance people want when coming to a Project -"How do you lay out a beer style article?" "Where should I place information on my favourite beer?" "Should we have information on alcohol content?", etc. I take on board your comments about people not posting on talkpages, and also accept the criticism of the sometimes hostile nature of the beer project communications. I have twice dropped out of the project because it sometimes seemed to be mainly internal bitching! There are friendlier projects! But I keep coming back because beer is my favourite topic.

I have been giving some serious thought to a newsletter. And part of my thinking on that was to check with you if Food & Drink had a newsletter, and if so, considering having a section on it with Beer matters.

I have doubts about the participants list. A good number of people on the participants list haven't responded to any mails outs for ages; while a good number of people I know are very active on the project are not on the list. So updating the list is another thing on my to do list.

I have been only tangentially involved in the project recently. However, to encourage people, I have, for example, created {{BeerWelcome}} which I use occasionally.

I understand your questions, though I feel they are slightly misplaced, as I am actually trying to do something here, rather than simply let the project page stagnate and give the appearance of being neglected! And I have been fairly active and successful over the years in attracting people to the project and encouraging involvement. Unfortunately, due to some long-running issues within the project regarding matters such as the BJCP, and some users who have been fairly robust in their actions and comments, general membership involvement has declined. Poor ClockworkSoul has been trying very hard for some time to sort out and deal with one of these issues/editors. I haven't checked in on that for a while as it can suck one in to no material gain! But I do feel that the project might expand more if we could sort out some of these background issues. Sigh! SilkTork *^YES! 10:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Food does have a newsletter, but it hasn't gone out this year. Chris Tanner has been doing that, but real life has been intruding. I am trying to get P:Beer and P:Drink to featured portal status and maintain P:Food and P:Wine at their current FP status, which is tough since the Wine group doesn't wish to help out in any way. I have also been working silently to get the whole portal system mapped, there are literally dozens of templates that are not cataloged and no one is coordinating them.

This is why I have been trying to get all Food & Drink projects to work together. By cross pollinating the various projects and portals we can all help each other succeed. The overlap in the six drink projects (WP:Beer, WP:Wine, WP:Mixed Drinks, WP:Soft Drinks, WP:Coffee & Tea, WP:Pubs and WP:Bartending) is the best area to start and is why I created the Drinks portal. --Jeremy (blah blah) 11:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though I was initially very reluctant (hostile even) in regards to your attempts to co-ordinate Beer within Food & Drink, I have come round to accepting that notion. I think the main part of the initial reluctance was the manner in which I discovered it was done, and I was also taking my cue from Clockwork's reaction. Where we perhaps will depart is that I do not feel that Beer is totally a part of Food & Drink. I feel that the bulk of our articles come under Company, and some Company's approachs and guidelines are more suited to the Beer project than Food & Drink. However, I do see the benefit of a closer working relationship with Food & Drink and Company, and any other related or overlapping projects. I wish you luck with the portals. Even though I set up the Beer Portal, it's not an area that holds much interest for me. I can see from the page stats that it does pull in traffic (considerably more than the project page), so it is a worthwhile endeavor to get involved in. Perhaps a more obvious link to the Beer Project on the Beer Portal may be appropriate in directing people interested in beer to the Beer Project? I had to look hard to find it, and I feel most people would go to the Food & Drink page as that link is more prominent. SilkTork *^YES! 11:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I took care of that, I put it prominently after the portal introduction; I am going to do the same on all four portal pages. I am planning to reconfigure the associated wikiprojects sect as well to make it more easily read. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's very good. Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 08:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Graham Greene.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Graham Greene.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) 05:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Alcoholic beverages‎

Hi SilkTork. First, congratulations on the birth of your daughter (our most recent came in January). Beautiful picture.

Second, while I hope you're not offended by the use of rollback rather than revert, I do think it was called for.

This template has grown (certainly too much) over time with the input of many editors—without a peep from you since July 2007. When I suggested a redesign of the template in June of last year, I put a proposal up on the talk page and waited for (what turned out to be no) feedback.

There's nothing wrong with being BOLD, but as you pointed out on your user page, boldness needs to be followed up some degree of sensitivity—a sensitivity covered well in WP:BRD. While your overall criticism of the template certainly makes sense to me, the solution you've proposed to address it throws out the babies with the bathwater—and simply reasserting it as better than the current / previous version doesn't actually make any progress towards a solution that works for all users.

You have contributed much more than me (and most), especially in the alcoholic beverages field, so your thoughts are likely to be better reasoned and more thoughtful than many others. But that's no reason to boldly override the purpose for which the template has been constructed over time.

Sorry for the soapbox.

Regards, Bongomatic 09:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC) If you wish to reply, do so here—no need to use a talkback or other message on my talk page. I'll watch here.

Thanks for getting in touch. And, yes, it is a nice picture of Phocea - thanks!

You are right about the importance of discussion in matters like this. The exact sequencing of what people do (revert, spin, fart, then talk) is rather less important than that people do talk, and that they talk in a civil and reasonable manner with the best aims of Wikipedia in mind - which is what you are doing, so well done!

Having been involved over the years in big edits that have been reverted, I have sometimes found that progress can be made more quickly by having the edit live and in view and to invite objections and ammendments to that version rather than to return to the previous version and work through from there. People sometimes simply revert because there has been a big change, and/or some of their own (often well considered) work has now been removed. It can be an emotional response rather than a intellectual one. Then, after the human reaction comes the pause and the reflection, and the big edit is then genuinely considered. I have found that some editors cease talking when the page is returned to the way it was, because they have - albeit in the short term - achieved what they wanted. I can end up having a long, considered conversation with myself! Help:Reverting has changed over the years, though the sense still comes through that a revert should only be used to undo vandalism or a good faith but damaging edit. My experience has been that an editor who reverts quickly may sometimes not be one who is open to reasonable discussion - though your message here demonstrates you to be a reasonable person. I will also admit that I do sometimes respond to a revert with a revert of my own. Even though the main aim is to restore quickly to the edit version to be discussed, partly it is a poke back at someone who has poked me - so there is a human emotional response from me as well!

Anyway - now that you have reverted me, and I have reverted back, and - by the sounds of it - you have double reverted, let's get down to discussion! I'll pop over to the talk page of Template:Alcoholic beverages‎ and we can thrash out the best approach to the template. SilkTork *^YES! 15:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Medway Maritime Hospital

On March 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Medway Maritime Hospital, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)