Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

King Street

Hello ST. The idea of writing an article on King Street isn't in itself a bad one, far from it; an article that takes in consideration the historical development of the street and how its buildings were replaced and the economic and social role of the street through the street. Regarding the stubs, maybe the Grade II listed buildings could be redirected as they have in the listing a minor importance; but I feel that the Grade II* listed building articles, as they can easily be expanded and are part of a plan to provide articles to all Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol. While you may find some of those at the moment too stubby, they already provide some basic information: an image of the building, the dates of construction, the style and the material with an infobox. Also, my experience is an article has more chances to be expanded from a stub than if it is merged.--Aldux (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying about Grade II* and above - though discretion is advised regarding going straight in with a stub as there are thousands of such gradings, and some are no more than lamp posts. I agree that such highly graded items, even lamp posts, should be mentioned in an encyclopedia of our type, though perhaps putting them into some sort of context (such as Grade II* listed lamp posts - I believe there are several such lamp posts) is more helpful and immediately obvious to a general reader than an isolated stub.
In my experience, when an article is an isolated stub it develops unevenly to the parent as people do not add information to both articles. The thrust of much of WP:Not is that a topic which has limited growth potential is not a likely contender for a standalone - either the topic should not be on Wikipedia, or it should be dealt with as part of a larger article. I think the developmental potential of King Street, Bristol is clear - I am more dubious about some of the individual buildings, even with a II* grading. I would prefer to see the growth occur in one place with all people likely to add to the article landing on the same spot. 16 King Street, Bristol is II* isn't it? I've just had a look and there's nothing obvious out there from which one could build more than a paragraph. Wouldn't a section within King Street, Bristol work? Regards SilkTork *YES! 17:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind this, but I've contacted Rodw to invite him to provide an opinion, as he's propbably among the most knowledgeable editors on buildings in Bristol and Somerset.--Aldux (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Rodw has left a note on Talk:King Street, Bristol. From now on I'd advise to centralize the discussion there.--Aldux (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition. Needless to say, I’m impressed with your own recent focus on Kraków and the many improvements you made including among its sister articles. I wrote dozens of them about two years ago while attempting to have the city listed among the FA class articles. My nomination was shot down (read more about it on my User-page if you want). I will gladly help you with the particulars, since I was born and raised in Kraków and have great admiration for the place. Btw, what might be the source of your own interest in this subject I wonder? Cheers, Poeticbent talk 19:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked back at the previous applications for FA and GA status. Yes - there seemed to be a higher degree of personal opinion than usual in such reviews. It looks like people not normally involved in the FA and GA process felt they had to have their say, influenced by their personal thoughts on politics and use of language. Having said that, to be fair, the article wasn't ready at any point to be promoted, and the review process has helped the article to progress, so while there have been unfortunate comments made, there have also been useful comments. It can be a frustrating and tough process taking an article through a review, and people on both sides of the process can get wearied by it. Thankfully, most of the time it is a rewarding experience.
I came to the Krakow article via the GA process. I did the last review. I suggested improvements. When they weren't done I started to do them myself, and then closed the GA application as I had become too involved, and the article still required work. I committed myself at that stage to bringing the article to GA status. It has taken longer than anticipated because the more involved one gets the more work one sees needs doing! SilkTork *YES! 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Going back to working on Krakow I think that your first original idea of merging Budget of Kraków and Kraków City Council was excellent, but than, you changed your own approach and created plain redirects to Kraków#Governance instead. In the process, we lost the links to categories which used to be there, not to mention the whole bunch of data. Well, I think that there’s a place for such an article here, and so, I created Local government in Kraków based on these two former sister articles. My idea was partly inspired by similar articles listed under the Governance sections of other cities such as London, Brisbane, Adelaide, Belfast and so on. Check it out. --Poeticbent talk 18:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I have your Talk page on my Watchlist so let's do it here for convenience. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look. When reading that material earlier and merging it, I questioned the value to a general encyclopedia of a list of names of non-notable local councilors, and the same with the fine detail of the budget - the breakdown of costs of lighting, etc, is too specialised for a general interest encyclopedia. If people are interested in that level of detail they will go to the primary source for it. Having decided it was inappropriate material for Wikipedia, I removed it. Once it was removed the article was reduced to something less substantial than the Governance section in the parent article, so I redirected. If you recall, people have made comments in previous reviews of Kraków, regarding the quality of such sub-articles. My feeling is that the new article is not helpful, though, of course, am open to discussion on the topic. My argument would be that we are "editors", and as such we need to be selective of the material we put on Wikipedia. Regards SilkTork *YES! 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy to converse here. SilkTork *YES! 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I will say, I understand the desire to want to include such material. And this is not a simple black and white issue. The whole nature of what is appropriate for Wikipedia is constantly under discussion! SilkTork *YES! 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at Belfast City Council linked from under Belfast#Governance. All names of City Councillors are listed there. I agree that there's a room for expansion and/or further improvement at the Local government in Kraków; but, the idea is well exemplified already in other articles as well. Look at the sister article from under Brisbane#Governance where the Councillors are listed by their wards in a colorful table. The situation is even more extreme at London#Governance, where each and everyone of the 33 local authorities has its own sister article with even more data. -- Poeticbent talk
I don't think Brisbane or Belfast are good examples. Belfast is tagged with a need to clean it up. The nature of Wikipedia is that there will be plenty of examples of poor or doubtful quality articles. I am not against an article on the Local government in Kraków - I just think that at the moment we are not ready for it. I'd like to see a decent article, and I don't think that currently the lists of names and the highly detailed budget information makes for a decent article. My suggestion would be for us to first concentrate on tidying up Kraków and related articles -trimming and merging where neccessary, and then work from a base of strength and quality when creating new articles. I think that Kraków#Governance is a decent piece of information, and later that can be built upon to create a decent split. So it's not a case of never having Local government in Kraków, but a case of not having it in its current state. SilkTork *YES! 09:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Please give me a positive example of what you mean by a "decent split". I keep guessing what you mean by that, since most metropolitan cities probably have such sister articles in various shapes and sizes already. — Poeticbent talk 16:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I've just spent a big chunk of time looking through Category:Government by city and Wikipedia:GA#Geography_and_places, and I couldn't find anything decent. Not to say there isn't a decent local government article - it's just that the ones I looked at tended to have simple lists of councilors, etc. I began to feel I was spending my Wiki time on something that I wasn't enjoying, and I wasn't doing anything of value, so I stopped looking. My position is that I am not convinced that a list of names is either encyclopedic or of interest to the general reader. Nor am I convinced that information on the percentage of the budget of Kraków in 2006 that was spent on cleaning and lighting is encyclopedic or of interest to the general reader. I am prepared - at a later date - to help build an article on Kraków local government. But at this stage I think continuing to debate the issue is distracting from building Kraków. If you wish to keep such an article linked to from the main Kraków article then so be it. I feel it is unwise, but I'll not undo your work or anything like that. Keep well! I'll be approaching you soon to ask for your help, knowledge and opinion on Krakow! Regards SilkTork *YES! 18:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blue Pig

Hi Uncle G. The article you turned Blue Pig into is an interesting idea, and I have created a redirect to point to it - Blue Pig, Grantham. However, it is inappropriate for Blue Pig to point to an article on Grantham, as there are several pubs with the name Blue Pig, and the one in Grantham is not particularly more notable than the others: Google, Books, therefore a redirect of Blue Pig to an article on pub names seems more appropriate. Unless you have a continuing objection, I'll point Blue Pig back to Pub names. There may, of course, be other solutions to consider - and people may in future do other things with Blue Pig! Anyway - as it seems you have an interest in pubs, would you consider helping out on the pubs articles at WP:Pubs? SilkTork *YES! 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's each to their own, but your talkpage is difficult to navigate as it is so long. Be helpful to other users if you archived it.
And I note that you dislike disjointed conversations. I'm the same. What I tend to do is copy what has been written and paste it onto the other person's talkpage along with my response - that way they are informed of my response by the Wikipedia talkpage software, and the conversation is all kept together. Regards SilkTork *YES! 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a continuing objection, and it's the one in the edit summary. Until you add something about Blue Pigs to pub names, a redirect there doesn't serve the reader. Whereas a Blue Pig is discussed, with more than a single passing mention, at public houses and inns in Grantham, and pointing a reader wanting to know about Blue Pigs there will at least provide xem with an article that actually talks about one.

To be honest, I think that you'll not find anything to write about Blue Pigs in general. This is based upon how sources treat the subject. I've done more than your Google searches. I've actually read sources. The entry for "Blue Pig" in Rothwell (cited in public houses and inns in Grantham) directs to the entry for "Blue", and the entry for "Blue" doesn't say much about Blue Pigs specifically, and spends over a third of its length talking about the "Blue" pubs in Grantham. The Guinness Book of names doesn't even have an entry for "Blue Pig" at all.

Your Google searches — as Google searches do, and as explained by Wikipedia:Google test — mean nothing when it comes to notability, and are a completely fallacious argument. The actual coverage by sources, which I've seen because (for obvious reasons ☺) I've spent some time looking for and reading sources that document a Blue Pig pub, is skewed towards Grantham. Simply put, most coverage is Yellow Pages content, self-advertising, and things like when the pub quiz night is, which has nothing encylopaedic to say. Where the coverage is suitable source material, it covers the Blue Pig only as part of a larger discussion of "Blue" pubs in general, which in turn tends to devote a large part of its time to Grantham's "Blue" pubs. The Blue Pig is only documented as part of a notable umbrella subject, and isn't notable in its own right.

I did point this out in the AFD discussion. Did you think that I hadn't based what I wrote on what coverage in sources I had found? If I'd found sources documenting the subject in its own right, I wouldn't have had to rename the article. Indeed, if such coverage in sources existed the original article wouldn't have had to talk about other pubs in Grantham, too. Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have done for you as I suggested and copied your response over to my talkpage. I would appreciate if you copied over any further response you may have to my talkpage so I am kept up to date on the discussion. I have added some material on Blue Pig to the Pub Names article, and so having now overcome your sole objection, I have redirected Blue Pig to that article. Please be aware that I have created Blue Pig, Grantham for those looking for the pub in Grantham. It could be seen as presumptious to assume that someone looking for the significance of the pub name "Blue Pig", or for an actual Blue Pig pub in any other location that they should be looking for the one in Grantham. The significance of the use of the word "Blue" (for both Blue Pug and a variety of other pub names which use Blue) is given in the Pub Names article, which is sourced. Assistance with expanding the Pub names article would be appreciated. SilkTork *YES! 14:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Geogre

I do not know Geogre, though I am aware of the name and understand that the user has made valued contributions. […] The statement by Geogre, when it came, did this person no credit - it is somewhat arrogant, lacking in understanding, and insulting to other users.

There's a whole lot of background here, involving what I tend to think of as "The Usual Suspects", a small group of editors who all know each other and who all have some sort of complex internecine feud, that would give Dynasty a run for its money, going. It's the same people over and over again, and they've come up at the Administrators' Noticeboard and Arbitration with a depressing regularity over the past half decade or more. I could reel you off a list of names. But so, probably, could you, and it would be the same list.

Like most people, I suspect, I tend to skip over those. The current Jimbo-Bishonen dispute, that you've also commented on, is just more of the same. Like most people, I suspect, I'm just not interested in their mutual squabbling and find it of no relevance whatsoever, and I wish that they would all understand that, and not think it all so gosh-darn important that everyone has to stop what they are doing and pay attention and that it has to be shoe-horned into all other discussions.

It's a shame that Geogre is involved in this. Unlike several of the Usual Suspects, xe has actually proven useful, in my experience. I've invoked xyr spectre a few times, and adopted several good ideas that xe conceived/exemplified, including the good idea, based upon the principle that administrators can read, that it's completely daft to label discussion contributions with boldfaced "Comment". Xe also articulated Geogre's Law.

One has to read these continual little affairs in the context of years of background, since the people involved tend to write to address those who share in the history, as those are almost inevitably the other parties involved. Unfortunately for them, I and (I suspect) others are really not interested in following their little soap opera. As I said, I suspect that most people wish they would start to grasp how irrelevant their infighting is, and how damaging it becomes when it spills over with real effect onto the rest of us with things like "Association of Editors Who All Agree that They Are Superior to You" committees. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that. People edit in different areas of Wikipedia and it's inevitable if people edit in the same area that they will encounter the same names. I don't often get involved in ArbCom issues, but when I do I tend to see the same names. When I get involved in AfD, I see the same names. Good Articles - the same names. Etc. When I edit notability essays I see the same names - some intersections with ArbCom in relation to BLP. Edit MoS articles and there are often intersections with notability essay people, and also with ArbCom people. When I edit Beer articles I see the same names - sadly people who don't appear to get involved with much else in Wikipedia! Mostly I feel that ArbCom and what happens there is a world within a world, and doesn't (thankfully) - as you suggest - have much of an impact on the real day to day editing. I am also aware from my previous jaunts into ArbCom territory, that a number of the people there have egos the size of Zeppelins - which is fine, as large egos can drive organisations into interesting territories; but such egos need to be monitored carefully to ensure that they don't drive us into unwanted territories. I don't think that Geogre has done a big wrong - I think the person has succumbed to a natural temptation to support himself in debates. Shrug. No big deal. However, regardless of valued contributions, long standing service and friends in ArbCom, this is deceitful behaviour which we don't wish Admins to display. Those voted in by the community to look into these matters - ArbCom - have no choice but to admonish and desysop him. As he is generally in good standing with the community, I think, given time to let the matter cool down, the community will accept him back as an Admin. I was disappointed to read his statement. I understand what you are saying that the intended audience for what he wrote was not Wikipedia but the ArbCom regulars. However, it did reveal an aspect of that person's character that might have been better kept private. The statement did reveal poor judgement which goes hand in hand with the use of the alternative account. I personally wouldn't oppose him in a RFA, but neither would I support him.

    I saw something you wrote about Postcard Cathy on ANI the other day which I liked very much. (I did a random click into your contributions as I was not familiar with your work). Keep well. SilkTork *YES! 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What you said here. A voice of reason and tolerance - which is at the heart of Wikipedia. If an encyclopedia cannot be reasonable and tolerant, then it cannot reflect with honesty, neutrality and completeness the sum of human knowledge. SilkTork *YES! 10:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Saison.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. B (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Tripel

Hi SilkTork, I'm informally mediating an editing dispute on the Tripel talk page, which could be of interest to you. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Beer box

Has {{Infobox Brewery}} been deprecated or something? --Killing Vector (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We've been using {{Infobox Company}} for some time now: Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer. This is to standardise company articles across Wikipedia. There was a period when people were not sure which to use and on some articles people were using both, and it was getting messy! Regards SilkTork *YES! 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything on the discussion pages anywhere about abandoning the brewery template... --Killing Vector (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I can recall several discussions about it. Are you suggesting you'd like to reopen discussion because you prefer the brewery box? I'd be interested to hear your reasons for that. If your main reason is that the brewery box contains a list of beers, we've also had discussions in which embedded lists across Wikipedia, and - as far as the Beer Project is concerned - embedded beer lists are depreciated. We are then simply left with a brewery variation of the Company Infobox in which the use is not standardised. But if you feel that you'd like to look again at the issues, I'll set up a discussion on the project talkpage. Regards SilkTork *YES! 10:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#InfoBox SilkTork *YES! 10:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you point me at some of those previous discussions? --Killing Vector (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My recollection is that they were scattered over brewery and user talkpages over a long period, and I took part in very few of them. You are welcome to take a look yourself - the most likely places would be the big breweries. SilkTork *YES! 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility Poll

Have a Duvel...on my tab!

Thanks for encapsulating. It will make future referencing of the results so much easier and reliable.--Buster7 (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I do love a Duvel! SilkTork *YES! 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

When you move pages like you did with John Schroeder (golfer) for disambiguation purposes, please clean up after yourself. I cleaned up the golfer pages so that they point directly to the correct place. I'll let the musician pages for you. Tewapack (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I really got into something when I started that didn't I? Shortly after I started it I wished I hadn't got involved. Thanks for cleaning up after me. There's no problem, you can do the musician as well, I don't mind - I have no particular interest in the case, I was just dealing with Category:Proposed deletion as of 5 August 2009, and the Schroeder disambiguation page was one of those I dealt with. Regards. SilkTork *YES! 07:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I just looked, and there's nothing to deal with because John Schroeder (musician) already existed. There was a request to delete John Schroeder (disambiguation) which I declined because neither of the John Schroeder articles were a primary topic, so a disamb page is appropriate, as per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_page_or_disambiguation_links.3F. I then made both Schroeder articles equal and made John Schroeder the primary search and also the disambiguation page. I'm sorry if this meant that you also felt you had to do some work, but that, after all, is the nature of Wikipedia, it is a collaborative community of volunteers. We try to do our best, though we sometimes make mistakes, or forget to do something that somebody else will then complete. There are plenty of unfinished tasks on the project. Nobody is impelled to do anything, and nobody should feel impelled to do anything by another volunteer. Regards again. SilkTork *YES! 08:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:City of London School

Hi. Thank you for volunteering to review my article. I look forward to your comments. Tbo 157(talk) 11:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've made some suggestions for improvements at Talk:City of London School/GA1. Regards SilkTork *YES! 18:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kraków

(You wrote)
Hi Poeticbent. I've nominated Kraków for GA. I feel it substantially meets all the criteria, though the reviewer, with fresh eyes, might be able to pick out a few details for us to attend to. Regards SilkTork *YES! 09:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your comments - but then you and would be a bit biased! ;-) I had to move your comment to the talkpage, as you had triggered the review with your comment. The impression given to a potential reviewer would be that the review had been started by yourself. Regards SilkTork *YES! 17:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
As you wish. — My vote of confidence (biased at it may be) provided also a round introduction to the review process which you (as the article nominator) chose not to include. But, since you removed my support vote already (an act generally frowned upon by the Wikipedia community as in Wikipedia:Selective deletion) please do not put it back at a later date either. I’d rather have it withdrawn permanently in the name of fairness. Cheers, --Poeticbent talk 20:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
O gosh, Poetic, I didn't mean to offend you, though I can see how my edit could be a bit rude. Please accept my appologies - I simply wanted to move your comment, but I recognise that it would have been more appropriate if I had discussed it with you first. I am sorry. SilkTork *YES! 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Don’t worry about it. I shouldn’t have posted that vote to begin with, but you’re right about a little note ahead of time, that would have been nice. Be well, Poeticbent talk 14:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Brown nomination

How and where can one comment on your review of James Brown (with which I agree)? I would like to improve (shorten) the one image caption you mentioned to neutralize it and mention that so had been done as a comment under your point about it in your review. I would also like to comment about the main photo at the top of the page, which I feel is very bad as a representative portrait of Brown and out of the question as such for a good article. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

You can either go to Talk:James Brown/GA1 or to Talk:James_Brown and click on the [Edit] buttons. You can create a new section by using three =, as in ===New section===. I hope that helps. SilkTork *YES! 12:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey I just got your message. Yeah, we can definitely try to edit some things to make James' article look good. :) I'm down for it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Good on ya! It would be good to see the article improve. SilkTork *YES! 20:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Alcoholic drinks in Britain

Hello SilkTork, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Alcoholic drinks in Britain has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary '(Decline prod. Article has been around for years--feel free to AfD it for a better discussion)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wendy Sewell.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Wendy Sewell.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 08:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:SkinnersLogo.jpg)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SkinnersLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - IWM GA review

Hello mate. Just a note to say thanks for the review, and the award. If you ever need a beer article reviewing, let me know and I'll try and oblige! --IxK85 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago/1

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive_16&oldid=1091538737"