User talk:SilkTork

/Beer Archive  • /AMA Archive  • /Dispute Archive • Image archive • /Start • /April 2006 - Dec 2006 · /Jan 2007 - March 2006 · /April 2007 - Dec 2007 · /Jan 2008 - June 2008 · /July 2008 - Dec 2008 · /Jan 2009 - March 2009  · Old dusty stuff · 13 · 14 · 15 ·

Current messages

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.[1] 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)

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: [2]. 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)

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)

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)

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. (eg User talk:SilkTork/Chat ) 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)

Your further lies and trouble making

You are obviously seeking to make trouble and agitation [3] well you can have it. Giano (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)