User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty stuff

Userfy Blood of Angels

I'll take it. Can you Userfy it for me? I am not sure how to go about it. I did edit out what Drmies objected to, but I'll work harder to bring it up to standards. Where will it end up? Ebonyskye (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. It's here: User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels. The conditions on a Userfy are that you don't put the article back into mainspace without addressing the concerns raised at the AfD - to make it easier for you, simply ask me when you think you are ready, and I'll look over the article and give you my thoughts. The other condition is that you actively work on improving the article, and if after a "reasonable" time there has been no progress the article can be deleted. One month is generally considered to be reasonable. I'll check in on the article every now and again, and if I see no progress for one month, and the article has not addressed the concerns of the AfD I will discuss the matter with you; if I get no response I will delete the article. If I delete the article I will leave a note for you letting you know what your options are at that point. You can approach me at any time for guidance. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please let me know what remaining statements or refs are objectionable. As I said the main opponent was User:Drmies but I had already removed the statements that he objected to prior to the deletion and we both finally agreed upon the ref for FlamesRising, so I'm not really sure why the article was deleted. Ebonyskye (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added two more refs (in addition to the 2 added prior to delete) from 3rd party sources, one is a bio from Dragoncon, where Michelle Belanger was a guest speaker, and the other is a taping of her speech at Dragoncon's "Blood of Angels" panel, where the album's theme on Watcher Angels is the topic. I really think this is all I will find for refs on the internet. So, if you'd like to take a peek now... let me know. Thanks. Ebonyskye (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources gives advice on which sources are regarded as reliable. Well worth studying carefully.

As regards the current refs in the article. This one doesn't mention the subject of the article, which is the Blood of Angels album - therefore, while it proves that one of the people involved in the album exists, it doesn't prove that the album itself exists, let album that the album is "notable" enough for a standalone Wikipedia article. This one is a blog - not a reliable source - read Wikipedia:Blogs as sources; in addition (I made the effort and listened to the amateur recording!) it is Michelle Belanger talking about fantasy writing under the title of Blood of Angels which - in her words - she "ripped off the title of my cd, Blood of Angels" - so, it is not about the album, and simply mentions the album in passing. That is not proof of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability and read through it carefully. I know I am asking you to read a lot of stuff, but it will inform you as to the requirements of a Wikipedia article, and the reasons why the Blood of Angels article is failing. This has nothing to do with Blood of Angels. This one does mention the album, but only in passing. So we are gathering information (weak, and of questionable reliability, but information) that the album exists. However, this source says that the album is about to come out - so it's not actual proof of the album's existence - see WP:FUTURE. In addition, it doesn't deal with the album's notability. And finally, the source, fullmoonradio.com, is of questionable reliability. This is your best reference. There are several sentences on the album. At this stage it is still a "future" album, and the source is a fanzine, which are often not acceptable as sources. To check it out, ask about it on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what the people there say. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the album does exist. It is listed on Amazon[1], Billboard[2], and All Music[3]. The existence is not in question. Also, Flamesrising is a vast site covering hundreds if not thousands of titles and has many different writers, so I don't see it as a fanzine. Maybe it started out that way years ago, but it's pro now. Finally, what of the other criteria for notability, the band having charted on Billboard (this vocalist also performing on the charted album[4]) and both the band and vocalist being covered in genre magazines (Fangoria, Side-line, and others - cited but removed from earlier drafts by other editors)? I thought that counted for something. I look around at similar groups and find albums that are "out of print" and self-published [1], [2], [3], or nothing but a track list and idle for over a year with no edits [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] or pending release, and no refs at all, and no one seems to have a problem with those... So, I guess I'm asking if we can make this album a stub like those others? Ebonyskye (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is not yet ready for moving into mainspace because notability hasn't been established through reliable sources. As for there being other weak articles on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. What I don't wish to do is to get into a daily debate with you regarding the quality of the article or the sources. I am prepared to help you, and to point you to resources on Wikipedia which will assist, but if I am to be responsible for moving the article back into mainspace, then that will be my judgement based on Wikipedia guidelines, not your judgement urged on me. Telling me that in your opinion Flamesrising is not a fanzine is more liable to make me feel your judgement is poor, than to get me to move Blood of Angels into mainspace. Read this - they self-identify as a fanzine. Please put your energies into building the article rather than arguing with me about the article's notability. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm sorry. I took the "about us" on Flamesrising to mean they write FOR horror fans. It's not like a blog where anon fans write the articles. The writers identify themselves, and they are writers for other publications, books, etc. But I'll try to expand the article with what I have to work with. I may go back and cite the things that were previously deleted by sockpuppets. Did you know about the issue that someone pointed out on the article's talk page regarding sockpuppets deleting things about the vocalist on the album and stacking the vote? It was news to me, but it now makes sense. Two of the voters for 'delete' were suspected socks, and I think one was conclusive. Ebonyskye (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into that, though it has to be borne in mind what it is that the Wikipedia community are thinking of when notability issues are raised. The community are concerned that articles of limited interest to the general public - that is, for example, articles about topics which have attracted the attention of a closed and small circle of people, and which have not been mentioned in mainstream publications - could swamp and overload Wikipedia if controls are not put in place. If such controls were not in place then the general public might have difficulty navigating through categories which had an indescriminate mix of mainstream topics and what is termed fancruft. Unless it can be shown that a member of the general public might reasonably want or need to search for information on, say Michelle Belanger, then we would rather not have such an article. At the moment it appears that the people mainly interested in Michelle Belanger would be people who are already aware of her via sites such as Flamesrising and its ilk - and these sites appear to provide all the information that a someone involved in that genre would need. In a sense it's a cult network. A way into such a cult network for the general reader might be an article on that specific genre, with explanations of who the leading practioners are. Would I be right in saying that Dark fantasy is the appropriate genre? As a member of the general public I would certainly welcome more attention being given to that article, than to an article on a writer of Dark fantasy where it is uncertain how that writer fits into the genre. Do you follow me? It's a question of how helpful the material is. SilkTork *^YES! 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at the deleted Michelle Belanger article. There seems to me to be a easier case of getting that article up to standard. There are three newspaper sources - fairly borderline, but arguably enough to establish some kind of notability. If you can get some new references (it is against policy to simply return a deleted article into mainspace without issues having been addressed), then I would support restoring it in a rewritten form. Having established the Michelle Belanger article there would be greater potential for restoring the Blood of Angels album (though with the current material on Blood of Angels it would seem at this stage to be more appropriate to deal with the album within the Michelle Belanger article). Let me know if you'd like me to userfy Michelle Belanger for you. I might get involved in helping you write that one up - especially in light of the fact that the nominator of the Michelle Belanger AfD has now been banned. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm one of the other people who has been involved with attempting get the references for a Belanger article, as well as vampire lifestyle related information, up to snuff. I've been involved with the vampire community for a number of years, and with Twilight and True Blood, our community has been getting a bit more attention lately.

I've been working on collecting 3rd party references to support arguments for Belanger's notability and so I can have sources to start working on developing a well cited, neutral, non-promotional entry. I've considered asking for a userfy version, if simply to see the information on prior article and make a determination if there are is any NPOV material that is salvageable. However, I am dealing with off line stuff, so it's going to be a few weeks, at least, before I can really start working on it. So I was thinking about waiting to put in such a request. I would be quite happy to work with Ebonyskye if Ebonyskye were interested in taking over a userfy version of the page.

Thank you for the assistance and consideration you've shown in all this.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Ebonyskye (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:Mipro

hello SilkTork ~ i saw the article. - you did a good job !! VERY IMPRESSIVE --Wilson0324 (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a rough stub, but people can build on it, and hopefully they will. SilkTork *^YES! 07:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Speckled Hen

I think it's possible, and I'd be interested in working on it. But I wouldn't like to simply create a stub - I'd like it to be a decent sized article like the two you mention. SilkTork *^YES! 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if all we can come up with is a 3 sentence stub, it's better off where it is but I reckon we could get enough information and enough sources to merit a decent article. I put the message up at WP:Beer because you need more than one person on that kind of article. I'd probably follow a similar format to Stella Artois and others. I'll give it a couple of days and see if we get any attention at WP:Beer and then see what I can do. Thanks for getting in touch. HJMitchell You rang? 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

MOS infobox width

I noticed your change to MOS with regard the standard width of infoboxes, and having failed to find the discussion that precipitated it, was wondering why it was made. Please reply at the MOS (infoboxes) talk page. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#A_change_of_recommended_width. SilkTork *^YES! 07:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Userfy article

"If it was sockpuppet behaviour that contributed to Michelle Belanger being deleted, then let us work on restoring that article to mainspace. I have asked you several times if you want me to userfy it for you, and you have not responded."

Not sure if you read my reply (it was buried in other comments) but I will take the page and will work with SillyLilyPhilly to refine it. I don't know how long it will take, but can we ask for an extension on the album article in case it takes longer than 25 days to fix the MB article.

BTW, the Van Morrison article is amazing. Ebonyskye (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. User:Ebonyskye/Michelle Belanger. It was more tricky than usual as the page history had been lost. I tracked it down via a userfication last month. SilkTork *^YES! 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If positive work is being done on Blood of Angels then I'll not delete it. SilkTork *^YES! 17:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Having noticed you recent interest in helping to reinstate the article on Michelle Belanger due to the abuse of sockpuppetry in the AfD, and to prevent you being taken further in the whole drama and hidden agendas surrounding that article, I want to bring upon your awareness that just days ago I saw a DRV request for that same article during my regular patrol. [5]

It was a very clear attempt at relaunching the promotional activity for this individual by herself or her agent. At this time the DRV was requested by an user who's single edit was to open that deletion review, using an account with the name of Belanger's vampire cult. That same account Kheperu (talk · contribs) was blocked as a role account. [6] [7]. Adding to that, the user SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk · contribs), now requesting to help Ebonyskye (talk · contribs) bring back Belanger's article, has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing precisely because of adding promotional material from Belanger in several articles across Wikipedia and reverting other editor's actions in the removal of such content. [8] This SPA indicator alone undermines the whole efforts to reopen an article already far too entwined in promotional activity and drama. (I keep a safe notice that Ebonyskye (talk · contribs) may not be aware he is being used as well in this whole promotional activity.)

The fact is that although the original AfD had the influence of suckpuppetry activity, the latest DRV didn't, and the article was deleted because of notability issues and self-promotion. The original article was maintained by the autor herself as a platform for free publicity, and that cannot be tolerated. This author has several books published, from which the vast majority are self-published, and the rest are released by publishing houses that do not really comply with the RS policy for reliable sources. On the top of that, none of her works was ever target of peer reviews or even documented under professional scrutiny and debate, except the online opinions found in several websites and people that bought her book. There may be a few references to her name in some more or less reliable articles, but still they do not present true reviews on her published work. This is a clear indicator on the lack of notability.

For such a borderline-notable article that has been used as a platform for promotional content and a series of disruptive edits in other articles related with this same individual, I believe the benefits of maintaining such an entry in the system is clearly diminished by the red flags it raises, not to mention that it would conflict directly with the COI policy that Wikipedia editors so strive to enforce. Userfication of this article at this point would go against the consensus from the DRV and only open doors for future promotional activity on Wikipedia. Thank you. DianaLeCrois  : 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I did read the DRV you mention, in which it was quite clear that userfication in order to recreate the article without the self-promotion was the consensus. The refs brought up in that DRV I am now starting to use to build the article. And, given the Washington Post and other refs, it appears that the subject of the article has some credible claims to Wikipedia notability; I would be surprised if it did not survive another AFD when I'm finished with it. I would, though, welcome your views. I am becoming aware that this topic area is fairly complex and involves people who have strong emotional responses and are fairly deceitful. In my favour on this issue, is that I don't give a damn either way, and I'm fairly upfront and honest! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you want it to pass another DRV, try to find a few additional sources and also to remove many of her works that are either self published or published by houses that do not comply with RS. For example the Psychic Vampire Codex was already removed from the Vampire Lifestyle article since it was not considered a reliable source. Unlike what many people from the Wiccan and New Age circles may believe, a Weiser publication per se is not reliable, if not reviewed by outside professionals, or experts in the field with a previous published background, with a neutral point of view. So please keep that in mind if you wish for this article to actually be reinstated on Wikipedia. Feel free to drop me a line for any additional input you may need. DianaLeCrois  : 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the level of impartially you have shown, along with your knowledge and understanding of the subtleties of the situation. I will certainly keep an eye on your involvement, as the history of deceptive behaviours in this matter, especially in relation to sockpuppet accounts, does make one a little cautious. I hope I've made myself clear. SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the second chance. I'll take a few days and read the different versions to get a feel for this. As to Diana LeCrois, I saw that her IP points to Portugal[9]. Isn't that where the AsetKa stuff came from? From what I read on the arguments against the MB article, that was where the opposing publishing group was located. This look dangerous, like another edit war just waiting to happen. Ebonyskye (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - That is certainly not my IP address, please check with any admin that has access to CheckUser. Now I noticed that I just landed in the middle of a cult war between SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk · contribs) and GustavusPrimus (talk · contribs) and all of their sockpuppets. That probably earn me some attention, and interest, from both sides. I have no intention in being part of any edit war, and even less in any arguments over which cult is better. I've done too much of that in my early college days. Anthropologists, go figure. Anyways, I simply took a stance since no matter how both sides of the situation have been disruptive, I still dislike the flavor of publicity that this whole question brings. And if the article does not get properly improved in a way that I can clearly see it complies with the N policy, I will bring it to AfD. DianaLeCrois  : 15:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We have to assume good faith. I noted that the account was recent, yet the person behind the account displayed knowledge and experience of Wikipedia matters, especially those related to this issue, which indicated that the person had a previous account and previous involvement. That the person had created a new account suggests a person who either has been banned, or who wishes to vote stack unfairly. I don't like deceptive behaviour - however I am not interested in witch hunts. What I am more interested in is useful contributions. There is no need to be rude or confrontational to anyone who is simply giving their views, so I felt that a polite response, assuming good faith, but indicating dislike of deceptive behaviour, along with light comments hinting at the account's prior knowledge and biased stance would serve better than a more provocative stance. If you'll note I have said above that I will keep an eye on the account. And, as you know, I grow more irritable and direct with people who push a point beyond reasonableness, so my second response to Diana LeCrois is firmer than the first. If people persist in pouring pestilence into my ear I grow impatient. However, I am willing to listen to alternative views, and as long as Diana LeCrois is polite and reasonable I will listen politely. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

um-hm, I assume good faith. But unlike Thatcher, I have a liitle more to chew on. Ebonyskye (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• I deleted this page as a G4 recreation of deleted material. Given the recentness of the AFD and endorse at DRV, this really should not have been restored to mainspace without running the draft past DRV first. Concensus can change I know but there needs to be a discussion in a case like like to see if that is the case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You acted incorrectly there. This is not a G4. Take a look at the two versions. Take a look at what G4 says - "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The entire article was rewritten, and had reliable sources added. Look at the DRV, the comments were that the article should be userfied and rewritten. I followed the consensus of the DRV. I am assuming good faith and that you hadn't read the DRV and the new article carefully enough. And I don't wish to get into a wheel war with you over this. So, would you review your own actions in the light of my comments, or shall we take this to DRV again? SilkTork *^YES! 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_10#Michelle_Belanger

Is is appropriate to request to see the changes made in the article for the review process? If so, at what point is it appropriate to make such a request? Are there issues with me making that suggestion? --SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I never got chance to read more than a paragraph of the article before it disappeared again. Where'd it go? Ebonyskye (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Both versions of the article are available at the link above. However, here they are: User:Spartaz/mbdeleted; User:Spartaz/mbdeleted2. Those versions are being used for comparison and are not for editing. The DRV will remain open for seven days, and then a decision will be made. If the deletion is upheld, we will look carefully at the suggestions made and if appropriate userfy the article again in order to address any outstanding concerns. I may withdraw from assisting with the article if the outstanding concerns appear tricky as this is not my topic area. Though I can see from the sources that it would be appropriate to have an article on Michelle Belanger on Wikipedia, given that she is mentioned in several assorted sources, I am not so interested as to jump through hoops for several weeks in order to achieve this. I have been neglecting articles in areas that do interest me in order to deal with the issues that have arisen since I closed the Blood of Angels AfD, and I wish to return to that work. However, I will continue to uphold and see through any commitments I have made.

Of course, if the DRV overturns the deletion, then there will be no need for a further userfication. So, we'll just wait out the seven days, and takes matters from there. SilkTork *^YES! 08:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, as well as all the work you've done. And I totally understand not wanting to spend a lot of time on it when there are topics you'd much rather be working on. I had not expected things to go so quickly.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really see a dispute between us. this is one of those silly spats that happens from time to time. neither of us intended harm. how about I restore the article and list it at afd? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I read on one of the talk pages associated with this issue, that no one is permitted to further edit the Michelle Belanger article. If this is true, I don't want to get in trouble if I edit. But I found a typo (the word "Chacing" in the last external should be "Chasing" and also have a suggestion for how to avoid the copyvio on the Bizarre Magazine pages that are linked (just list the issue as a printed reference). I can find out from the magazine what issue the pages are from. I also suggest listing the books as before in the earlier version. It's much easier to read as a list, and that is how other articles for authors are formatted. Also, the links for the Blood of Angels album that are linked from the info boxes for the 2 Nox Arcana albums Carnival of Lost Souls (before) and Blood of the Dragon (album) (after) are dead. Can I edit those out so as to skip to the next album in succession until this issue is resolved? It's that or just replace the album itself into mainspace. It really does mess up the whole works having a 10 album discography that ends halfway through. Again, I am still not sure if the ban for editing Nox Arcana applies to me, so these are suggestions until my hands are untied. Ebonyskye (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the DRV, restored the article and listed it at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Belanger (2nd nomination). SilkTork *^YES! 07:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The article may be edited now. It would be appropriate to deal with any concerns as they are raised in the AfD. SilkTork *^YES! 07:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Duck account?

I'm really, really attempting to do my best to assume good faith with Diana_LeCrois. But I'm having a very difficult time doing so. The editor reads to me a lot like GustavusPrimus/MarkChase, down to knowing an aweful lot about the history of the Michelle_Belanger article, throwing all sorts of alligations at me in order to defect from actually discussing the current topic on hand, even down to the whole athropology major thing (has to deal with another account that apprently was involved with putting a lot of Aset ka material on the wiki). And I was willing to let the account go when it first caust my attention in the hopes that the user would act differently.

And it's not even so much the delet vote. It's the multi-paragraph rant that accomplined it. Rather out of character for Diana_LeCrois, I might add, looking over the editor's other delete comments.

So, I'm looking for either a talking down, that no, I'm just reading too much into all this, and here are "xyz" reasons why. Or I'm looking for consensus to see if what I am reading is the same as what others are reading. And if this is a discussion that you might feel you are too close to, then maybe you can bring it up with other admin to see their thoughts and feelings on the matter are?

Really, I am sorry you got so sucked into all this drama. Thank you again for all the work you've put into this.

And, Diana_LeCrois - because I strongly suspect you'll read this - I'm coming here rather than just immedately submitting a request for investigation, because I want a talking down.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DarkStrangerPoster.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:DarkStrangerPoster.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) 05:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

1995 European Grand Prix

Thanks for starting a review. Perfect timing for me as I've got the weekend free. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no promises! I do a big bunch of reviews when I nominate an article. I go through the list and pick out the ones I fancy and tag them. I'm fair, patient, polite and thorough, but I can't swear to be quick! However, I'll see what I can do for this weekend, bearing in mind that you are free. SilkTork *^YES! 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've left one or two comments at the GAN. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything else you want me to do on it? I'm a bit confused... :/ D.M.N. (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Van the Man

Thanks for the Wiki Award: I'm so surprised and pleased! It's been a pleasure working with you on the article and I'm looking forward to further work when it is being reviewed. And also a special thanks for nominating the article. Best, Agadant (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork *^YES! 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 Turkish Grand Prix GA review

Thanks for doing this! Darth Newdar (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments. Darth Newdar (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for both passing the article and giving me a nice award :). Thanks! Darth Newdar (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your GA nomination of Kraków

Thank you for your message; could you copy it for User:Poeticbent? In the past he has been involved with much content creation and GA-drive for Kraków. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 Spanish Grand Prix

Thanks for offering to do the review, I've made some changes and left a reply on the review page. Looks like you're doing all three GP reviews! Apterygial 01:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and though they all initially appear the same, there are subtle differences in each. They are the strongest of the GANs I'm currently looking at - which says a lot for Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One, an active and positive WikiProject. SilkTork *^YES! 09:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass, I've been intending to do a review, I haven't done one for a while. Apterygial 12:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI new sock investigation

I got more curious as of late concerning Diana LeCrois, so I opened a new sock investigation. Feel free to add your comments. I also found a whole magazine article devoted to Belanger. I added a comment to the talk page and a ref to the article. Ebonyskye (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The investigation has been accepted, so the account will be checked. Each to their own, and if Diana is a banned user then she/he shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia, but I feel that unless an account is actually doing something wrong, then there's no need to complain. I welcome a range of views on an article as that is the best way to ensure balance, because it is hard for a single editor to avoid a certain bias. The sharing of information and the debating and negotiation of how best to use the information is the key to Wikipedia's reliability. Where it goes wrong is when a person is unwilling to negotiate and engages in stubborn, deceptive or disruptive behaviour in order to push their own view - but we have conflict resolution procedures to deal with that. Let's not be afraid of opposing views - as Obama said: "I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." Wikipedia is not China - we not suppress alternative views. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Syrinx_in_popular_culture

Per the GFDL if something is merged, an editor must keep the edit history public. see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. Thanks for the heads up. SilkTork *^YES! 22:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Good List Nominations

i know you know alot about and deal alot with good article nominations. but i was wondering how to nominate lists for good quality. do you know how? List of Ozzy Osbourne band members CallMeAndrew (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, but I've just noticed that you appear to have found that already! SilkTork *^YES! 21:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Resignations from the Guantanamo military commission

Thanks for agreeing with my recommendation and boldly merging the articles. A fine example of following the principle that AfD is not a vote. Fences and windows (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There are three more that look like they should be merged. But I thought I'd pause and give people time to catch their breath before merging them. What is needed now is someone to make a tidier job of the crude merges. I haven't looked too closely, but I suspect there's a lot of repeated material. SilkTork *^YES! 14:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

a Harrison question

hello again SilkTork - hope you're well and prospering, and that this discussion doesn't look too chewy for you to weigh in on, since input from major/regular contributors to that article seems particularly worth getting. thanks! Sssoul (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in with your comments at my arbitration. I also ask that you to join my "group" of unofficial mentors as a person whose judgment I trust. However, I will understand if you do not as I know your time on wiki is limited. Thus, I especially appreciate that you used some of it on my arbitration case. The unofficial group includes User:John Carter, User:Geometry guy, User:Philcha and User:Malleus Fatuorum. The job is to provide me advice on judgment calls when you feel it is appropriate. I figure that if I have a group, then no particular editor is burdened. But I understand your time constraints, with a new child, and understand if you choose not to be available. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You can talk to me as a friend and equal any time Mattisse. May I also ask you for advise on occasion? SilkTork *^YES! 07:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that request and agree, though I think your judgments about Wikipedian interactions is much better than mine. Thank you not only for changing you mind about me from drastically negative to positive, but being willing to get involved in my messy problems. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you as well

I wanted to post this to you but didn't want to mess up your user page formatting. I also wanted a barnst of peaceful warrior, but since it does not exist yet, this one will work:

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For the amazing amount of work you put into developing the foundations of a passionately debated article that meets community standards. And for showing an amazing amount of patience, professionalism and courtesy to all sides of the discussions SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's one of the best barnstars I've ever had. Thank you. Much appreciated! SilkTork *^YES! 10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Production output" in Template:Infobox Company

There is a mistake regarding the layout in the Template:Infobox Company. When writing the production output it is placed between "Products" and "Services", which I by the way think is a correct placement. But when you have saved the page, "Production output" is at the end of the infobox.
Hope you will fix the problem, so "Production output" will be placed between "Products" and "Services"? Thank you very much. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. SilkTork *^YES! 13:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1

There have been changes to the article and some further discussion of the issues. Any further comments you have on whether the article meets now the criteria or not would be welcome. Geometry guy 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded. My view is unchanged. Delist SilkTork *^YES! 18:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your further input! Geometry guy 21:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)