User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty stuff

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

Rings Around the World

Hi, I've (hopefully) addressed your concerns regarding the Rings... article if you'd like to have a look. Cheers, Cavie78 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review SilkTork and for passing the article as GA! I might take this forwrd for my first FA nom after going through a peer review so I appreciate your help and suggestions. For the record some of the FA album articles I looked at regarding session musicians in the personnel section were Intimacy, Californication, Odyssey Number Five and Year Zero. Cavie78 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain Beefheart

Thanks for the message. Your points are very well made. I was taking a break from the article, Beefheart's influence on punk rock being too incalculable, but I've put it back on my list. Rothorpe (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Akmal Shaikh‎

Hiya Steve, and happy New Year!

would you mind having a look at Akmal Shaikh‎, which I have nominated for WP:GAN? There are some WP:NPOV issues which may need sorting out. Any input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing a quick copy-edit of the article in preparation for your GA review; I'll be done shortly. Just fixing minor style things. --JN466 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Done. --JN466 19:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My website

You said it was only a minor concern at my RfA, but I took a look at the text on my site referencing "Wikipedia research" and can see where you're coming from. I expanded and modified it some to give a clearer understanding of what it is I do. Since I think you can find it easily enough should you wish to, I see no need to use this as an opportunity to add another "nofollow" link that points to it here.  ;) --otherlleft 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I really like the Obama quote you've got at the top there. Should be the official talk page motto! --otherlleft 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look, and the relevant part now talks about additional services include monitoring company persona via monitoring of Wikipedia entries. I'm still not entirely sure what that entails. Does this mean that you offer a professional service ensuring that company information on Wikipedia is not derogatory? SilkTork *^YES! 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Lady's Slipper in Yorkshire

Hi. Many thanks for your reply at Talk:Cypripedium_calceolus - I felt sure that how you came across earlier was different to how you meant to come across, and you've confirmed that - your apology is, of course, accepted. I still feel we have an issue to resolve regarding the Twist book - I regard it as an reliable source, and you don't - this sorts of differences of interpretation are common, and I'm sure we can have a good crack at working out what it is that's causing us to disagree about this at a later date (particularly as I've used it in several other articles elsewhere). Thanks for clarification why you felt I was ignoring consensus - it still doesn't sound like the sort of thing I'd do, and I can't help but feel that there must be some more innocent explanation, but I'm going to have to wade through old edit histories to do that, and that feels like I'd be pursuing a point for the sake of it, so I'll let it drop. Given the current uncertainty over this and the wider issue, I've got no issue at all with your selective deletion - as you say, playing it safe. Hopefully we can communicate again on this but for now, that's all I wanted to say. Good to meet you. SP-KP (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

O yes - communications are all too often misunderstood! We spend so much time on Wikipedia dealing with people who feel offended by remarks. Or rather, as it is all too human to feel offended, I should say: we spend so much time on Wikipedia dealing with people who react to what they feel is an offensive remark. I am not entirely free of that sin myself, having twice made inappropriate comments in response to something I read. The main focus, I feel, should be on edits to mainspace rather than the commentary surrounding such edits. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Protection

Semi would be nice, thanks! RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 05:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork *^YES! 08:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Milford Haven GA review.

Talk:Milford Haven/GA1: I've done all I can for this article and there have only been four further edits by others in the last week, two of which have been reverted. What's the next step to concluding this GA nomination?--Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and let you know. Has the issue regarding the boundary of Milford Haven been sorted out? SilkTork *^YES! 19:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Campaign to kill an innocent word

At tree shaping An editor with COI has a long term war going with the word Arborsculpture. [[1]] Has uploaded photos of mine to wikipdia, invited 500 of there newsletter members to the talk page.[[2]]But thats not so bad for a new editor. The behavior that most disturbs me is internet wide [spam], that claims wikipedia consensus and links to the article as if it were evidence. The editor in question is currently fighting with a new editor, but going to extremes with rules and charges and whatnot. I'm trying to staying out of it, with good reason, as you may know. Could you take another look please ?208.91.143.250 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look, and I recall being involved in settling a dispute on that topic. There was some disagreement about the use of the word arborsculpture, which appears to be Richard Reames term for tree shaping. My feeling then, and it would be the same today, is that tree shaping would be about all types of tree shaping, including arborsculpture, bonsai, topiary, espalier, and pleaching. And that an editor could create an article on arborsculpture which would be about Richard Reames. It would be acceptable to mention arborsculpture within the article on tree shaping, and if there is significant material on arborsculpture in the article, then arborsculpture would need to be mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead. Does that help? SilkTork *^YES! 16:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping

Sites like "arborsculpture.org" are evidence that term "arborsculpture" isn't instrinsically linked to the work of Reames. He just coined it. Of course we don't use Google as an important indicator of notability, but a search of the word "arborsculpture" without the word Reames has very interesting results. Blackash, a professional rival of Reames, has been all over Wikipedia looking for people to ignore her WP:COI, listen to her fractured arguements, and make an error in her favor. She has VERY specifically stated that he doesn't want Reame's word used for her work and everything she does on Wikipedia, including formally accusing me of WP:Sock because I pointed out I used two IP addresses, is for this single end. Unlike Blackash, you seem to actually be a Wikipedian interested in this project rather a Single-purpose account with an ugly real-life agenda. As such, I hope you'll take another look what I've said on the talk page. My comments are buried beneath Blackash's contribution to that discussion but I hope you'll look at them and see what's actually happening. Thanks and respect! --208.59.93.238 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• The COI tag on the article was because Blackash has stated that she is half the Pooktre team. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

arborsculpture.org doesn't exist. Do you have any other sources which show general use of the term? SilkTork *^YES! 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do you feel that Blackash has been manipulating the article to favour Pooktre? SilkTork *^YES! 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I wouldn't characterize the current situation as "favoring Pooktre" so much as as disfavoring a word entering general usage because it was coined by a Pooktre competitor. Arborsculpture.org was very recently "NEAG Northeast Arborsculpture Group" site, it was a live just days ago. I'll find some more specific examples of how arborsculpture is being used by people without connection to Reames to support my claim. They are numerous. The fact that "tree shaping" came close to being the article's title seems good justification for including it unless we find people overwhealming evidence that the world at large thinks it is specifically associated with Reames work. I'm sure they don't; I had heard of arborsculpture and I never heard of Reames until reading this article. I also think the inclusion of word in the intro would be a non-controversal edit if only the people named in this article took a hands off approach. While we are still thinking about this, I'd MUCH prefer not to see either Pooktre or Arborsculpture in the intro if it means including both, but I'll refrain from making edits for a while. TTYS (Within 48 hrs) --208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Tree_shaping#Arborsculpture_is_a_generic_term. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)