User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty archives

Modern clean archives

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

To remove the sandbox link add #pt-sandbox { display: none; } (or li#pt-sandbox {display: none;} for MonoBook users) to your common.css page.

To prevent the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent site notices add #siteNotice { display:none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent the MediaViewer follow these instructions

Use {{Reflist|30em}} instead of {{Reflist|2}}

have you ... ?

Seen that film clip ? I can put it up somewhere if you haven't. You really should see it ...210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ST : you might enjoy this, and it might cast a different light on what you see as 'history' ... plus it's funny. (It fits better with my aging memory cells than what is currently peddled as fact, too.) Hope you enjoy, especially note how smarmy and defensive Lou Adler is :-) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-untold-and-deeply-stoned-story-of-the-first-u-s-rock-festival-20140617

I've been to a bunch of festivals that I enjoyed, but which are not famous. And I've been to festivals which were not very good, but which are famous. I've seen bands who were really good, but never made it. And I've seen bands who are crap, but did make it. It's the way of life. I suppose you know that the UK based Reading Festival pre-dates both Monterey and Fantasy Fair, and is still going. This site is useful, as it details those early 1960s UK festivals - and you'll see there was a bunch of them that were held in 1967, along with Lincoln in 1966, Uxbridge in 1965, and Richmond in 1964. My first festivals were Hyde Park in July 1971, and Weeley in August 1971. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Template:WikiTree name deletion discussion?

SilkTork, best wishes to you for good health. I noticed that you did some tidying on Template:Find a Grave, and thought you might have something to add to the discussion on deleting a similar template Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_18#Template:Wikitree_name. I'd value your opinion - thanks! Kjtobo (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. That template should be deleted with extreme prejudice as it a sloppy way of avoiding proper research, and would diminish Wikipedia's reputation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fuller s logo photographic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fuller s logo photographic.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

GA queries

Hi SilkTork. As a novice reviewer, I still have few doubts about reviewing GAs. Considering you have reviewed so much, would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding them in general here? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Be glad to. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Here you go:

1. Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer avoid an article where they have not much access to any of the sources given? or fail it if the nominator has partial access themselves?
2. Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Subtle and interesting questions.

For checking against 2c (no original research), I will seek out a certain percentage of the cites (how many will depend on the circumstances, but generally at least 10% as a guideline - though some articles will require more than than), and confirm that what is said in the article matches what is said in the source. If a statement does not have any sources, and the statement is challengeable, then the article has already failed 2b. If the sources used in the article are all off-line, and are obscure texts that can't be ordered from the library or bought off Amazon, then I will use other sources. If the information is so obscure that it cannot be located in any other sources then I will discus the matter with the nominator to ascertain if the information is required, and if it is required, why the information can only be found in obscure texts. If I am satisfied with the response, I will asked for the text to copied out exactly on the talkpage. If the problem is not confined to one section of the article, but the whole article relies on obscure texts, then, personally, I wouldn't get involved. If on checking sources I find problems I will discuss the matter with the nominator, and then check more cites in the article to see if the incidents are isolated or more widespread.

For checking against 2d (copyright violations), the same sort of thing applies. Checking a percentage of the cites and making sure that information is not simply copied over word for word from the source. If a phrase sounds odd I will do a copy and paste into Google to see what turns up. If the copyright violation is deliberate then the user doing it will sometimes use an obscure text that is not found on the internet, so Google will not help. And while the information itself may be found in other texts, the exact wording (which is what is copyrighted, not the information itself) will remain hidden in an obscure text.

Even though I am diligent, and have been outspoken against the habit of some reviewers accepting obscure sources in good faith, I have been caught out on a case of copyright violation with Roman Dacia - I raised the issue, but didn't follow up on it, and at that time checking for copyright violation wasn't one of the GA criteria; it was later found the nominator had relied too heavily on source wording and the article was delisted.

Criteria 3 (broad coverage) is interesting as it is a matter of judgement by the reviewer. Broad coverage is less than the comprehensive requirement of FA, and is often seen as the major aspects of a topic that a general reader would likely require, rather than expert detail. We are a general encyclopaedia providing an informative summary of a topic for the general reader. We are not expected to be a detailed text for university students. I do a little background reading of a topic I am reviewing to get a feel for the main points. I would rather rely on that research than my own knowledge, as my knowledge may in itself be biased or incomplete. Other encyclopaedias are useful for getting a feel for what are the main points, and I will access those rather than entire books on a topic. This is quicker and more likely to be appropriate for checking "broad coverage".

I like that in GAN the reviewer takes individual responsibility for passing or failing an article. Other people may comment, but it is just one person who decides. This means that in general the reviewer will take care to get it as correct as they can. However, this can also lead to an agony of indecision for some reviewers who find that they can't quite make the final decision, and I have known some GANs linger for months, or stall completely, because the reviewer lost their nerve. I have also had some of my own nominations been failed because the reviewer couldn't bring themselves to pass a contentious topic. If you feel that a topic is so contentious, or an article so high profile, that you might worry about passing it as GA, then don't take it on. On the other hand, another aspect of GAN that I like is that it is a light and easy process, so an article can be delisted as easily as it is listed. And an article can be nominated again quite quickly. As such, if a mistake is made, see it as part of the learning process rather than something major.

I hope that helps. If you have any other questions either now or at any time in the future, please ask. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)