User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty stuff

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

Brewing

Hi SilkTork,

I've just put a dubious tag on the opening sentence of the brewing para: the idea that beer has traditionally or is generally divided into ale or lager depending on whether it is top or bottom feremented doesn't add up. (afaik, that distinction was made by American homebrewers in the 1970's, don't know why: probably a misunderstanding of books they'd read about European beer).

The distinction in English beer was as you say originally between unhopped ale and hopped beer but by the C19th as the styles we know now developed it became between lightly hopped ale (including mild ale) and the more heavily hopped beers (bitter, porter).

Elsewhere, other forms of categorisation developed quite separate from beer or ale. In Germany, for example, Lagerbier includes beers that are top fermented, like and altbier in Düsseldorf. Haldraper (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look. SilkTork *^YES! 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Airforce

The original article named "Ottoman Airforce" (190 google hits) was renamed an obscure "Ottoman Aviation Squadrons" (8 google hits, all here)in spite of my strenous efforts to have it first discussed and explained. Not clear at all in what whay this improves the article not to mention accuracy, and instead of a simple re-direct, insitance on re-naming was confounding. The very dispute tag itself was ignored, other massive edits were carried out without search of concensus or discussion. The article has been rendered unrecogizable, negating work of so many contributers and basically removing it form these pages. Help?!Murat (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message SilkTork. To centralise the discussion, I suggest we continue everything on the article talkpage. Briefly however what we have, I believe, is (1) separate air services within the Ottoman Army and Navy, referenced and referred to by Takabeg, and (2) a lot of ill-informed English language references to an 'Ottoman Air Force,' probably actually referring to the Ottoman Army air service. Neither Murat no anyone else has produced any reference to the creation of an 'Ottoman Air Force' seperate from the Ottoman army and navy services. To continue reference to a separate third service where as far as I can tell so far, none existed, would be a traversty of what WP is supposed to stand for. Hope that makes my position clear. Please, if you can produce references aboutr the creation of a third service, I would be very happy to hear. Otherwise the article may need to be at 'Ottoman Army Air Force'. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point plenty of credible references, from the time period, which clearly refer to this "force" or organization as Ottoman Air Force have been listed (as the above editor had originally requested). The reference to a particular wording in the offical name of the first aviation organization to be established, "inspectorate", "office", etc. does not take away from the reality of this being an Air Force, same as any other air force that came into existence. All this could have been dealt within the article itself instead of taking the drastic measure of moving the article to where it will not be found by anyone, and without a discussion or concensus. Frankly, why and how this was done by a seasoned editor who should know better and has still not reversed himself to at least allow room for this discussion is a mystery to me. Where do we go from here? Murat (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There is generally a backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I sometimes deal with such moves, and the discussions can be long and drawn out, which doesn't aid making a decision. I prefer closing those requests where discussion has stopped, and I think other admins feel the same. Someone will close the request at some point, and as it stands there is only one person opposing the move, so it should be a relatively straightforward decision. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Laurel and Hardy review

Please see my comments on Laurel and Hardy review. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Bzuk, whilst most certainly a helpful L&H editor has a particular attachement to the Sendak book and further reading section - he wrote them and defended them here: Talk:Laurel and Hardy/Archive 2. I realised this and asked on his talk page what he felt should be done without altering them. I wasn't expecting the comments in the GAR. Not sure how to proceed with that now? Szzuk (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. WP:FURTHER and WP:Further reading give some advice on listing books, and I would direct you both to those guides. My personal view is that the current list appears little better than putting "laurel and hardy" into Google Books. Given that it is not difficult to find books on the subject, I would question the need to have a Further reading list at all. However, if there are some books on the topic that are particularly noteworthy, I can see an argument for listing them. But I would then question why those books were not used as sources in building the article. Further reading lists are not standard any more. They were used in the early days of Wikipedia when we didn't do much actual sourcing, and when we did it was general sourcing - simply listing a few books at the bottom of the article. However, since the requirement to use inline citation, editors have found that the major books on the topic are the ones that are being used as sources. There could be a case that, for example, there are 10 major sources, and only 6 of those are actually needed to support the statements in the article, so the other 4 are listed for the reader to consult; so we don't actually ban the Further reading section, but it is depreciated. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I "jumped the shark" here, see comments today. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

• Happy for you to close however you wish. I have decided to take the L&H page to featured article status, it's not something that can be done in a hurry, atleast a few months and buying bibliographies, the first copy is now in my userspace. It's been an interesting process thanks for the input. Szzuk (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a glance, and see there's been improvements. I'll have a closer look later. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see your lead is an improvement, I can work on the prose quite a bit from the look of things too, I think it would be helpful to get hold of a copy of L&H on EB, it might point to some major points I need to cover. Cheers. Szzuk (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Van Rebellion vs Van Resistance

I would like you to take a look at this article where there is a (familiar) long-winded argument with POV editors sticking to their strong (ethnic) pov's at the cost accuracy and reality. Can we at least get a tag in the heading to the effect there is a dispute about the name and a desire to move by many informed editors? Thanks. Murat (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help with edit warring at Ganas article

Please give us some assistance at Ganas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article resolving edit warring problems with new user Marelstrom (talk). Over the past few weeks Marelstrom (talk) has made the same changes roughly 10 times, most recently only 30 minutes after I restored the version arrived at by consensus of several editors in January. Marelstrom (talk) has been uncooperative on the talk page and has made the following comment on ANI complaint (which has received no attention from administrators):

"I would very much like for there to be additional contributors. The summary as I have it now (though could be reverted at any instant) is mostly my point of view, and I don't mind it being adapted to hold other views, but I think Eroberer's POV is too heavily weighted in this article. What the article needs is Eroberer off, and a dozen other editors on. --Marelstrom (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) How does this ever get resolved? --Marelstrom (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)"

I interpret this to mean any contribution from me is unacceptable though Marelstrom (talk) has made no effort to recruit additional contributors. The problem is mostly in the summary where Marelstrom (talk) repeatedly replaces properly referenced material with promotional, and frankly trivial, info from Ganas' own literature. Marelstrom (talk) has stated that they are a resident of Ganas though that comment was redacted by Oversight due to some false accusations Marelstrom (talk) made about my identity.

I asked two other editors for feedback and they have obliged but are more concerned with the edit warring and I agree it needs to stop. Any help you can give will be appreciated, let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Eroberer (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see the edit warring is ongoing despite a warning, so I have locked the article for a week. I will visit the article talkpage in a week's time to oversee a discussion as to the best way forward. In the meantime, I suggest everyone take a break. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ganas

[NOTICE BOARD] --Flyswatting (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I had the same message on my talkpage. I am at a loss why this editor should wish to publicise their block evading sock, but I am also curious why you have not acted upon your apparent belief that this is the editor already sanctioned for violation of WP:OUTING? LessHeard vanU (talk) (no sugar, and easy on the milk)

I'm prepared to run with this a bit longer in order to uncover if there is a question of the article being biased. The account, though, is pushing all the wrong buttons, so this may be a short run. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 19:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

GAN review of Action of Dec. 1669

Thanks for taking this up! I look forward to hearing your feedback. (And thanks for the virtual cuppa on your talkpage! :D) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In case you're not watching the GA review page, I replied there with some questions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, do you think you could respond to my questions about which places need more citations or seem like original interpretation? I'd like to fix those within the seven-day deadline, but I need a bit of guidance as to which the problem areas are. (I also posted at MH about the title and got a suggestion which works for me, but I'm going to wait another day or two before moving it, since it's been moved a lot.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look now. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

External links getting removed

Someone named "Berean_Hunter" accused me of spamming and removed the external links I've added. The links were from an online publication I visit regularly, and I'm not sure why those links are being labeled as spam while other publication links were left intact.

I went out of my way to put up links that were on-topic, weren't redundant with information already on the page or its external links, they were original content, and the links are open to the public.

I thought the external links were a way of providing more on-topic information that couldn't be integrated into the Wiki page itself? I don't know why he's accusing me of spam or singling me out.

Markm84 (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The guideline on using or removing external links is Wikipedia:External links. On the whole the advice is not to add external links unless the link is an official website of the topic. I note that you are adding links to articles in a web publication. If you feel there is information in those articles that is not contained in our article, then we would prefer that you added the appropriate information to our article, and used the publication's article as a reliable source. That is how we build our articles. It was decided right at the start of Wikipedia that simply linking to other articles would not help build the encyclopedia and simply make us a link directory. The success of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia shows that our approach was correct, and we continue to be quite strong on removing links to other publications. I haven't closely examined the web publication, but it may or may not be regarded as a WP:Reliable source, so my recommendation for you is:

• Contact Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask if realguns.com would be considered a reliable source
• If realguns is confirmed as a reliable source, read through the articles, and pick out information that would be useful in the Wikipedia articles.
• Add the information to the Wikipedia articles, using your own words (you can't copy and paste as that would infringe copyright).
• Follow the guideline in Wikipedia:Citing sources in citing to realguns.com

Let me know if you need any more help. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hi ST. Could you take a look at this and perhaps make a suggestion how to proceed from here and get started - you have more experience than I do. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw your edits. According to many comments at the original RfC, it was strongly advised not to reconduct the trial again so as to avoid the same fiasco as the pending changes trial. In the rare event that the trial prove inconclusive, it would be back to the drawing board for some other solutions that were suggested. What we need to know is how and where to start this thing without making a faux pas and infringing on discussion policy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, have the wording say the above. And the trial proposal should also indicate who determines the outcome and how. Create a dedicated Wikipedia page explaining how the trial and evaluation is to work, then create a link to the page's talkpage from WP:Cent. On the talkpage make it clear that it has been decided that the trial is to go ahead, so the discussion is about the mechanics of the trial, not about if we should have one. It is not to be a vote or a poll, but a discussion to ensure that the trial runs smoothly. Your sandbox wording is more comprehensive than the alternative version that was linked from The Blade of the Northern Light's talkpage, so work on that one.

As for the decision regarding the outcome of the trial and the evaluation. It might be useful to get that sorted out now, so that the decision can be a default. For example - "If a) There are fewer deleted new articles in the six month period AND b) Article growth has continued, then implement. Deletions and growth to be determined by a developer." Get approval of the developers first. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 14:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you enormously for this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Willie Nelson

Hi, I understand that many people have had a problem with me editing Willie Nelson's page. The reason why I added those subsections is because those are big things that happened to him and I think they should be highlighted. Please understand, I mean no frustration or anger, I just have opinions to things that I have trouble explaining. So write me back as soon as possible. Thanks. RoadHouse (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is more appropriate for the talkpage, so I will copy this there. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Three Laws of Robotics

Hi

When you reviewed the article there were several areas where you thought that OR was prevalent. Is there any chance you could take a quick look and tell me whether or not you think those areas have been addressed? My intention is to put it up for GAN again in the next 4 weeks so would appreciate your input in particular.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article talkpage. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for that :¬) I was unable to respond at the end of last year as my PC failed and was unable to fix it for two months (needed a new motherboard chip and memory, money I did not have spare)

I appreciate the problems of OR are inherent and possibly insurmountable without a rewrite but maybe it can be saved a little..

I will also reply there, thanks once again. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Triple crown upon SilkTork for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Thank you for all your contributions to the project! – SMasters (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This user has a Triple Crown.

Hello, SilkTork. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

UOJComm (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

GA review

Thanks for your diligent, patient, and constructive GA review. Your feedback and edits made it a good-er article. ;) Now, by the laws of karma, I'll go find a GA nominee to review myself.   Will Beback  talk  12:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. When main contributors work so quickly and positively then the review becomes a real pleasure. You and Andreasegde worked very well on that, and made it easy for me. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Translate templates

What are you playing at? These templates were NOT designed to be stuck in hiding on talk pages, They are intended to directly encourage editors to translate content. Some articles are so extremely lacking that any translated content is useful. Your actions here indicate that you have little experience in actual transwiki work and how it works. There is absolutely no point in having these tags in the talk pages where few editors look. Most of the articles they are slopped on desperately need content transferred asap and having a big tag presents no major problem. If you genuinely want wikipedia to grow you would see some sense that curbing this transwiki effort as you are attempting to do by hiding its basic function is shameful. Also the google translate link in the template has a function in that you can translate info on another wikipedia and gather more info which is very useful to the casual reader who is looking for more information. We should be maximising our chances of people translating content and reducing the massive gap between us and other wikis on non-anglo subjects not removing the basic mechnaism we already have in place. The casual reader generally does not look in a talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I started a discussion about the usefulness of the template, and there was little response. Perhaps it would be helpful to get a wider community input into the template, what it should contain, and where it should be placed. I am strongly in favour of supporting and encouraging editors to build articles from reliable sources, and am a strong advocate of the {{find}} template - though I would not advise anyone to place that on the article page. Also, I am not in favour of encouraging the general reader to attempt to translate from one language into another. Using Google translate produces results that can be potentially misleading and so worse than having no translation. Most of the other language wikis explicitly forbid use of Google translate. I left the Google translate function on the template, however, to provide a guideline to what the other article has to offer. The template also has the useful function of placing articles into a category which translation experts can crawl through when looking to do a bit of translation work - and this works if the template is placed on the article or the talkpage. I would like to encourage serious, careful and skilled translators to use other language wikis as potential material. I would like to have links to potential sources/material in the same place - so {{find}} and {{Expand language}} being together on the talkpage is a good thing not a bad thing. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw your adjustment to the main templates in terms of finding reliable sources to back up translated material (which I agree with). But moving all to talk page is a killer. Might I suggest that it is written into the documentation instead to only apply tags to articles which desperately need translated material? E.g for longer articles which may still be improved move the tags to the talk pages but for sub stubs keep them in the main article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and shrink the templates. Just leave one sentence at the top, the rest are guideline instructions. By shrinking to a "Guidelines" you can document and assert that text must be translated and verifiable sources to support the text. This should solve the issue and also make it less of an eye sore. I admire your approach to GAs I must admit as I myself think it one of the most important steps to make on wikipedia in the quality. Only we have so many stubs and missing articles which desperately need some form of work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I said here that I would do that and see how it looked. My time is limited at the moment to coming on to Wikipedia in short bursts, and there a number of other things I am committed to do, but I will get around to it shortly. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads up - Falun Gong

Since you rescued him from an indefinite ban, Dilip rajeev has been treading carefully. However, he now appears to be taking bolder steps with respect to Falun Gong articles. I believe Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, which you and I both worked on, is now within his sights. The article has always been a 'high-value target' for both Falun Gong and PRC propagandists alike to "control". Fortunately, thanks to your help, and that of Jayen, it has reached the revered status of Featured Article, but that does not make it entirely impervious to attack from the determined. Now it appears that our friend [sic] may be attempting to seize this strategic article; he has already fired what I would call 'warning shots' on the article talk page. His discourse may sound reasonable on the surface, but if we were to look at all the talk page archives of Falun Gong articles, we can see it is a typical first step in his advocacy offensive. Ordinary editors' resilience is no match to the religious zeal, dedication to and passion of the Falun Gong devotee. I fear that, should he have his way, the article will become the propaganda-piece it was once upon a time. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on developments. There is also some movement on Kilgour-Matas report at the moment. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a look at these?

Hi, can you check these three newly created articles on books:

• 1900 National Upheaval
• 1901: The shadow of an Empire
• Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan

And see if they meet the quality standards? I believe that currently it goes more into an analysis of the events from one POV, than any discussion of the book or author.--PCPP (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)