User talk:SilkTork

Old dusty archives

Modern dusty archives

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

— Barack Obama

To do

Reminders

WP:SAL No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I guess the real question is whether to declare consensus and WP:BOLD it, or do merge tags and open a merge discussion at WT:MOSLIST. I'm all for going with the bold direction, since it seems unlikely to be controversial that the MOS page on lists should actually contain the MOS advice about lists.  :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 23:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC) There's been a deal of activity on the page recently. I've not had a chance to absorb that yet. I may just potter around this evening doing light stuff, then take a closer look over the weekend. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC) No hurry! I meant "bold" not "reckless". :-) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I still have this in mind - on hold, but not forgotten. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Belzona

Hi SilkTork, i need some clarifying of a statement about the ref marks at the bottom of my page. I have edited the article and added some references from where to get confirmation of the said organisation. However, i cannot get this removed? Would you please have a look and tell me what is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choccyfly52 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You've placed references in a list after the {{reflist}} template. The template picks up references that are placed inline (that is in the body of the article rather than at the end). See Wikipedia:Inline citation and Wikipedia:Citing sources. You need to place the citations at the part in the text where they are needed. I have done one to show you.

I note that you are creating an article in your user space. This is permitted, though you should not have the article there for long under the WP:FAKEARTICLE guideline, especially as the page is about a company. We get a number of article on companies, and we have strict rules covering articles on companies due to the fact that many of these companies do not meet our inclusion criteria - see WP:Notability and WP:Conflict of interest. The references you currently have are not enough to meet our Notability guideline as they are either from the company itself or from press releases by the company - which, in addition, only got printed in local newspapers (indicating a low level of interest - essentially purely regional). I will move the material to a subpage for you, and tag it as a userdraft, and noindex it so it doesn't get picked up by Google. I will check on the material again in a month to see what progress you have made, and if you do not have enough WP:Reliable sources to establish notability I will suggest that the page is deleted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Trev and Sight R&I ban

I am looking into the topic ban issued against these users in the R&I review case to prepare a request for amending the terms. To be clear on exactly what I should request it would be helpful if I could see some of the non-public off-wiki evidence regarding the allegations of proxy-editing. Unless I am clear on what served as the basis of the allegations specifically against these two editors I would not feel completely comfortable requesting an amendment to the terms. Do you happen to have access to that evidence and would you be willing to e-mail it to me?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The findings in the case were fairly clear in their statements. The off-wiki evidence wouldn't be of assistance to you, even if I could show it to you, as it was as said: those two editors began editing in the R&I topic shortly after the off-wiki thread started. They were topic banned because of the Editing with common purpose finding; the two findings which relate to the off-wiki evidence were part of the background to that finding. If you wish to look at an amendment to the topic ban, you'd need to pay attention to their contributions history which is already available to you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you cannot show me the evidence because you do not have it or that you just cannot show me the evidence? One of the things you said in that case was that Trev gave a "stated intention . . . to support Ferahgo" and that seems to have factored into your vote. I am curious about Ferahgo's exacts words on that thread and what was actually said in response by Trev and SightWatcher, presuming he commented there as well. Looking at their contributions and the public off-wiki evidence I see nothing to clearly justify the severe restriction to which they were subjected so that is why I am asking about the non-public off-wiki evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)