User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Happy New year

Happy New Year! SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 08:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Budapest

Saw your work done on Prague, quite nice if unforgiving. Please take a look at Budapest too if you feel like, I know you'll have plenty to criticize (lead, abundance of photos, history). Gregorik (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I've not really started on Praque yet! I'm going there later this year so I thought I'd read up on it. I use Wiki as my primary source, and read on from there. I have now got a couple of books out of the library and intend to do some work on it shortly. I got sidetracked when looking at architecture in Praque and thought I would take a look at other articles on architecture on Wiki to see how it is normally done. I ended up tackling Architecture of Aylesbury and giving it a good clean up, and found problems with Robert Lawson (architect). I would, however, rather get back to Praque - but such is the ability of Wiki to drag one away from areas of personal interest! Thanks for the heads up - I'll certainly take a look at Budapest. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving the Wiki

SilkTork, I'm sure you're feeling a little beat up right now; Giano's work is held in high esteem by a lot of people, and your focus on articles he has been lead collaborator on has come at a very sensitive time. It does not appear you've done a lot of work with the Featured Article crew before, and they take things extremely seriously. If it is an area where you want to spend more focused wiki-time, you might want to start out following a few of the FACs to see what the entire process is from nomination, through critique, improvement and finally acceptance. Help out with copy editing. Open the window in edit mode to see how references are done at that level. Those sorts of things. Not everyone is cut out to be a feature article writer; I'm more a copy editor myself, my writing is certainly more pedestrian though I think I will be able to pull off some GAs in the near future.

Your stated goal is to improve referencing of articles. Ones that have already been through the mill once, and ones which are primarily sourced to off-line information, are probably the ones of lowest concern. You might want to try Special:Lonelypages, articles that need wikifying and (often) referencing; or ask SuggestBot to give you a list of articles that need work. This is a big place, and there are a lot of really awful articles that can use your attention. If you want to take up a new subject, I know that the professional wrestling articles desperately need help in cleaning up BLP violations and properly sourcing information. Best, Risker (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly hand, and the suggestions. I do appreciate it, especially as we crossed horns a little. I don't have an interest in FAs as such - it's the topic that tends to interest me, rather than the notion of acclaim or stars. And the topics that interest me will at times appear to be random, but often spring from what I am doing. I go to see I Am Legend, so I look up the info on Wiki (my primary reference source) and feel that I can help improve the info, so I do some work on I Am Legend and I Am Legend (film) - my intention is not to get stars for those articles, but simply to improve the information there within my limited ability and motivation so that others visiting those articles will find clear, reliable and helpful information. I visit Amsterdam, or I go to Hampstead Heath, so I set about making those articles more helpful. I am visiting Brussels and Prague, etc. I go to see The Pogues, etc. I do have an ongoing interest in beer, roads, railways, etc, so you'll find me playing around with those as well. I am not short of topics and articles that I may find need some assistance. And you'll usually find me in the backwaters of Wiki where the articles really do benefit from ANY kind of assistance, even from people whose writing is mainly concerned with banal facts! ;-) I rarely (if ever?) get involved in FAs, and my route to Robert Lawson (architect) is as I explained to Lars - User_talk:Lar#Featured_article_comment - incidental, and not part of any campaign against Giano or the FA process; though if the FA process is not taking firm enough account of Wiki policy as regards OR, POV and attribution, and prefers to focus on readability, then I might do as you suggest and look at the process and add my view. I do feel it is important to get a range of views to take into account all sorts of users of Wiki. Not to say that I want to insist on my views taking priority, merely that I like to have my say - and when I do have my say I like for people to not be dismissive, even when I may have got it wrong. It is as easy to say - "We have a consensual policy on that issue, here it is", as it is to say "You're talking rubbish - - I've been here longer than you, and me and my friends know what we're talking about." Though I appreciate that human nature being what it is, we all too often get the latter approach, especially when we feel attacked. I am not completely innocent - I am loose with my comments at times - and I have experienced the blood rush which leads to reaction rather than clear thinking. Because I have been there and done that, I never harbour grudges. I enjoying working WITH people rather than against them, and I forgive everything. I also know that I am sometimes misunderstood, and I must work harder at making my meaning clearer! Again, thank you for getting in touch, I really do appreciate it, and you have gained my respect for that. Regards SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hampstead Heath

Hi. I'm mostly waiting until you've stopped editing the article to go through what is and isn't still there (!) as you don't appear to be using the preview button and it keeps on coming! Don't get me wrong, some of it is clearly good stuff, though I do have worries about some stuff getting dropped, hopefully by accident. As you are clearly 'going at it' maybe you might want to include something about the sheep that use to roam free until before the second World War (but weren't brought back afterwards as it was felt that they would get immediately stolen!) and the fact that much of it was dug over during WW2 to provide vegetable crops. --AlisonW (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I'll look into the sheep bit - that sounds interesting. Which bits have been dropped that you're worried about? And feel free to edit the article - I like collaborating. Regards SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 00:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Joachim Ferenc

Hi - replied on my talkpage. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Awarded to SilkTork for patience, perseverance and focus in helping bring the Karyn Kupcinet article into shape. May you never be haunted by the name James Ellroy. Thanks so much!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've polished it and put it on my mantelpiece. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 08:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks!

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		I present this Zen Award to SilkTork for somehow finding sanity in an insane situation and for being incredibly understanding even when I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Thanks so much for your help. Pinkadelica (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool! I hope that everything goes smoothly from now on. I'm always here if you need me again. Thanks. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and a question

I see you've been changing "Footnotes" to "References." Is footnotes inappropiate? Why? Is it worth the effort to change since both seem appropriate. Let me know as inquiring minds like mine want to know. Best and HAPPY NEW YEAR! ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's an appropriate question. The MOS recommends that the reference section be named as ==References== - Wikipedia:Ref#Section_headings_for_footnote_referencing - and for consistency between articles it seems appropriate to have the same name for the reference section, and as the majority of articles already follow the MOS suggestion and use References it seems worth the small effort to continue that consistency. Same with Plot and other sections within a Film article - WP:FilmPlot suggests using ==Plot== as a section name, so I've set my AWB to change other versions of that section name to Plot. If you feel there is valid reason to stop what I am doing, please let me know and we can talk about it on the appropriate MOS talkpage. And a Happy New Year to you! SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Super cool. I edit and watch a whole lot of articles, so I'll make the changes from Footnotes to References on an on-going basis. I too like uniformity. I'm glad Plot is the norm as you described (I've changed lots of Primary Cast, etc). I've also moved sections around to conform with MOS (like "Cast" after Production/Background). Hey any specifics on film reviews? I like "Critical reception." If this is wrong, let me know ASAP. Finally, I hate Trivia sections and try to move them into the body or eliminate if inane. Thanks for your courteous response. P.S. I love the bouncing wiki-ball. I may borrow that for a while! Ha.Luigibob (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned "Critical reception". There are several names for that section, and I've mostly just lumped them together under Reception for ease - but you're right, it's appropriate to look at Critical reception as part of the general Reception or Release as in I Am Legend (film) - an article I've recently been working on. I found User:Erik to be a very sensible film article writer, and someone whose views on structuring film articles I like to follow - his example of Fight Club (film) is very neat. So, yes - a "Critical reception" is an appropriate sub-section section within the general Reception section (or Release as it's termed in I Am Legend). I'll take a closer look at my AWB to make sure I'm not making crude title changes. Thanks SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 01:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Part two

One additional thing: because PLOT denotes a work of FICTION, should not the PLOT section in documentary films be/remain synopsis? I think it should. Thanks. ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

O shoot - have I been changing documentary films? I thought I was keeping an eye out for that. I'm wary of documentary films, music videos, porn, etc - but it's likely that one or more have slipped by me. I've been at home these past few days with a cold, just wanting to do something simple like run an AWB sweep. There are things I could be doing, but I just don't have th energy for it. I guess my concentration is not what it should be. Do you know of any documentaries I have changed? Regards SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Silky: You changed American Dream (film), but not to worry I'll change it back now. I'm glad we're in synch. I like you're comments re CAST in 12 Monkeys. I don't like those CAST TEMPLATES as they look terrible. I prefer the "cast as" as per WP:MOS. More on this type of stuff later. If I have a question, I add to "part three" of this on-going dialogue. Best-- Luigibob (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your trip

Hey have a safe trip to Brussels. If on business, do something for yourself as well (I see you like beer, visit a different beer hall, ha!). Best-- Luigibob (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

References sections

Hi. I'm curious why you're adding "References" sections to articles that don't have any <ref>'s. Frankly, this doesn't make sense to me and I'm wondering if you've thought it through. You can answer here. RedSpruce (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a valid question. The answer is not straightforward and simple though, as it involves the minor motivation that provokes all of us to do petty tasks now and again. I had become aware of the category English-language films, and it caught my interest. I wasn't sure of its purpose so decided to look into it. I dusted off my AWB, which I use only rarely, and set it to go through the cat to clean up minor errors. While doing that I thought I would use it to conform parts of the articles to MOS and FilmProject guidelines - also to add Ref sections in the suggested manner. Though this developed rather than sprang fully formed in my mind! There were various aspects to the reasoning why I chose the little bits I did (I could after all have chosen to set up the AWB to do other tasks), part of the thinking behind adding the Ref section is that is something I have a tendency to do anyway as I have an interest in referencing. There have been talks at the Village Pump suggesting that a Ref section should be a default section on every page, though this has never gone beyond the suggestion stage. I did consider putting a ref tag on each page that was missing references, but as that in effect is the majority of articles, it would somewhat overload the unreferenced category - which is already monstrously huge! My feeling is that the Ref section acts as a reminder to people to use references. That by putting it in in the approved manner there is a conformity to all articles, which most Wikipedians appreciate, and that if I did it while exploring the English-language films it would save someone else doing it. As you are aware, all articles should have references, and for references to work effectively they need an appropriately and correctly set up Reference section. So - I didn't actually set out to add the Ref sections, but adding them became a part of what I was doing as I was moving through what is turning out to be a vast category. It's quite interesting to note the type and variety of film articles we have, and the varying quality. And also to note recurring problems (overlong plot sections, dubious speculative opinions, questionable trivial sections, and - even with some quite developed articles - a lack of referencing). I hope that satisfies your curiosity - if not, please feel free to ask me more questions. Regards SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 15:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at your recent edit history and noticed what happened with The Abominable Dr. Phibes. All articles have to be referenced. There was once a proposal that unreferenced articles should be removed - though most folks felt that was going too far. However, there is no argument for any article or group of articles avoiding the need for referencing. I note that User:Popplewick has restored the article. I like what Popplewick has done, and even though I felt that tagging was unnecessary, I can see that it works quite nicely that way, so shall copy that method in future. It's worth reading Wikipedia:Verifiability to get some background to this issue. As this is a core policy, it would take a lot to change consensus, though if you feel strongly enough you could explore the issue at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Best wishes. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'd point out a couple of things: First, it's interesting that you've embarked on this project with films, because with film articles more than many other types, it's debatable how important a "references" section is. Often the article will be little or nothing more than a synopsis of the movie and a list of credits. In such cases the reference for the credits is likely to be IMDB, which will probably be linked somewhere in the article, but probably not used as a footnote. The "reference" for the synopsis is likely to be film itself -- not ideal, perhaps; a written source would be better -- but adequate for most film articles. So an awful lot of film articles aren't going to have a "references" section, and it's arguable whether they need one or will ever have one.

The second point I'd make is to be sure not to re-do this change on an article if some editor has undone it. The decision of an article-watching editor should take precedence over an AWB-semiautomated edit.

I'm extremely familiar with Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and related policies. To say "All articles have to be referenced" is an extreme position, and and in incorrect one in the sense that it doesn't jibe with reality. If and when this becomes a policy of Wikipedia, that will be a different matter.

RedSpruce (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Red. I understand the view that films can reference themselves as regards sections like plot. However, the topic itself does needs referencing. A standing core policy on Wiki is that articles need to be verifiable, from which comes the "notable" guideline. The proof of notability is that reliable sources have written about the topic. We can't get around that - not for films, books, music cds, people, etc - even though these topics can reference to themselves as regards basic facts. The film itself is what is called a primary source, and we are allowed to use primary sources AFTER we have established notability through secondary sources. This is useful for the differences between primary and secondary: Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources.

For your second point I'll need to indicate that I restarted my AWB today from scratch because I had made some changes to what I was doing and wanted to go back and ensure that earlier films I had passed over also incorporated the changes. I did not deliberately set out to revert what you had done - it just happened as my AWB was doing its second sweep. And, as I pointed out above, it was a third, uninvolved, editor who then undid your revert, not I. I understand what you are saying regarding an involved watching editor, though I suggest you take care regarding WP:Own, and also consider carefully the reasons for another person's edit. None of us are absolutely right all the time - heavens knows I'm not! - which is why it's good that Wiki is a collaborative process. As for decisions - the decision of an article watching editor cannot take precedence over Wiki policy. If you are not happy with the policy please take it up at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability as I suggested above, rather than with me. I may help shape notability guidelines now and again, but I don't think I've ever been involved in policy making.

As for your final point. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Though I would point you to Wikipedia:Notability (films) which talks directly about films and the sort of sources that are required. Keep well! SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

One final (I think) comment: It seems to me that you are valuing rules for rules' sake. That is, you aren't thinking about why the rule was made or whether it validly applies to a particular article or situation. Thus, you haven't addressed the points I raised in any specific way; you've just cited more rules, and argued that your automated sweep through a batch of articles has more validity than an individual editor who actually knows something about a particular article in question. If you like rules so much, I refer you to this one: WP:Ignore all rules.

P.S.: And by the way, Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources doesn't say anything that applies to this discussion. If you were willing to misapply the rule, then it did say something of that nature a few months ago, when it was much more emphatic about secondary sources being preferable to primary sources, but it was changed recently. If you're going to venerate rules for rules' sake, you should keep current on them. RedSpruce (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

12 Monkeys

Hi. I notice you "prose" tagged the "Cast" section for 12 Monkeys. Any particular reason? A cast section will always be a list due to its content ... or not? Greetings TINYMark (Talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I was waiting for someone to ask that! Take a look at I_Am_Legend_(film)#Casting and Fight_Club_(film)#Casting as examples of how it looks in prose. In general lists are discouraged on Wiki as per Wikipedia:Embedded_lists#Lists_within_articles, though there are times when a cold factual list is preferred - usually in technical or science articles. I understand the way that articles are created and that people with little article writing experience will read a film article on Wiki and note that it doesn't have a cast section - so they enter details of the cast in a simple manner. I have no problem with that - it is the way of Wiki, and can easily be turned into prose by a patient editor. However, when a grid structure is used, this makes the business of turning the details into prose a bit more difficult, and additionally has the result of turning away some new editors unfamiliar with such a layout. It is to such hard grids that I attach the {{Prose}} tag, this is mainly to indicate to those editors who like to tackle turning lists into prose, a section for them to work on, but I suppose can also serve as a flag that creating such grids are generally not helpful or widely appreciated. I hope that answers your question - if not, please let me know. Regards SilkTork *^{What's your point?} 17:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand flagging the section to get attention for a revision. The problem is that, when turned into prose, a lot of the cast does not get mentioned, and the infobox should only contain the "starring" actors. Or is the way forward to have a ridiculously long "Characters" section as in Platoon, where the section is a long as that for the plot?

PS: I have seen your user name a lot. We seem to be working on the same types of article. Your edits usually seem good to me ;-) TINYMark (Talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I there are judgments to be made when working on articles. I like the way that Wiki has few hard rules, but a number of fairly "loose" guidelines. There are, of course, different ways of doing things, and the best we can do is to encourage people to work toward what is generally seen as the most useful and attractive way of doing stuff, but to accept that some will do or try something else. I like that looseness because it allows and encourages progress. If we put up too many hard rules we would not be so accepting of potentially positive change. Having said that - I agree with you that the "characters" section of Platoon seems rather dense. It's like going from one extreme to the other, isn't it! I do, however, have a preference for what has been done in Platoon, than in those articles where the cast are forced into rigid and bare wikitables which do little more than repeat the information in the infobox. I don't see a problem with people making a choice as to who to include in the cast section; usually this is going to be the most notable people, though someone minor who did something special can get a mention, along with the reason for the mention. If the cast members mentioned starts getting into the realm of the trivial then someone will come along and trim it down. Such is the nature of Wiki. Are you a person who prefers lists in general, or just for the cast? SilkTork *^{What's your point?} 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just had a look back at some of your recent edits. I see you also like films and beer! Nice one! SilkTork *^{What's your point?} 17:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather see something other than a list, but a list does allow more actors to be included, e. g., in an older film, where a now prominent actor had on of their first roles. This is the sort of information an encylopedia should be there for. I discovered WP and found it very informative, but, after about 3 months, I realised that there is also a lot of misinformation and not everyone's grammer and spelling is the best (even allowing for AE ;-) ), so I decided to contribute as well as simply using it. TINYMark (Talk) 19:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

O yes - a LOT of misinformation. Articles on topics about which one knows nothing look very good. But then you read an article on a topic you are familiar with and you go - ah, that's not quite right - and you make the small change. And then you're HOOKED! There ARE some great articles on Wiki, but all too many unreliable ones. Wiki is my first source for information, and for current events it can be brilliant - I can get so proud of my fellow Wikipedians as we work together on an article. In my experience, the more editors an article has the more reliable it becomes. Some articles that are owned by a handful or even one editor tend to the POV of the editors. Such article can LOOK good, but not present the sum of human knowledge. I always welcome questions and debate from fellow Wikipedians. It is the right and proper way of doing things.

A list - that is an open, unstructured list - can be a positive way to start a cast section. It's when it moves into the arena of a fixed wikitable that I have my doubts. Wikitables are best reserved for sections in which there is no debate about if the information should be presented in a list format. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad Day

Hi SilkTork,

I have updated the year of the release of Bad Day (film) to 2008, as this is when hopefully the film will be released.

Thank you

DJ Pomfret

That's cool - anyone can continue to edit articles under discussion in AfD. Often Sometimes an article is improved while under discussion so that people change their !vote. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 11:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Brussels

Dear Silk Tork. I am unsure what kind of information you are seeking. Brussels is the capital of the Kingdom of Belgium. That state has three, not two, official languages. To me, it would appear sensible to include the name of the city in all official languages of the country run from it (as is the case, e.g., on French wikipedia). I don't think the number of German-speakers who live in the city or region is relevant here, as opposed to the official status of the language in question in the country in question. (edit conflict) That's why my edits summary stated German is one of the official languages of Belgium, of which Brussels is the capital. athinaios | Talk 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But the article is about Brussels. It's not about Belgium. In the same way that London is about London, not the United Kingdom, which has several languages. In addition it is Wiki policy to use IPA, and articles are moving toward that. Check Help:Pronunciation. I find that for articles on places which will have a distinct regional pronunciation that using the regional pronunciation is helpful. However, as the chances of hearing Brussels pronounced in German in Brussels is as likely as hearing Paris, London, or Rome pronounced in German there is a limit to how useful that information actually is. If you feel strongly that the information is useful (as opposed to simply a matter of political stance, for an encyclopedia doesn't follow any political bias) then let us take this to the talkpage and get a wider perspective. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if that's what you prefer. I don't think I understand your issue. From my point of view, this is not political, nor is it anything to do with pronunciation. The article is about Brussels, which is, amongst other things, the capital of Belgium, and should give the name of that city in all official languages of that country. The German name is not a different pronunciation, but a slightly different name in the same way that, say, Copenhagen is not just a different pronunciation of København. It is the norm for articles on country capitals to give names in all relevant national languages (look at Edinburgh, Helsinki or Berne, also at Leuven and Liège (city)). The London article is unusual in that regard, perhaps because the multi-lingual character of Britain is less strongly felt than that of Belgium? If this needs to go on the Brussels talk page, I'd like to stress it's not because I feel the information is useful (which I do), but because you feel it is necessary to remove ca. 30 characters and a piece of information that has been part of the article since January 2003. athinaios | Talk 19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've placed the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Pronunciation, and linked it to your talkpage as that's where our conversation started. I hadn't moved over your last comment above, but will do so now. It might be useful to direct all further comments on this to the Project talkpage or to your own talkpage to save us having this conversation in multi-locations! SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. athinaios | Talk 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LT

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of London's transport system.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• You may want to join or create a task force which attempts to drive the improvement of articles within a smaller scope.
• The project also provides templates to help you make the perfect article.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every London transport article in Wikipedia.
• You can vote for the London Transport portal's selected article and selected image of the month here.
• Submit your interesting London Transport facts at Portal:London Transport/Did you know for our portal.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

— From the members of WikiProject London Transport

Unisouth (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Willow Creek Pass DRV

No problem at all with you taking Willow Creek Pass (Montana) to deletion review, probably a good idea. I would certainly not be offended at all, and more discussion about it would be a good thing. Thanks for letting me know. --Canley (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Babel (film)

I don't know if it was AWB or you who removed the 250px parameter in this edit], but it quadrupled the size of the image and probably resulted in a violation of fair use. If you did it by mistake, no problem; I fixed it. It it was done by AWB, you might want to see what the problem is. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for sorting that. It's a new version of AWB that updated when I opened it today, and I noticed it's been altering some images. I've gone back and corrected them - but I missed that one. I'm keeping an eye out on when and why it does it - I think it's when there is a forced size - AWB appears to be removing not only the size forcing, but also the thumb instruction which keeps images to max width of 250. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA Question

Hey, I saw your question at WJBscribe's talkpage after I made a small grammar fix, and I thought you should know that Acalamari reverted your vote. [1] Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 04:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I thought that would be the procedure, but wanted to clear it with the 'crat first. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 10:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, I saw your messages on WJBscribe's talk page and I'm sorry I forgot to leave a courtesy note on your talk page explaining what I'd done. I am sure that Scarian appreciates your support though, even if it did come after the RfA had been closed. Acalamari 20:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

It was an unexpected find. I didn't even notice the shift when I first looked at the decline in editing over October 2006. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again. I should add that User:Alanyst's survey of the whole database personally blew me away for it's breadth and imagination; my later analysis built on top of his excellent work. Cool Hand Luke 02:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evo Powerboards

Any particular reason you are closing an AFD that I relisted yesterday? The reason it was relisted was there had not been a notice on the article since the day it was posted so people involved in those type of articles may not have seen the listing. -Djsasso (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw an AfD that had been hanging around for days unclosed and felt I could safely use that as my first experience at closing an AfD as it seemed fairly uncontroversial. Clearly I didn't look closely enough. What do you suggest I now do? Should I undo what I've done? Regards SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, I actually kind of was curious if I had done something wrong. This is probably the outcome that would have happened anyways so I don't think its a big deal. I actually had closed it as well and then noticed there was no notice on the article. I know closing your first article can be daunting, I have only really just started doing them myself. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased you said that as I was feeling fairly proud of myself for having worked through the instructions and it looked as though everything had worked well so far - and then I got the big yellow message banner, and I thought - "Oh, oh! I've fucked up". I'm relieved that you feel it can stand. I'd better now go back to the instructions and make sure that I finished everything neatly! Cheers! SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Award

Hey, thanks for the award. That's very kind of you. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hi. :) Working on the backlog at AfD, I noticed that the bots weren't properly cataloging this one as closed. I think on investigation that it may be because you put the closure template below the header, here. The template needs to go above the header, and I think now I know why. :) I've reformatted this one, and the bot seems to be handling it correctly now. I realize this could have been a one-off accident, but in case it was something you didn't know, I wanted to point it out to you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd stopped doing closures because I could see that one hanging, and I wasn't sure why. So I thought I'd wait to find out the problem before doing any more. I'm clear to go now! SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I just wanted to apologise for the language that i used when posting on two different discussion, i know that i offended you, and it will not happen again, that i can promise. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I have just left a message for you, letting you know that I have raised the issue on ANI. It may be better for all concerned if you were to leave the project. You may need to convince people that you are able to control your temper if you wish to stay here and contribute positively. There is the option of someone adopting you. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose it is your perogative to report me and my language to the administrators, i respect your view. I just hope that this can be resolved and we can both return to editing and contributing without anymore of my stupidity affecting either of us, again i am sorry.--Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• How would i be adopted by someone? Maybe that would be best, they would help me learn the ropes aswell. Thankyou.--Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User - or straight to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area. You have a choice of asking someone to adopt you by putting {{subst:dated adoptme}} on your user page, or select someone from this list. Good luck. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs is very good. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 12:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, even though i offended you, you still seem to want to help, which i think is great, a great thing about the human race. I contacted a user who shares my passion in ancient histort, and once again, thankyou.--Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• What about you? Can you adopt me, just for a week or two, until i can template with the best of them. Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

David has been in touch with you. And he seems willing to take you under his wing. Listen carefully to his advice. He's a good man. Knows his stuff. Well respected. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 17:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

MOD Stafford

You edited the Stafford entry stating that RAF Stafford was a non-flying station... I know it has no runway, but what about the helicopters that would frequently overfly my house on their way in to land? :)

Coob (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but the actual station itself stayed put. It was also non-walking, non-running, non-swimming, and non-flashing. SilkTork *^YES! 22:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that it is flying through space at a a tremendous speed, with the town (and indeed the rest of the planet) attached to it. So there! Coob (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But your argument would fail because the Earth patently doesn't fly, it orbits. A different kettle of fish fingers indeed. SilkTork *^YES! 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Back of beyond

Hi, I notice you changed the Section headings I set up for this article from Notes and References to References and Bibliography. I am interested to know why you did this. I believe the style I have been using is one of the established ones in Wiki eg for the Vivien Leigh article. I find the use of Notes and References to be clean - with Notes standing for Footnotes and References for the list of works consulted. My experience is that the heading Bibliography is used ambiguously in Wiki - some use it the way you have here but others use it for the list of an author's work in articles about authors. To avoid this confusion, I use Works for the list of works in author articles. In other words, I don't use the Bibliography heading at all. I'd be interested in your comments on this. It's not something I'd die in a ditch over but I've written over 20 articles now using the Notes -- References approach and wonder if they are all going to be changed? If I should change? Cheers Sterry2607 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sterry. Thanks for drawing my attention to that - there were a couple of errors I made when doing the AWB sweep over that article. The References / Notes thing is down to personal choice - we have no hard and fast rules on it. Though when usage is scattered and inconsistent there can be confusions. This guide Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2FExternal_links is short though useful. I tend to use References for the section which lists the reference sources used in the article - and I prefer that to Notes, which can be used for a number of other things. Footnotes would be for comments on the article which are not references. External links would be to send people to a website which has information on the article, and a bibliography would be to send people to books on the article. Further reading would be when the websites and books are mixed together. That's my understanding and how I like to work. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 08:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork for your prompt response. This whole area in Wikipedia is, as you say, quite inconsistent. I regularly look at the Wiki help articles such as the one you cite (and when I read that one it doesn't seem to me to indicate that the way I had done it was wrong), as well as actual Feature articles for guidance. It seems you and I see this aspect of Wiki articles a little differently: I see Notes as being used for citations and comments if any, References for the list of works actually used in the article (it can include works not cited but it should include all cited works), External Sites for links to additional sources of information that were not used in compiling the article, and Further Reading for a list of books and other printed material that contain additional information but that weren't used in compiling the article. I see these as all separate sections. I guess my question is that if this is all down to personal choice, does the way it was initially done in Back of Beyond need to be changed? Can you point me to some articles done your way so I can better understand what you mean? I do have a slightly alternative way of doing it which I've seen in Feature articles but I'm not sure that it is what you are thinking.Sterry2607 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. If I give you some background to what I am doing it may help your decision to change what I have done. I am going on a sweep through all the film articles with the intention of tidying up certain areas, one of which is the References section. I have chosen to use the approach I outlined above, so that at the end of the sweep the film articles should all have a reference section and should have a consistent feel to the reference section, following what appears to me to be the use I have encountered most often and which appears to have a the wider consensus for clarity - though other uses, including yours are encountered. I understand and expect that what I do can be changed in certain circumstances where someone closely working on an article may have a valid rationale for doing things in a different way.

SO there are two possible issues here, which you can help with. One is to do with having a consistent approach to the references section in the film articles. The approach can be different to the one I have started, and can either be the approach you use or another approach. If you feel there are particular benefits to an alternative approach to the one I am using then lets talk about that and if it would alter a significant amount of film articles, raise the issue on the FilmProject to get a wider consensus. If you feel that the approach I am using is acceptable, that is also fine, and - as it appears to be the approach already in widespread use - we wouldn't need to seek consensus to bring the non-standard approaches in line.

The other issue is that your approach to Referencing in The back of beyond is particularly suited to that article, and the particular use of it in that article is strong enough for it to be different to the the referencing approach used in other film articles. If that is the case - and you would know that - then you would be right to change it back.

Is that clear? I'm at work and keep getting distracted by real life so I have written this over a space of a few hours by snatching a moment here and there! SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 13:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks SilkTork. I think I will change it back (becaue I particularly like this style when the majority of sources are printed) but I might play with a variation on the theme that I've seen in several feature articles (including I think Casablanca (film). OK? Enjoy your real life - I retired last year so Wiki IS real life for me - sorta! Sterry2607 (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Notes/Reference style used in Casablanca is one I have seen used in a few other articles as well. It stands well alone, and I like it. I used a similar approach myself in Beer for a while. There is no real objection to it, other than what is called Notes is called References in most other articles. It's what happens, and isn't a problem. We don't NEED to have a consistency across all of Wiki, though it makes it easier and more attractive for the majority of people. As Wiki develops so various Projects are drawing up style guidelines to ensure a consistency that people feel comfortable with. I'm not manic about it, as I'm not manic about anything on Wiki, but when my sweep gets to Casablanca I'm likely to change the reference section so it is consistent with the other film articles. If someone who is fond of that layout changes it back, I'm not going to be bothered. I'll have moved on by then anyway. Eventually, over time, all articles will have a consistent layout, and it will come to pass that someone else will make the change to Casablanca to using References instead of Notes, and Bibliography in place of References. Or, a different layout approach will be in place, and everything I have done will be changed! What will be will be!

I know what you mean about Wiki being real life. I was off work for a while and spent A LOT of time on here doing beer articles. It became quite an obsession. It's good to have a break now and get to get a sense of perspective and fresh air. Have you got involved in any back stage stuff? Writing guidelines and such? Man, that's intense at times. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 08:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry SilkTork that I didn't reply to this earlier - I headed off overseas in late February so the last couple of weeks of Feb were a bit busy. Got back this weekend. No, I haven't got involved in writing guidelines though it's the sort of stuff I like to do - is what I did when I worked (data entry guidelines was one of my responsibilities) but I have created an Article Checklist for myself which I sometimes wonder about promulgating...I'm not ready yet though I think!!Sterry2607 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Victoria Climbié

I would think you could make a strong case for fair use, since the subject has died. It would be impossible to create a free version, though you should search for a free version, though that would also be unlikely as she wasn't notable before hand (I think) and not likely to have any pictures of her other than from her family which might not release a free version, though you may wish to contact them and request one. Once you have searched and attempted a request for a free one (wait a few weeks at least), you could then upload it to Wikipedia under fair use and apply a rationale. I would take this one and crop it down some (it will help satisfy your requirement of reduced size). Use a rationale template and you'll be fine. I can help more when you get to that point. For requesting permission, see WP:COPYREQ. Good luck! MECU≈talk 13:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for addressing this situation. Kind of perplexing to wake up in the morning to a random attack from a stranger. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Odd. Comments on the ANI, and Meursault's response do knit a yarn. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Me again. :) I just wanted to note that when you merge an article, as set out at Help:Merge, you need to include a wikilink to the destination article in the source article edit summary as well as in the destination article. This is important to make sure that future admins know not to delete the article, as for GFDL compliance we have to preserve the history of merged material. When I closed the AfD of Biblical Numerology, I did note your merger in the edit summary, so that's done. This is just for future reference. Happy editing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

Ah yes - that was not a proper merge as there was an AfD in progress, but I felt it was appropriate to bring over the main points to indicate how it could look so people could see that and make a decision. I suppose the mistake was to call my edit a merge in the edit summary; if I recall my thinking, it was to create a link with the source article, but I can see how it could be misread. Thanks for the heads up. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 16:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, calling it a merge in the edit summary of the destination article was absolutely the right thing to do; I didn't mean to imply any kind of mistake! All I wanted to note was that we're required to mention it at the source article, too, just to be sure that the source article is never deleted, since, of course, Wikipedia's contributors do retain right to authorship credits under GFDL. We need to do that whether it's a merge of a sentence, a paragraph or the entire article just in case something comes up with the source article and other contributors don't know. If we delete the source article, that puts us in the weird position of violating copyright within our own webspace. :D I'm sorry I wasn't more clear; I really didn't mean to suggest that you'd done anything wrong with your edit summary at the destination article; it's just the need to do it at the source article too that I wanted to point out. And now I'm probably over-explaining, so I'll shut up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. I generally only create a link if I'm doing a full merge. But I see the point you're making. So if a section from an article has been copied into another article, then the source article can never be deleted? SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 18:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, unless we do a history merge. Generally, of course, those are done to fix copy & paste moves, but I have seen them done as housekeeping just to prevent an old source article hanging around--probably some variant on WP:IAR. :) I don't remember at this point who first explained to me how duplicating text from one article to another works in terms of GFDL; it's been a long time. :) But, as Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves notes, "we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons." As you know (and did), we make sure that happens, when we duplicate text from one article to another, is to note what we've done in the edit summary, so that authorship can be traced to the source article. If we delete the source article, we're deleting the history...and violating the contributors' rights. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:SilkTork/Pushead

I moved the article and it's history to User:SilkTork/Pushead. If you are able to salvage the article you will want to move it it back to Pushead. Even if you are not able to salvage it we will need to move it back so I can re-delete it there and save the history. Jeepday (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look

Please take a look Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here for some suggestions about how to clean up the problem, and add your ideas. Thanks! Noroton (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

AN/I in re: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Hi - I have asked that your recent MFD be closed because it is not the right venue for that type of discussion, you can see my comments here --Fredrick day (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the debate on this matter as a Procedural Close. MfD is for the deletion of entire pages, not for specifc sections as you propose. Your concern is well taken, and I can't say I disagree - but the proper venue to discuss the matter is probably Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or, alternatively, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Footnotes v. References, part duex

Hey it's me. I trust you are well. I just got pushed back by an editor who changed Rerences to Notes. I rev and said as per MOS:FILM it's References. See: Anatomy of a Murder. Whatchathink? Any news in this area? I mean there is difference when writing in Wiki? Most of the articles I do use Footnotes as is standard in scholarly work, but I've changed to References as per you suggestion. Let me know your thoughts? Best -- Luigibob (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! Good to hear from you.

Ah, yes. It's the nature of a collaborative animal that it may at times have two heads. To keep things moving in the right direction common sense says that the heads should get together and agree which direction that will be. This may mean that one of the heads has to reluctantly "give in". As we have discussed previously - there is no intrinsic better way - it could be Notes, or it could be References. However, the majority of articles use References for listing sources, Notes for explanatory notes on the text, Bibliography for lists of related texts which were not used as sources (though some older articles simply listed source texts without in-line citations - a method now frowned upon), and External links for lists of related online texts which were not used as sources (though again, the older style is still very much in use). There are variations, and there are many notable articles which use Notes for listing sources, and References for listing related texts. Often it is down to the individual taste of the main writer(s) of the article. If some determined Wikipedians decide they want to see all articles use Notes for listing sources and References for listing related texts, then that is fine. I like some degree of consistency in one publication, and I would be content with that. At the moment, within Films the clear majority of articles use References for listing sources, and I have followed that when editing Film articles, changing where I find other uses. Where I meet someone who disagrees with that layout I would discuss matters with them, in the same way that we chatted. Reasonable people reach an understanding. Unreasonable people do not. If someone is unreasonable I would let matters alone. 100% perfection is not possible. Wiki editing should be fun. And if I am following consensus then someone else will come along and make the appropriate edit. I'll make my edit on Anatomy of a Murder and leave a comment on Ed Fitzgerald's talkpage. He seems an interesting and very good editor. Many of his comments on his user page I absolutely agree with! If he reverts back to Notes after my edit, then I suggest just leaving things be - there are plenty more articles to work on!

Keep smiling! SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you made me comfortable no matter what happens! I was just trying to follow policy. Jeeez. I'm sure that took a while to write, so it's so much appreciated. I am making good friends here on Wiki (seriously), that I should not get down by some. I'll keep in touch....and I'm I'm even trying to help some new people... as always I tell them to follow policy, esp. like MOS:FILM. My best Luigibob (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By the by, are you a Buddhist? How you handled that, was, as Dudley said in the film, "L.A. Confidential," masterful. Luigibob (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC) (you have heard of mixed metaphors, thinks of mixed symbolics....)

I've been on the internet for long enough now to know that there is a real person the other side of the screen. Indeed, I have met a number of these people and some have become my firmest friends. I've also been around Wikipedia long enough to know that great benefit comes from discussion. Two heads are better than one - even if, at times, they do pull in opposite directions! I like what has happened at Anatomy of a Murder and shall be doing Ref sections the same way from now on. I may start a discussion at the Film Project to see how others feel. What do you think? SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

How you first talk to people makes them, in my own words, comfortable. We're all watching for our egos. Me too of course, that's why I look towards policy to get away from that. And, you helped me get there by your nudge so many months ago. Recently, however, I reached out to some to calm me down and help me with my current situation. Without question, we Wikipedians need an arbitrator such as you (can there be any better). I agree if the argument is between editors, right away, a neutral party needs to be involved, with training, of course. My best Luigibob (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Although we disagree about this BLP/BIO thing, I appreciate your notifying me. I think you've found the forum you were looking for at Village Pump:Policy, and you'll get plenty of vigorous discussion and plenty of participation. I think you've got a good chance of prevailing, too. It's good to get these discussions away from just a small number of editors. Again, thanks! Noroton (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PROD

I've removed the prod you placed on a number of articles as they turned out to be notable per WP:BIO. Tabercil (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:PORNBIO. Also, will you be creating the AfD for Jessica May? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who merged WP:PORNBIO into WP:BIO and then adjusted it to fit so I am aware of it. Thanks for the heads up on the uncompleted AfD on Jessica May - that has now been completed. The link to the award on the article page does not - as far as I can see - show the name of Jessica May. There is a Lady May. Is she the same person? SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be very highly likely that Jessica May == Lady May. As for the PORNBIO - BIO merge...this may have been discussed elsewhere and I may be wrong, but I think this was a very poor thing to happen. But if there is consensus then I take it back.

No, no. Lady Mai and Jessica May are two different people. I've met the both of them in Barcelona (at the awards even). Vinh1313 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, both of your AfDs, and all of the prods, clearly meet PORNBIO. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's good to contest these things now and again. The articles show no evidence for notability, and the cites appear to be inaccurate. If there is a strong enough interest in these article then they will be dressed up during the AfD and made stronger. Already two people have been in touch with me which indicates that some people do care what happens. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 02:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I closed all three of your afd's, as it appears it was done for the shear notion as to make a point. I'd advise that you next time consider discussing a contested prod before directly going to articles for deletion. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Not bad faith or pointy at all - a genuine feeling that the topics were not notable. And the procedure for a contested Prod is to AfD it: "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a prod tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article). If the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore tag, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.". A speedy close for obvious vandalism or disruption is fine, but a look at my history and you'll note that I am far from a vandal, and that I am far from being disruptive. If you'd looked at my history you'd have seen this, which is where the criteria used in the above AfDs were placed in WP:BIO by myself. Clear evidence I am aware of the issues, and that I had legitimate reasons to question the validity of the claims made in those articles. I am not going to contest your closure as the result would have been keep anyway, as it turns out that the links were stale rather than incorrect. However, a note to me that the links had been reactivated and I would likely have closed the AfDs myself. I feel this little situation has been pushed toward potential drama. However, no probs - these things happen. Keep well. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 09:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned by the PROD on the Pavel Novotny article. This was how it appeared at the time of your prod notation, and not only does it pass WP:BIO, it names the award that leads to its inclusion. Looking at your contribs, you added a bunch of prod tags, many of which have been reversed, and I'm concerned that you aren't assessing these articles with sufficient care. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think my wording was wrong. It was a case of looking at some of these articles in a couple of categories and going through them and identifying what appeared to me to be very weak articles that either were not making any assertion of notability or were making what appeared to be unfounded claims. As someone else has pointed out "No assertion of notability" isn't accurate for all the articles I tagged. In hindsight I should have spent more time on the wording. My assumption (incorrect as it has turned out, given the amount of attention these articles have now attracted) was that these mostly minor unformed stubs were on the fringes of interest and that a brief wording would be sufficient. I agree that I should have looked more closely at the whole situation. I have above suggested that another editor could have taken more care in looking at my history and not making assumptions, yet I have been guilty of the very same thing. Thanks for your comment - yours, and the others have made it quite clear that I had a weak moment of judgment last night, and it's helpful to be asked to reflect upon one's actions; it keeps us all honest. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for both a candid and thoughtful answer. You have addressed concerns I didn't even express. If only we all believed in the value of reflection - particularly honest self-reflection, even if we sometimes need to conclude we made a mistake. There are a couple of other topics I am following tonight that would benefit enormously from a dose of the good sense and good humour you have displayed here. :) Jay*Jay (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Lilli Xene

As I feel the porn star Lilli Xene is notable enough under WP:PORNBIO I've removed the PROD tag you added and instead "upgraded" it to AFD as I feel there should be discussion. 23skidoo (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. In the light of the interest that my prods have generated, and the general feeling that the prods were misplaced I'll be reassessing the situation and removing the prods where it looks like I placed them inappropriately. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked and I'm comfortable that the remaining prods fail WP:PORNBIO. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"PROD nomination" notice deleted a lot of talk page

Did you mean to do this? Or was it a TW bug? --GRuban (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's interesting. I undid it. I also undid my Prod. Funny - I just reviewed my Prods from last night to check them over, and I missed that one. There is a Sun report on her, and she was listed in FHM so she has enough notability to have an article. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. She also had a TV show named after her, apparently, though I couldn't find many details on it. It was a request a while back. --GRuban (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no drama

The appearance of all three of your AFD's made me think you had done it in bad faith. However, I do still believe that discussion over the talk or user talk pages would have been more effective. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Two accounts?

Hi Oxyman42. While looking into the situation at Inventions in the Islamic world I noticed User:Oxyman and User:79.68.135.210 also made edits on the article. Oxyman's name is very similar to yours and edits on similar articles. If this is indeed yourself then take a look at Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Alternative_account_notification and follow the instructions. It might be as well if the other account is not yourself, to inform a checkuser that the other account is not yourself in order to avoid potential future problems. The IP account made a revert edit which could be seen as your account avoiding the three revert rule. As you know, it's bad enough to edit war to the third degree, but it's considered even worse to mask that third degree revert by using a sock puppet account. Taking a quick look at your talk page I see you have previously used a sock puppet and then deleted the information. My inclination now is to report this situation in order to ensure transparency and trust. I'd be interested to hear what you say before I do that, however I may go ahead and report within the next hour if I don't get an immediate response. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually made the 2nd account on advice from wikipedia it says somewhere in the maze of stuff that doppelgangers are allowed, I had a nameing dificulty whith one of the accounts before I changed it's name. If I was really wanting to sock puppet I wouldn't have chosen such a similar name, also no one made me aware that I might be breaking a three revert rule as I did not get any warning messages. I don't actually think I got in an edit war on this one. The Muslims are sly and willing to wait time before they return to their pov pushing Oxyman42 (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

note i have since taken the issue to Wikipedia:AIV. as sugested by user:Pahari Sahib

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the best

Thank you so much for your kind thought and award...it came at a necessary time in my Wiki-days........ Your amigo always, Luigibob (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to wish you a blessed day this easter Sunday.. your amigo always -- Luigibob (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

References, Notes and Bibliographies

One of the major issues I see in WikiProject Films as well as in other groups is in dealing with a consistent referencing format and a clear example of that issue is the use of the "References" section. The use of "Notes" is now established as a part of the references section and when you use other sources, they are part of a "Bibliography" and not a "Further reading" section which implies that these are ancillary sources. This style guide is employed in WP:Aviation and as a format, see the use of Aviation:Films and the multiple uses within this category.

The use of this convention has been very carefully screened since a Swedish editor implemented it last year. It follows and fits MoS guides and has not been reverted even once (well, once- in the case of this article). Admins and other experienced editors use this format throughout the Aviation group. The reason for its implementation was the nonstandard use of references as a "catch-all section" when in fact they incorporated an endnotes or footnotes section and a bibliographical record. The "Further reading" section is just what it says, further to the article's research sources. My background is as a reference librarian and presently, author/editor for a number of publishing houses. See: 49th Parallel, It's A Wonderful Life, The Right Stuff (film) and countless other film articles for examples of this use of referencing.

As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available)<style guides> for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide that editors may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In The Rocketeer (film) article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "The Rocketeer (film)" citation/reference notes. The "true style" is primarily use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet.

As to the website citations, the simplest system is all that is required as per editor Jeff Finlayson's suggestion. and FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. The simpler form should predominate, not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system. You may have to read this background note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations.

Excuse the pedantic rambling, but I thought I might want to establish my thinking behind the use of references and a style guide that other editors such as Ed Fitzgerald are now using. FWIW, I would very happy to continue this discussion and further elaborate on protocols for referencing sources. Bzuk (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC).

That's perfect. That's the way [2] I have also decided to move forward. I was thinking of discussing it with the Project. I like having a consistent approach, and using ==References== ===Notes=== ===Bibliography=== seems the best way forward. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea fellas....Hi Mr. Silky, have a great week...... Luigibob (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jana Miartušová

Just a friendly heads up on Jana Miartušová. I removed your prod tag because the article was already prodded (and the prod contested) in February 2007. Feel free to take it to AfD if you like, but it can't be prodded again. Cheers!--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll look into it. SilkTork *^YES! 15:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

YL

The merge looks fine, thanks very much. Best regards, YuriLandman (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

PROF

Since you have a pretty strong interest in notability, what do you think of the recent dicsussions at WP:PROF? --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

my RFA

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

References redux

Thanks for those egs. That's an interesting approach to put them under a bigger section heading. I'll keep looking at new ones...I'd like to see a written policy/guideline on what they think they are doing here. I wonder why two of them have External Links under a bigger section heading, and the other doesn't. I think part of the confusion about how to handle all this reference stuff is due to the issue of online versus non-online references and whether to handle them all the same way or to handle the online refs differently to the non-online ones.Sterry2607 (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Billboard AfD

Part of the reason I didn't close as delete (which I suppose I should have mentioned more explicitly) is that redundant information isn't really a reason to delete articles - it's a reason to merge them to the more relevant title, in this case "200x in music". All of the deletes (except your own) rotated around that point, with a couple "per aboves" thrown in. If you'd like, I can have another admin take a look at it (I'm in the IRC channel right now). I hope this helps clear things up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello, thak you very much for your message. I was just wondering how I would go about being adopted by a more experienced user. I am very interested in helping Wikipedia greatly in its development and integrity.

I'd be grateful for any response and/or advise.

Gamstatude (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. If you go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User there's information there. However - if you'd like me to give you some pointers, and to answer your questions, I would be willing to do that. SilkTork *^YES! 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Billboard Hot 100 top 10 copyvio complaint

Hi, I don't think these lists are copyright violations. IANAL, but lists of facts are not copyrightable. Lists which are in some sort of subjective order can be copyrighted, but according to [3] these are based on statistics. Anyway, that's my take on this, FWIW. howcheng {chat} 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've sent an email to andrew.min@nielsen.com asking him to cast his eye over the article as there appears to be a degree of uncertainty over this issue. The Billboard chart is not a list of "facts" it's research, and the link explains in detail how they conduct the research. Take a look at 2007_in_music#Best-selling_albums_globally_2007, and you'll see two different companies have conducted their research differently and arrived at different conclusions. So which in "fact" was the best selling album of 2007? One could say that Billboard had a certain song as the bestselling song of 2004 - that would be a fact, but there must be a limit to how much of Billboard's research one could repeat and still keep claiming that one is simply listing facts. SilkTork *^YES! 19:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My Article Checklist

Hi SilkTork - thanks for your comments on, useful additions to and encouragement to post it to Wiki Articles. I've never seen those before or done that - but might do as you suggest. I have one question though about one of your additions to my checklist and that relates to: adding the talkpage tag. I've never done this and don't quite know what it is? Can you explain more please? ta Sterry2607 (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the coding on the templates in the checklist so they are now clickable - allowing people with one click to see the templates, and what they say. So if you click on {{talkpage}} you'll see what it displays. SilkTork *^YES! 08:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I did go to it before using your TP short cut but I didn't quite realise that it was taking me to what the template creates. Duh! You can lead a horse to water .... Anyhow, now I understand. Thanks!Sterry2607 (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

William Durkin

Hi Check. I notice that you undid the redirect of William L. Durkin with the comment "per discussion". I had a look, but couldn't find the discussion. Could you direct me to it? If you're talking about the Afd in 2006, the WP:BIO1E notability guideline has been written since that date. Consensus these days is that - in general - an individual who is known for just one event should be mentioned only in the context of that event, though there are exceptions where that person has attained a high level of interest. I don't see that high level of interest in William L. Durkin. SilkTork *^YES! 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion per your request - [4]

Check-Six (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Check. As I thought, that was the AfD from 2006 which predates the One Event guideline. If you still wish to contest this redirect I'll put it up for AfD to get a wider consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 16:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the One Event guideline is just that - a guideline - and a silly one at that! The AfD discussion from 2006 is still valid, and summed up in one quote by Hebron, "If I were reading about someone risking his life to rescue a billionaire, I would want more info on that person. Who was he? What happened to him? Was he rewarded or otherwise offered compensation for his efforts? Such an event has often changed the outcome of an individual's life. What happened in this case? All of this is beyond the scope of an article on Howard Hughes. Most importantly, I should be able to find all of (these answers) on wikipedia, and not have to go to some other site to get it." Check-Six (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William L. Durkin (2nd nomination)

Hi, just wanted to give you a heads up that Twinkle must have messed up your deletion nomination of William L. Durkin. You should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William L. Durkin (2nd nomination) and complete the nomination. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I finished the nomination for you, you can provide your rationale there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It took me a while to finish as I'd written a bit the first time, and then I had to try to remember what I had said, and find the Google sources again! I don't think my second attempt is as good as my first! SilkTork *^YES! 22:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Evergreen (film)

On 27 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evergreen (film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark Clarke

Over at the Mark Clarke AfD you said, Well argued and presented nom, and I just wanted to thank you for the compliment. I took my time preparing it and I am glad that someone noticed. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Terracotta Army

Thanks for your edits. I'm slowly working my way through the article but still have more to go. I don't know if you have any comments, but you can see on the talk page that I'd like to change the scope and name of the article. Any input on that appreciated.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Silky, my man, a few comments

Hello, itsssssssssss meeeeeeeeeeee. How are you. I'm well, other than my visits to the dentist that give me much pain...ouch...deep cleaning of teeth, underneath gums (TMI)....Oh no. Anyhow, I walked away from an article the other day because a certain Wikipedian thinks he owns the article. Seriously. Hey I've been editing a long time, and I think I know what I'm doing....but no, it has to be his way, or no way, and he will revert..."Screw it," I said to myself...I have enough articles that I work on, and continue to add to (film noir). The bad thing is that I enjoyed working with another Wikipedian on the article that knows a lot about the subject (a lot, and he is a new Wikepedian). More sad is that the new Wikipedian saw this stuff happening LIVE...if you will....I've learned a lot from you...so I said to myself...walk away...Another topic: I trust you are doing well. I have a great photo shot on Monday afternoon...so I'm doing fine. Be well my amigo -- ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 04:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me...see: Anatomy of a Murder. Yes, you comments will be greatly appreciated....I can learn from this experience...Have a great day Silky... Luigibob (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well hello. Did you get a chance to review my edits and the others edits in the article? It may be best if you contacted me via my email regarding this issue. Please see my Wiki page and click "E-mail this user." My concerns: Was I way off in my edits of the article? Should I have been reversed that quickly without of a 'how do you do'? bla bla bla! I did not want to get into a revert war, as it would stress me out...I edit Wiki because it's a hobby and I find it relaxing. Moreover, I love films and I want to contribute to the art in an odd sort of way (of course I do that already as a publicist in the film biz)... I trust you are well ... Luigibob (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That old references etc issue again

Hi SilkTork --- you know, I've just looked at today's feature article Ima Hogg and I have to say, apologetically, that it uses a referencing style closer to the one I prefer ie Footnotes/Notes and References. I still have misgivings about the term Bibliography and so, given the lack of consistency here in Wiki (I dislike for example the way someone has set up the Kate Grenville article re her list of works - they've used Bibliography), I think that at this stage I'll keep going the way I'm going (though I'll probably tinker my approach a little re online and hard copy refs/citations). Of course, if I work in an area that has specific set Project guidelines re referencing I'll be happy to comply. Don't quite know why I'm writing this except to let you know that I appreciate your interest in the matter and don't want you to think, if you see my work, that I'm wilfully ignoring your contributions/ideas. Rather, I'm still thinking and watching! Oh, and I will move my article checklist soon - it's in my TO DO list. Cheers Sterry2607 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think good examples of referencing tend to look good no matter how they are done. What tends to bother people (like myself) is the untidy and poorly done examples - which, sadly, are the majority. FAs tend to be a law unto themselves in areas which are not governed by firm rules as often they are done by one or a small handful of strong-minded and individual individuals. Giano II for example dislikes InfoBoxes (as do I), and does not accept them on any of the articles to which he contributes. This is tolerated as people like Giano. There was a movement a while back in which a bunch of editors, myself included, attempted to standandise guidelines so that it would be an image in the top right of an article rather than an InfoBox. Despite the guidelines saying that infoboxes should not be used in the intro, people continued to do so. Infoboxes are popular, and many editors like having them in the intro. So the guidelines were redrafted to allow people to do it either way! Now, is that bringing the project down to the lowest common denominator, or following consensus? Hmmm. SilkTork *^YES! 07:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good answer. Hmmm...now you raise the issue of infoboxes! I've noticed a bit of discussion about them and am a bit confused about the whole issue. In one sense I like them - a potted summary of the topic in hand - but in another sense they can be, I suppose, simplistic. It's a modern approach to publishing though, I think, to use boxes to highlight STUFF (says she eruditely!). I must admit I've tended to add infoboxes because I thought they were "the go", but sometimes they do seem a little silly. Oh well, perhaps now I won't feel so much that I must add one regardless of how useful I think it is. In the end I guess the important thing to focus on is good content and good sources for the content - all the rest is icing (sorta!) Cheers, Sterry2607 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"In the end I guess the important thing to focus on is good content and good sources for the content - all the rest is icing (sorta!)" Absolutely! And that is my main reason for being here - however, it's all too easy to get subverted into thinking that layout MATTERS! When I started on Wiki I wrote articles. These days I spend most of my time tinkering with policy, guidelines, rules, advise, AfDs, etc. And why do I ever end up caring about the brief flash of the Featured Picture? But I do go there now and again and give my opinion. Why do we have Featured Content? This is not a competition - this is not a hierarchy - this is not a selection committee. Let's, instead, have a helpful landing platform that is a portal into the encyclopedia, not an award podium for the largest egos on the project. SilkTork *^YES! 11:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Icing et al

I think I like the way you think! I have been doing Wiki for about 10 months now...and most of my work has been in writing articles or in categorising articles (when I haven't got anything to write). But, I've decided, so far anyhow, to just aim for what I think is a good, as well-sourced as I can, article to a sort of Wiki B level. I'm not sure that I'm keen on getting involved in some of the to-ing and fro-ing I've seen that goes on with feature articles (at least as I've seen on those in areas of interest to me). Some of that to-ing and fro-ing is good I'm sure but I don't have the energy for a lot of that at present. A B-level article is useful I think for what Wikipedia is here for - a decent/broad intro to a subject with some good refs and/or external links that a user interested in more can follow up. Working for greater quality and getting involved in all that peer discussion seems like it could be a case of diminishing returns. But, who knows, someone may appear one day to convince me otherwise and my passions might change. It's all good.Sterry2607 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I came upon Murder of Victoria Climbié - as my work in Medway Council Children's Service involves some knowledge of that case, I was impressed at how it summed up the main facts of the case in a helpful way. I thought it would make a good candidate for FA. I nominated it. I was then surprised at the process. None of the other people in the discussion felt that this would be a collaborative process in tidying up the article. No, one of their concerns was that the person who had done most of the work on the article was no longer active on the project. Another comment was that the wrong sort of dashes had been used! What the flying fish! I was stunned by that. I thought the process would consider if the information was comprehensive and trustworthy. Seems not. That explains why I have come upon FAs which contain inaccurate or misleading information, but which have the correct dashes and are attractively written. The first aim of an encyclopedia should be to be trustworthy and reliable, and it would seem to be an essential criteria that a FA article should tell the truth and be seen to tell the truth via references that can be checked. Wrong sort of dashes! And no pictures! When it became clear that I was expected to address all these concerns on my own I withdrew the nomination. I still don't know what the right sort of dashes are - and I DON'T CARE! Grief! SilkTork *^YES! 07:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and am interested to hear this example...sounds somewhat bizarre. Just confirms my current decision re FAs! The issue re images in particular is a bothering one. They seems to be regarded as highly desirable but my experience with them seems to be d****d if you do, and d****d if you don't...with really complex rights issues and vigorous policing. I understand the issue but my sense is that there is a degree of oversensitivity going on - probably with BOTs etc making it hard to handle things on a case by case basis. So, now I'm pretty well leaving well enough alone - unless I've taken the photo myself. Anyhow enough of that, time to do some real stuff!Sterry2607 (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your kind support of me as a coordinator! If there's one thing that I've learned during the election process, it's that people remember certain collaborations in the past. :) I'm glad I've been a positive influence on you, and I hope to run into you again in an article of similar interest sometime! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to stop by my user talk page! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dovedale

Gee, now I'm confused! Is your breakaway article going to be about Hartington to Ashbourne, Hartington to Ilam, Milldale to Ilam or what. Dovedale (to a simple person who was born and bred in Derby) means any of these. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you advise? You seem to have more experience in this area than me. May I say that it's not my article, it's an article on Wikipedia which I am currently editing. To give you the background. I use Wikipedia as a reference source. A lot of my edits tend to be about what I am currently interested in. I am going to be visiting the Peak District. In the course of my researching I looked for an article on Dovedale and found an article on Dove River. That was unhelpful, so - in the manner of Wikipedia - I have set about tidying up the situation by developing two distinct articles. I have been developing the articles based on the existing information in the River Dove article, and on the quick research I have done on the internet. This is limited stuff, and I have only been spending some quick time snatched while at work; however I feel I have been positively expanding Dovedale. As you have an interest in the area, and presumably know some better sources that I have found, it would be great if you added to the articles. I enjoy working with others and would welcome working with you on these articles. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask my sister, who lives in Brailsford, about 5 miles E of Ashbourne, what she'd expect the most common usage to be - usually it's clear from the context. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great if she knew of some book or publication that we could use. All the ones that I have looked at so far seem to feel that Dovedale is the name for the area from Milldale to Thorpe Cloud, while Dove Valley is the name given to the larger area you describe. I've not yet read anything which indicates that Dovedale expands beyond Milldale, but my research has been limited, so it would be good for someone who knows the subject well to point us to a source that challenges the received opinion. Thanks for getting involved in this - it's much appreciated. SilkTork *^YES! 13:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

T:DYK.

On 8 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dovedale, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! · AndonicO ^Hail! 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA has closed

My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Essay corrections

Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

UDR

Can you take a look at the current OR and unsourced crap being added to the article please? I'm not willing to get involved in an edit war, but the section has to go. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

SilkTork I've become increasingly disquieted about the nature of the edits on the UDR page and the reasons for them. The latest comments on the discussion board give me greater cause for concern. I've been wary all along that some of the material being used is contrived. As one editor has now officially declared his opinion I think that is proof positive of a bias against the regiment and I seek clarifaction on how his input and edits can be taken as neutral. Also, there seems to be an amount of gloating by the other protagonist that he is able to "tear the edits to shreds". I had hoped for a meaningful and involved discussion which would lead to a balanced article with appropriate content but I can see that getting to be a more remote possibility without a page protection.

GDD1000 (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to both of you: I am working on a proposed version of the UDR article which I hope to be able to show later this evening. It is difficult I know, but try not to take any edits as personal, and do not feel that any edit is a final version. When people are coming at an article from different perspectives there is going to be some levels of disagreement. But no edit is permanent, and there is no hurry. Nothing, except those edits which meet Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, needs to be removed immediately. The bigger aim here is getting the article right in the long term, and that aim is certainly more important than any individual's personal feelings. The process has started whereby the article is getting an independent and unbiased overview - that is the important thing. Any individual editors personal feelings about edit skirmishes are not important and I shall ignore that for the time being. Intellectual debate about rigorous content is the important thing. SilkTork *^YES! 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've placed comment on the discussion page at the UDR site but I want to thank you on your own page for the tremendous effort you've made to assist us in coming to agreement and in particular, helping me understand the Wikipedia rules. The article is most definitely vastly improved thanks to your input. I hope I can be of assistance to you in the future.

GDD1000 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am dreadfully sorry to have to request your intervention again however the edit war has been started again by (talk). He disagrees with some of the information which you restored to the article and is not content to leave it there until further discussion has taken place. He disputes the verification of an item in the "Collusion" section. Would you be kind enough to look in again please?

GDD1000 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks, for the comment. The whole thing has kust been rather a disappointing blow to my ego. One one have thought that a user with over 30, 000 edits and no bad actions wouldn't have warranted the barrage I have recieved. I think after all this is over I will take a long wikibreak to lick my wounds and recover. Thanks again and no hard feelings. By the way cool thing how you got the star spinning around the Wikipedia globe, how'd you do that?--Kumioko (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying. There have been some strong candidates who have lost (or never gained) the trust of the community for something they said or did during the AfD process. [[5]] is worth looking at. A candidate so committed to the project and so knowledgeable that he advised other users in how to be admins; a candidate who is calm and polite and helpful and really builds Wikipedia. Yet does a flippant throwaway application that annoys people, and then during the process starts to show poor judgement. The AfD is a snapshot. Not everyone knows the candidate and bothers to look through all the past contributions, so they go by the application itself, and by what other people dig up. Saying the right things during an AfD matters - in the same way that dressing appropriately and saying the right things at a job interview matters. The rationale you gave for wanting to be an admin was not encouraging at all. There are issues about the behaviour of some admins who think that having the approval of the admin badge and the power to block other users gives them some extra authority - that what they say matters more than what non-admins say. Your comments looked very much like someone who wanted that sort of authority and power in order to back you up in debates. And then you started to quibble with people who opposed you. That rarely goes down well with the majority of people. And then you got snappy and said you didn't want to waste your time. That showed a lack of judgement and calm at a time of intense scrutiny (if you can't keep your cool and make good judgments during your RfA, what will happen when you are not under the spotlight?) All these things lead to a poor impression. And, as people say, better to reject a potentially decent admin than to let in one who will cause friction, drama and a mess by making poor calls.

You have gathered a lot of support and should take encouragement from that. It is your decision how to go from here, but bear in mind that many excellent admins failed their first, second or even third RfA. Being snappy during your RfA is understandable. It doesn't make you a bad person at all. We all make mistakes. If you show you learned from your mistake the people will give credit for that in your next RfA. But if you present that RfA badly you won't get in that time either, and will have to try again later.

It's your judgement call. You can hold on and hope this AfD turns around, or you can close it now on your terms. There is no hurry to be an Admin. You can continue making great content on Wiki without the extra tools. You can get involved in some admin related areas to see what the issues are related to being an admin, and if you really want to be involved in that. And then either nominate yourself again, or wait till someone else nominates you.

But there is no shame in stepping forward to volunteer, even if people don't feel you are ready right now. Better to step forward than not to offer at all. Take care! SilkTork *^YES! 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Checklist

Cheeky you! Actually, I kept putting it off because I wanted to tweak but, knowing me, I'd keep putting it off never feeling it was quite right. Thanks for taking the initiative and forcing it out there! CheersSterry2607 (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's basically it, really, so thanksSterry2607 (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request Help With Another Edit War

Could you help with an edit war I'm embroiled with User:Nicolás10? I want to post this picture in the taxobox [6] in Placodermi in order to display diversity, whereas Nicolás10 says that it can't be used because I'm a lousy artist.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my actions in this edit war: I had just finished upgrading the picture, correcting anatomy errors, then Nicolás10 told me that it couldn't be used because it was low-quality.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald

I note your outside view. Two problems I have with it: 1) we have had very long discussions with Ed, and there has not been an inch of compromise, which is why it has now arrived at RFC and 2) it is a relatively small matter, but it has led to edit wars and by now a considerable amount of rancour and bad feeling - not least engendered by Ed on the one hand demanding his own way, and on the other hand - as you have - dismissing it as a small matter, about which further discussion would be - in his words - lame. If it is such a small matter, why is he unwilling to to do other than demand his right to do whatever the hell he thinks is best. He & you cannot have it both ways. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that the RfC is up and running I have certified there is a reason for the comment, however I do agree with Baseball Bugs that this is a small matter to bring to the RfC forum, and I would have liked to have seen more attempt at discussion take place first. And it is important to note that he is not an unreasonable man, and that he has reverted himself as a gesture of good faith while discussion takes place. It can sometimes seem that when you are in disagreement with someone that they are much blacker than they are. Ed is idiosyncratic and firm in his belief, but I see no evidence of him being a bad person. Far from it. SilkTork *^YES! 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Ed is a bad person, and in general do not have a problem with him. What little I know about his contributions shows him to be a positive force for good. My view, fwiw, is that we ran into a brick wall in discussions with him about this format issue. The RfC arises from the observation that he is firm in his belief to the point of being immovable, which does not work in a collaborative environment, even if the format issue is relatively trivial. I'm concerned that your intervention, and that of BB, reinforces his view that he can continue to be immovable, and expect the rest of us to accommodate his idiosyncracies. That would not be a reasonable outcome. I'd urge you to consider if there is any more that you could do to impress on him that there is an issue here (his immovability in the face of objections) to which he should answer with words other than the stock extended essay which can be boiled down to "I'll do this becuase I want to do this". --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My approach would be to do what I have done. To provide evidence that I have spoken with him on this matter, and that he has chosen to go his own way. To support, now that it is up and running, that the RfC should take place so people can give their views on his behaviour. And then to support and endorse those views that I agree with. I am not happy with this particular discussion taking place away from the RfC. A forum has been set up - I feel that this debate should take place in that forum. I am not saying that you are inappropriate in having a discussion with me about this matter - far from it; I am always willing and happy to look at evidence and to have a logical discussion, and I do change my views based on what I see and think - but I would feel more comfortable in sharing this conversation in the arena that has been set out. Is that fair? SilkTork *^YES! 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy that this discussion be moved to the RfC, if you wish. I had not until now noticed your comments under "users certifying" ... my bad. I've added a note in the RfC talk page such that anyone interested in this conversation can view it. I guess my purpose in discussing it off-RfC was that I had a particular thing or two to say to you, and I rather feel for whoever has to wade through the RfC verbiage ... I did not particularly want to increase the volume of words there. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Thanks for the barnstar!

Thank you! That really means a lot to me. I had never before gotten a barnstar for the area of Wikipedia that I put the most effort into. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Tanglefoot bags

I have nominated Tanglefoot bags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 14:04, April 26, 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

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:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rant (3rd nomination)

Hello. I have reverted your closure of this discussion and have explained why I did so in the AfD. Please be more careful to adhere to WP:DPR#NAC in the future. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have left a comment on the AfD page in which I have suggested that if people feel my closure was inappropriate then my other non admin closures should be reviewed, and I would provide a list of them to anyone who asked. Would you like me to supply you with that list? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I've no reason to believe that any of your previous closures were in error, or else an admin would most likely have already undone them. Supplying me with a list will not be necessary, and I do understand that your closure was done in good faith and with the best of intentions. Sandstein (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to see that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rant (3rd nomination) closed with the same result that I implemented. I wonder what, at the end of it all, was exactly the point in reverting my perfectly acceptable, accurate and elegant closure? Hmmm. SilkTork *^YES!

ITG link on trumpet page

Hi. I salute the excellent editing work you have done on trumpet - nice one! I am, however, unable to see why you removed the ITG link as "commercial or inappropriate" - could you please explain which of these it is, and how? It seems odder that you've left one personal/academic site linked, just some studies which as a genre are really quite widespread, plus a fingering chart from a yes-for-profit site who will be pleased with the extra traffic - it perhaps makes your decisions look a little arbitrary to the casual viewer. To be honest I would have thought that ITG should quite possibly be the last external site to be removed, preceded closely in 2nd-last place by the excellent dallasmusic, which I was delighted to see you'd left linked in. :) Cheers. 92.234.10.126 (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. I was doing a quick link check and I saw the site was asking for subscriptions so I removed it under the Wikipedia:EL#Sites_requiring_registration guideline. But as you say, the ITG are a respected organisation, and should be linked. SilkTork *^YES! 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! That's very nice of you. And you can get to a bucketload of content without subbing, including nearly all the journal content up to a year ago. Best wishes, 92.234.10.126 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Admin

Hey, how have you been? I appreciate you wanting to nominate me for adminship, but I must respectfully object to this. I don't think that the RfA would go badly, but I would rather take on some coaching and be more familiar with the tools so I can have clear knowledge about the available tasks. I've been primarily a mainspace editor, and I would continue that no matter what. I'm not in a hurry to look into adminship right now, though -- I have a lot going on IRL (my edit count's been down the past month or two). I do thank you for your consideration! I will let you know when I feel I am ready to plunge into the RfA. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Typewriter Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. Wish I could send this via typewriter ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Keg and Keg stand

Hey, I readded and cleaned up the beer games section to keg, as it fits better there. Keg stand is about one particular game. I'm going to do some more work on keg. --AW (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I responded on my page that I don't think it should be moved. The other "games" in the "keg games" section in keg were not notable and were not really games at all, more like run around and drink beer. Keg stand isn't really a game either, it's more of a ritual. I think it should have its own article, and keg games be kept as a section in keg. I trimmed the section down considerably, removing the chaff. --AW (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hold up! Let's talk about this. I have a number of concerns. --AW (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to respond on my page --AW (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Found poetry

Hey. I noticed you edited found poetry a while back. I was wondering if I could recruit you to expand/clarify/cite/at least watchlist it to help fight off the unfortunaly common vandalism that seem to take place to found poetry, due to the fact that there is no one taking care of it. --Justpassin (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cervecería Cuauhtémoc Moctezuma Brewery

Hey! I work there and will be glad to send you an official company logo as that one is missing some details.

Regards

chenzoc

--Chenzoc 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. The best way would be if you loaded it yourself using the "Upload file" link on the left hand side of every page - in the "toolbox" section under the search box. If you then copy the Summary information from Image:CuauhtémocMoctezumaLogo.gif and select "Logo" for Licensing you won't get a "Bot" nagging you to put that information in. If you have problems at any stage get in touch and I'll help out. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting

Hi, I just noticed that you removed wikilinks from the dates at the Robert Mugabe article. I think you may have misunderstood the manual of style on this point. Although it is true that dates like bare years such as 1990 should not be linked, a full date including a day, month, and year should be linked. The reason for this is that the MediaWiki software recognizes this combination as a date, and formats it according to the user's preferences. Please look again at the section of WP:MOSDATE on autoformatting and linking where it explains this. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are saying, but this is a long standing issue. The relevant wording is: "Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully; see WP:CONTEXT.There has been much discussion leading to this point. There has been a petition to the developers to sort out the situation so that dates can be auto-formatted without creating pointless links - the developers have said they regard this as a low priority issue and so nothing has been done. There is currently another move to petition the developers and perhaps get Jimbo involved so that this long running issue is sorted. I would have thought somebody could create a simple template to sort out reader's date preferences without distracting blue text, non-contextual links, and a drain on user's PC resources! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just restored the edits. The guideline is clear that such links should not be used unless contextual. You may insist again upon the date linking in the article, and I will step back as it's really not worth getting into an edit war over this; however, issues with MOS date formatting should be taken up on the MOS talkpage. Regards again. SilkTork *^YES! 13:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the WP:CONTEXT guideline. In fact, the following is stated explicitly in the section on dates:

• Dates when they contain a day, month, and year — [[25 March]] [[2004]] — or day and month — [[February 10]] — should be linked for date preference formatting.

Furthermore, the applicable section of WP:MOSDATE only asserts the following in connection with WP:CONTEXT:

Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully; see WP:CONTEXT.

This clearly doesn't apply to dates which are linked for autoformatting purposes. I don't feel terribly strongly about it, and it certainly isn't worth a war. My main intention was to make sure that you know what you are doing, and that you understand that the MoS is, in fact, against you on this. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. There are pages of discussion on this. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive D1. And I admit that without an awareness of these issues some of the wording in the guidelines can be misread. Please read futher in WP:CONTEXT, where you will find: "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." And your quote from WP:MOSDATE above is tricky, but does mean that a date link should not be used unless there is a reason for it. Using wikilinks to simply date format are not encouraged - there should be a reason for the link, otherwise the link is simply distracting. If you have a few minutes to spare you could read through the archives discussing this issue and you'll see that there has been a petition to the developers, that the developers have not yet acted, and that there is a proposal to start another petition. I have not been part of this, but am aware of it, and where I see abusive date linking in an article I am currently editing will follow MOS guidelines and remove them as distracting. But it certainly is not an issue that I want to get into a fight over. As I say - if you are still uncertain and wish to clarify the situation, discuss it on the talkpage. Have a look here first though, that gives the latest state of play in the developers trying to solve the problem. This comment from a developer is interesting: "Long-term usefulness is more important than urgently getting rid of something that has been there for years anyway. Let's think carefully about what we *really* want it to do. Implementing the dynamic date feature without predicting the long-term consequences of linking every date was what caused this problem in the first place, no? The people clamoring to get rid of these ugly blue splotches ASAP need to relax; a technical solution will be implemented eventually. They can help decide *which* technical solution to go forward with instead of arguing about style guidelines that will be rendered moot by it anyway." That comment was made in January of this year. The "implemented eventually" comment kinda indicates the priority level the developers put this under. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the wording in the quote you selected from WP:CONTEXT. This general rule of thumb was not meant to supercede the earlier rule that dates should be linked when autoformatting applies. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! I had to undo that. You are going to need to go to the talk page and discuss a controversial change like that! Your wording implied that non-contextual linking is supported and encouraged which is not the case. The autolinking format is problematic because while it autoformats dates it also links dates. Linking dates when appropriate is accepted, but is NOT accepted or encouraged - indeed, it is DISCOURAGED - when the date serves no purpose. The whole issue regarding the autoformatting software is that when used for all dates it ends up linking to non-contextual dates, which is why the guidelines say that such linking is not encouraged. Please - I am not that involved or interested in MOS debates. I have simply carried out a standing MOS guideline while involved in editing an article. You really need to be discussing this on the MOS talkpages: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context. I would advise not editing those guidelines without first reading the background issues, and fully understanding what you are doing. Regards again. SilkTork *^YES! 15:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps it is you that is failing to understand the issue here. The MoS and WP:CONTEXT are both clear that a date should be linked for autoformatting purposes. You are attempting to use the bulletted point under dispute to suggest that dates should not be autoformatted unless the date should be linked from the context. This is expressly contradicted by the same section (in fact, the very first bullet point):

• Dates when they contain a day, month, and year — [[25 March]] [[2004]] — or day and month — [[February 10]] — should be linked for date preference formatting.

My edit underscores the fact that, although this is a "general rule of thumb", it is clearly not meant to supercede this earlier guideline. I have proposed the changes on the talk page. Also, there is no requirement to discuss uncontroversial changes to guidelines prior to making them. (Please familiarize yourself with WP:BOLD.) Since, in my view, my edit does not change the meaning of the text, and instead firms it up against your misinterpretation of the guideline, I feel it is necessary for clarification. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My reading of that is that dates should be linked when they provide context is implied. Then for clarity, dates should not be linked when they do not provide context.

This issue has been going on for over two years so is one that needs careful editing. Further in the Bold guideline it does say: " If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.

....

Or, in the words of Edmund Spenser, "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold".

Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces."

I have explained my actions, and linked you to the guidelines that supported my actions. I have advised you several times that if you have an issue with this that you need to take it up on the MOS talkpage rather than with me as it not within my specific sphere of interest. I would again advise you that the MOS talkpage is where you should be, and I would again strongly advise you that you make yourself at least loosely familiar with the issues before making edits to MOS guidelines; however, I would concede that the wording on various Wikipedia guidelines can sometimes be ambigious and lead people into discussions - but that's not always a bad thing! Communication is at the heart of buidling the encyclopedia. Be well, and good editing. SilkTork *^YES! 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sticking up for my on the Alan Cabal AfD. If you look at any of my previous interactions at AfD (especially he more recent), you'll see my bludgeoning and abuse at consensus' where my fairly inclusionist views are rejected. Oh well; my own damn fault, 'shouldn't be so stubborn. To tie this rant up, thanks for sharing the same views. NOTE: I recently changed my sig, so, in those AfDs, my sig is "Leonard^Bloom". Much appreciated, and happy editing, ♌β^{(uh oh. someone's mad)} 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Does the font of this post look different to you, or is it just me? ♌β^{(uh oh. someone's mad)} 19:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for getting in touch. I've looked at the two AfDs that you linked above and I felt I was unable to support you in either, though some of the material could be used in the parent articles. I favour including as much information on Wikipedia as possible - however, I also favour placing that information in the most appropriate place where it will assist the reader. Stub orphans tend not to be useful - though the same information placed in the context of a parent article could be very illuminating. And I prefer your Leonard^Bloom sig to the new squiggle! regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You deserve a Barn Star

You dserve a barn star for your heroic efforts in stopping the deletionist charge against Alan Cabal -

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your hard work in protecting Alan Cabal and freedom of speech Smith Jones (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always nice to get a barnstar! The debates around what to include or exclude oftens seems not so much about the information itself, but about the status of having a Wikipedia article on the information - by having an article it means that information pops up on Google searches, and gets mirrored on other sites. Some people feel strongly that certain bits of information, especialy regarding individuals, shouldn't get such a priority treatment. I can understand that view. My own personal inclination is toward the merging of information into parent articles where possible. SilkTork *^YES! 10:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Hello SilkTork/Archives. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:SilkTork/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)