User talk:SilkTork/April 2007 - Dec 2007

Kent Earthquake

You caught me just as I was adding it to the article. I could upload a closer zoom in on the epicentre, as the original image was quite close to the site. Laïka 11:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Is World Wind worthwhile having? I had a quick look, and noticed it involved downloading some software. SilkTork 13:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a lot like Google Earth, but the images from it are all from NASA satellites, so they can be used in Wikipedia. Laïka 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm giving it a go. SilkTork 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Please do not remove copyright violation notices from articles. They are there for a purpose. If you believe the article is not a copyright violation, then discuss it. However, as this time we cannot substantiate the permission.--Doc^g 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have made a mistake somewhere. SilkTork 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. There was an edit conflict. We were working on that at the same time. I edited the article so it was no longer a copyright violation. You added a tag. Hmmm. SilkTork 19:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It is text duplicated elsewhere. There's no GFDL disclaimer on the other website, and no notice of a 'permission' having been e-mailed through WP:OTRS. So it is an apparent copyvio, and will be be deleted in 7 days unless that changes. read what it says on the tag - don't just remove it.--Doc^g 19:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no tag when I was editing. Would you object to me removing the tag now. There is a deletion discussion taking place on this as well, and I have cleaned up the text. I did the edit cleaning before there was a tag so I have done the right thing. SilkTork 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You must not remove the tag. If we just work from the current version and it turns out to be a copyvio, then the whole article would have to be deleted. If you want to re-write it, you must start from scratch, not base it on an apparent copyvio. You can either a) create a new article on a subpage, which can be moved to the original if it is deleted as a copyvio after 7 days. or b) get the owner's permission for us to delete the current version now, and then you can start fresh.--Doc^g 19:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have gone for option a) as most of the editing had already been done. The new page is here: Endal. SilkTork 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

Wow! many thanks for the barnstar!

I thought it might be best to bring the list to completion before submitting it for peer review.

Cheers. AndyJones 06:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You can have more than one peer review, and reviews can hang around for a while without getting any response, so it can be good to get one off the ground early. But I know what you are saying. I just got so excited when I came upon List of Shakespearean characters and I wanted to share that with others. And also get other people involved in helping out - you've worked mostly alone on that for nearly two years. A magnificent achievement. SilkTork 08:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The review is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Shakespearean characters/archive1 SilkTork 08:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Endal

This is one hell of a steep learning curve, guess practice makes perfect though! Don't throw in the towel yet as we will turn this page around till it is beyond criticism.

• The latest edition to Endal is information on Endal's breed line. To have proof of a direct (unbroken) linage going back to the very first two Labradors that came to the UK shores is recognised in the dog world as making the dog very very notable. To have a tracable pedigree that follows the breed line down the middle is unique. I don't expect non dog people to understand that or recognise it's importance... but then again I doubt you would expect everyone to have in depth knowledge about a subject close to yout heart?

Most of us are sympathetic to your personal story, and we understand the importance to you of your relationship with Endal. However, as you have noticed, we have guidelines for what can be included on Wiki. I have been working to make the Endal article conform as closely to those requirements as possible. Dogs that have long pedigrees are not (at the moment, but things may change!) considered to be notable on Wiki. Wiki, however, is quite fluid, and there may be a time when pedigree histories are considered important enough for an entry. The reasoning behind the argument for inclusion of the Endal article on Wiki is not your relationship with the dog, nor its pedigree (it wouldn't matter if Endal was a mongrol), but that there is a considerable amount of media coverage. That the media coverage has been prompted by yourself has caused some alarm, and some questioning of the article - especially as you started the article on Wiki yourself. It just looks like a vanity thing - and we do get a lot of that on Wiki - some people don't quite get that this is an encyclopedia rather than a free home page for whatever they fancy putting on it! However, regardless of who started the article, I feel that the amount of coverage that has been generated by yourself for your dog gives it a certain amount of notability. As you are so close to the subject, there is the question of original research and other Wiki principles that may be broken. I would strongly suggest that you refrain from editing the article until you are more familiar with Wiki procedure - you may just push it into a decision for deletion either now or some point in the future (yes, Endal can be submitted for future considerations for deletion - passing the current discussion does not make it secure!). As you have some interest in dogs, would you be interested in looking at the current dog articles we have on Wiki (Category:Dogs) and seeing if you can improve those? Warm regards SilkTork 13:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you latest. Though I have distributed articles about Endal, I am not the primary author. With permission (in lue of payment) I have rights to use articlea and images as needed. The media through seeing Endal put a card into the ATM one day elevated him to world wide fame, but his abilities have expanded incredibly. Saving my life by putting me into the recovery position only came to public attention as it was caught on CCTV but he had been doing it in the house for years. Part of the research of the film being made about Endal has shown that for the past eight years there has not been a week when an article about Endal has not appeared in a magazine or newspaper somewhere in the world. I wish I had the accurate number of dog owners there are world wide but it is becoming a recognised fact that the majority have heard of Endal, which even I have difficulty comprehending.

Your pointers and editing are greatly appreciated... especially after one feels bullied in to the ground by the WP guru(s). Once one realises though the reasons behind it all, the anger quickly turns to frustration and then to resolve the aim to achieve. Take care Endal and Allen 14:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Train station guideline attempts

I marked the attempts at train station guidelines as rejected because it's clear that nobody has any intention of following them. Mangoe 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've marked it as an essay. I don't see it as a rejected guideline because it was never put to a vote. SilkTork 21:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) And I still have hope! :) SilkTork 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for your continuing work on train station. One small thing, though: is there a reason why you make many, many small edits instead of going through the whole article in one go? Classical geographer 07:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It varies. Sometimes I make a huge edit - other times I make a small one. I don't know in advance how much I will edit as it depends on circumstances. Sometimes I will only make one small edit to an article - other times I make more than one edit. Sometimes I will edit an article only once and never go back to it. Other times I will edit an article several times over a period of days. Some articles I will return to months later. Other articles I will never touch again. Sometimes I add things to an article. Other times I will take things away. Occasionally I will neither add nor take away, but may move something within the article. It really does vary. Regards SilkTork 15:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, and sorry for rudely interfering with your editing style... keep up the good work! Classical geographer 07:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I am looking more closely at my editing style. I am aware that I don't use the edit summary enough, and I have been trying to deal with that. But that can be tiresome! Correct a spelling or small fact, then write a sentence explaining it! Regards SilkTork 07:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Catching up

SilkTork,

Good to see you're still around and doing marvelous work on beer stuff! I've been kind of on wiki-break for a while, although I've recently started making some edits again. The improvements you've made while I was away are pretty breathtaking.

One thing I've just started on, which may interest you since you were the one who originally created the page, is adding a bit of organization/layout to the beer collaboration page. You can see what I've done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/WikiProject Beer collaboration, although I'm not sure it's anything to be proud of! ;)

Regardless of that, though, it's great to see all the progress that's happened -- seems like everything's changed instantly and dramatically for the better.

Anyway, I mostly just wanted to drop by and say "hi!" and I hope everything's well with you.

Bottoms up, --Daniel11 10:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I took a wiki-break for the later half of last year. I came back (though I had dipped in now and again) at the request of a few people. I have gradually been getting back into the beer editing, but I don't want to get into it too heavily as it can take over one's life! Nice to see you're still around (and still drinking!) SilkTork 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My Favourite Cartoon!

Hi Steve,

You recently removed my cartoon from the 'Draught Beer' page. I haven't been using Wikipedia long but am trying to liven parts of it up with interesting pictures from my collection. Please forgive me if I am being arsey, but wouldn't it have been good manners to have asked me first? If I didn't think that it was 'appropriate' then I wouldn't have put it up there. Not only that but it is my favourite beer cartoon out of dozens I have, and I am sort of attached to it! I have lots of other beer pictures though (see www.lordprice3.co.uk) - which others might you consider more 'appropriate', or perhaps you just don't like pictures?

Best Regards

Lordprice 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for getting in touch. Your picture was a seaside postcard cartoon type picture which is perhaps more suited to a seaside postcard or a cartoon article rather than a draught beer article. Also it hasn't got a Free Documentation License - so there would be a question over its use on an article where the link is not clear. The cartoon contains a picture of a glass of beer, though we don't know if it is a bottled beer or a draught beer. And the focus is on over-indulgence rather than any quality or character of beer. Are you being arsey by saying I didn't have good manners when editing that article? I don't know - what does arsey mean? Is it this [1]? By the way, is the lordprice website yours? If it is I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Spam and look at this [2]. Have you used LordPrice pictures in other places on Wiki? SilkTork 22:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

King Street Run

Hi, The King Street Run has previously been nominated for deletion and kept (only last september). Your AFD tag is just pointing to the archived discussion. If you want to re-nominate it, you'll need to point the tag to some other place for a new discussion (and probably provide a link to the old discussion. --Ozhiker 08:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I noticed that this morning. I didn't know how to create a current nomination, and I ran out of time as I had to get to work. Would you be able to give me some advice on how to set up a current nomination? I haven't encountered this situation previously. By the by, the nomination was for September 2005. Interestingly the admin closing the debate felt that 10 deletes, 2 move, 4 keep was No Consensus. I've not previously encountered a 12 - 4 (that's 3 to 1) vote against keeping as a "No Consensus"! SilkTork 11:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. I got it sorted! SilkTork 12:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

HMS Hornet

Please don't redirect disambiguation pages - even if only one link is currently valid, the others will exist in time... Shimgray | talk | 23:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was part way through my intention. Listing every ship that ever existed is not part of the Wiki purpose. My next stage would possibly be to list the HMS Hornet (1854) for discussion after some research to see if it stands up to notability. Possibly redirect to somewhere else, as I'm not always in favour of absolute deletions. There's usually a place for even the most trivial on Wiki - it's just a case of finding the right article to place the footnote. As for the disambiguation - well, I see no current purpose for it as it is simply a red list farm. But as you disagree I will now put that up for discussion. Regards SilkTork 07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Food Courts

Hey SilkTork!

Next time you do a clean-up, do not remove all non-US information. That would be really nice. I am reverting the food court article to the state before you started "cleaning it up". Please be nice to others and accept that some information is info on daily life, and cannot always be sourced. In Singapore, food courts are part of daily life, everybody eats there every day (or sth close, you get my meaning). It's similar in the rest of SE Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snchduer (talk • contribs)

I've put it back to how it was before your revert. Not that I totally disagree with you - just that we need to work through to an agreed situation, and you moved it way back to a situation which was acknowledged to be in need of work and had been tagged as such. Let us take it back stage by stage in a manner that is acceptable to all. So - what exactly is your main concern with the current situation? That it is US biased? Based on what content? Currently it is neutral. The examples given of food chains who use food courts are both US and UK. We could add an Asian one as well if you like. Which one would you suggest? SilkTork 12:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey again!

Sure, let's talk here - not a problem. I admit that the article required a clean-up, but you reduced it to three (!) sentences. I understand that in the US (and UK), food courts are found exclusively within a shopping mall and consist of fast food outlets, such as McDo, BurgerKing, etc. Please understand that in Singapore, the situation is somewhat different: food courts are still mostly found in shopping centers. Outside shopping centres they are mostly called Hawker centres, although that distinction is not so sharp, consider for instance Lau Pa Sat. The main difference would be the air-conditioning, or otherwise said, the food court/hawker centre being inside or outside.

As mentioned in the uncrippled article, food courts and hawker centres consist of various food stalls, none of which belong to a Western fast food outlet. Each offers different food, going through all the varieties of South-East Asian cuisine (Chinese, Indian, Malay, Peranakan, Indonesian, Thai, etc.). I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Singapore the food courts are always crowded at lunch/dinner time, and I personally know enough people (including myself) that hardly cook, since getting food in a food court is almost as cheap and more convenient (maybe the difference is not so big? ;) ). There are only a few companies that operate the food courts (hawker centres are different), but the stalls are operated by individual owners, and each food court is different.

Again, the main points of difference US-Asia, in my opinion, here: fast food outlets <-> large variety of food stalls; (don't know) <-> part of daily life, replacing cooking; shopping malls <-> everywhere.

Yeah, btw I am European, not from around here originally.

Think Different 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. Sorry for delay in my response - I've been away walking in North Wales. As there appears to be some desire for an article on Food courts I'm quite happy to continue working on it as a stand alone article. I have again tidied it up. There does need to be some research done to support the assertions made. I have removed repetitions and "on the spot" observations. I have left in, but tagged, the two basic claims. I have provided some references for the Lau Pa Sat - though there is no evidence that it is actually a stand alone food court. I only did a quick search, but what I found all pointed to Lau Pa Sat containing food vendors and restaurants and souvenir kiosks. So it is more likely to be a "food centre" or a market containing a large number of food courts. Take a look and see what you think. Regards SilkTork 22:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm - I have to say I have personally been at Lau Pa Sat, and believe it or not - it is a standalone food court. I remarked no souvenir kiosks in Lau Pa Sat itself, and there are no "restaurants", as in the European or American sense, only mini-restaurants. However, there is only little difference here between food stalls and mini-restaurants. The latter operate in a food court, the seating is not physically separated (or even largely different) from the general food court seating, but it is reserved for customers of this particular mini-restaurant only. They are sometimes also be a bit more "sophisticated" than food stalls, but as I said, I find the difference rather small. As I will be leaving Singapore soon (professional re-orientation), I will try to see if I can find some good sources for more validated info about SG foodcourts until then. Think Different 09:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources would be good. As you know, personal observation counts as original research, and is frowned upon. Good luck with the article. Regards SilkTork 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sparkler

Hey. do you mind if I use the following cropped from your image SwanNeck.jpg for the article on Sparkler (device) I've started?:

J.P.Lon 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The image is not mine - I downloaded it from http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=6840. I had put that information on the image, but it wasn't clear, so I've updated the info to make it clearer. The owner appears to be happy for people to use his photo, though he does request a link back to his site. Regards. 07:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The sparkler article is good. It could go in Beer tap to build up that article, and put together the various parts of the beer tap. Regards SilkTork 07:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moon landings

Sorry, I think I messed up your revisions. My mistake. NawlinWiki 17:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No probs. I should have put up one of those work in progress tags - except I can never remember where to find it! SilkTork 17:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

85th Group

Hi! I see you've made a great improvement to the 85th Group article. I've taken away the the {{Inuse}} tag, as it is only intended to be put in place while you are actively editing to save edit conflicts. While it is up, it stops other editors from working on the article. You need to remove the tag when you stop editing for a period. Keep up the good work. Regards. SilkTork 17:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - usually I'm a bit better about labeling when I'm working on something. Maybe I should use the {{underconstruction}} tag to show that I'm working on it, and use the {{inuse}} tag while I'm actively editing it. It was a late light, and I almost fell asleep on the keyboard - I'm lucky I managed to save it. Not fun when you wake up with "cvbnm" etched in reverse on your forehead....  :-)) Thanks for the reminder! - NDCompuGeek 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, check out the article. I think I'm done with it (I've done all the damage to it that I can, and exhausted my knowledge of the subject to boot). I'll also try and be more conscientious (sp?) while using editing tags! - NDCompuGeek 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You've made a big improvement. Over time other people will come along and flesh it out. Good work. SilkTork 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors

I'm very sorry I haven't had a chance to welcome you earlier, I have been incredibly busy lately. We are glad to have your help. Currently, we have really cut down the backlog of articles in need of copyedit. Therefore, a major goal at this moment is to identify new articles that are in need of work. When you run across them, be sure to tag them for copyediting.

If you have any questions at all, do not hesitate to drop me a line.Trusilver 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I'll keep an eye out for new articles that need some work. SilkTork 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Songs labeled the best ever.

Evil can not create it can only destroy [3] Duggy 1138 09:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done on adding some references to the article. SilkTork 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been doing it when I can. Suddenly got harder in the last day or so.

Duggy 1138 06:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the 1.0 Editorial Team

Hi, welcome to the team (sorry I've been a bit slow!). What do you fancy doing at 1.0? If you're a good copyeditor, this may be of interest - currently we have a lot of dreadful articles on important general topics. Although content is the main problem, many are also written as lists or simply need a good rewrite. Take a look, and let me know what you'd like to do. Thanks, Walkerma 04:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking now at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics. My time on Wiki is currently quite sporadic, so I may not be as active in all areas as I would like. I find I don't have the time to really get into article writing as much as I used to - but a quick bit of copyediting or looking for citations is something easy and undemanding that can be in 10 minutes now and again. SilkTork 09:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I often take a book out the library and add a paragraph to a core topic if I get a chance - though my article writing has also got sporadic. Thanks for the help, Walkerma 16:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MFD

Would you be willing to reconsider your opinion at the Wikipedia:Village pump (news) thread? As the nominator I've been active at that board for a year and a half and I watched it decline steadily throughout 2007. I'm hardly a deletionist and I reviewed the last 5000 edits when another editor claimed the nom was hasty. I really don't think that's a fair characterization in this instance. Durova^Charge! 01:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look and agree with you that there has been a recent decline. My view though is that it should have been supported rather than diminished because of the impact this may have on the whole Pump project. I have given a fuller answer on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village pump (news). Regards. SilkTork 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Borderless country

As I have mentioned at Talk:List of borderless countries, a borderless country is an island country with no land border with any other country. Ireland, e.g., is an island country but not a borderless country. It shares the island with the UK. Other notable examples include Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The island of Cyprus is also shared by Cyprus and the UK sovereign base areas, and the unrecognised TRNC. Qaka 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with this comment being left on my talkpage, and I will archive it when I do my next archive. I appreciate that there appear to be concerns with the user, and I shall proceed accordingly. I would prefer a message to me explaining the concerns with this user, rather than all communication being censored and I'm not directly informed. SilkTork 07:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection Templates

Please do not remove protection templates from protected articles. A.J. Styles & ACCESS (TV channel) are both semi-protected and so the template belongs on them. If you wish to see either of these articles unprotected, please ask the protecting admin or make a request at WP:RFP. Removing the template does not affect the protection level. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There's been some confusion here. I've left details here: [4]. At the moment it appears you are the protecting admin because the bot was apparently not protecting the page, simply leaving the template. The page is stable and doesn't need protecting. Could you look into the matter yourself and make the decision to unprotect. I am perhaps unable to look into the matter as deeply as you. Regards SilkTork 18:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The template only informs people that an article is protected. The template does not actually protect the article. Both of these articles were protected by admins prior to the bot adding the template. A.J. Styles was protected by Can't sleep, clown will eat me due to libel concerns[5] and ACCESS (TV channel) was protected by Zscout370 due to what looks like image copyvio issues[6]. I would recommend that you ask those two admins whether they are willing to unprotect. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 19:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User page

You must not have seen the copyright notice on my user page. Well, I'll let it go this time. :) Baseball Bugs 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The cheque is in the post! And can I have first dibs on any new ideas you get? SilkTork 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Right after I get that cheque, mate. Baseball Bugs 14:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Foot-and-mouth disease

The article has 1 paragraph 2 maximum on FAM outside the UK Chile is disease free,and Uruguay and Argentina have not had an outbreak since April 1994

• How did they manage this?
• What did they do to prevent new outbreaks?.
• What about FAM in the us/around the world what are their prevention methods ?[7] this link could be useful perhaps
• Historic outbreaks outside the UK ?
• FAM in africa , asia etc no information or very little about all of these (Gnevin 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm reading 14 paragraphs on F&M in general. 2 paragraphs dealing with the US (which hasn't had an outbreak for some time). 4 paragraphs dealing with F&M around the world. 4 paragraphs dealing with the outbreaks in the UK which have been internationally notable and have resulted in two stand alone Wiki articles. I don't think there is undue focus on the UK - seeing as that is where attention is focused. Though I would like to hear more about the 1996 African and Asian endemic, I don't think the article is dealing "primarily" with the UK - I think it is dealing primarily with F&M. We do have to be aware that the English Wiki is written mainly by English speaking Westerners living in the UK and the USA, and it is right that we have a tag that reminds us that there needs to be a global perspective. But it seems inappropriate to place the tag on this particular article which spends most of its time dealing with the disease, and then spends a fairly equal amount of attention on global F&M matters as it does on the most notable F&M outbreaks in recent years, which just happen to be in the UK. To get an idea of the sort of article for which the tag was designed, take a look at Air Defense Identification Zone - there is no awareness in the article that other countries have air defense zones: [8] or air defence areas. SilkTork 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer any of the questions i put to you

You claim their is 4 paragraphs dealing with FAM around the world , there isn't there is the intro which is geographically neutral , then it deals with FAM in UK with a side note about ireland , the 2 paragraphs about the us are about vaccination and since the us government took the lead in this they are rightful mentioned.

This article needs to have sections about FAM outbreaks accross the world the UK FAM section need to be expanded indicating the outbreaks infected other countries A global view on FAM should included prevention , vaccination, responce to outbreaks.in UK, EU,US and further accross the global (Gnevin 21:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

There are mentions of the world beyond the UK in Symptoms and Vaccination as well as the intro. Please, take a closer look.

I genuinely wasn't aware you asked me any questions. Is "*How did they manage this?" a question for me to answer? Sorry, I thought it was a rhetoric question to make your point about how the article is not global enough. I cannot answer that question, nor the others.

This is really not that big an issue. If you want to leave the tag there, no problem. Regards SilkTork 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Notting Hill Carnival

You have recently deleted my website www.nottinghillcarnival.org.uk from the links for the Notting Hill Carnival.

This website carries up to date information on official Notting Hill Carnival events as provided by the organisers LHNC Limited as well as a comprehensive gallery of photographs taken each year from 1999.

The information on the "official website" is patchy - even this year's offering does not carry full details of the events. Many "official" events are not listed, times are not provided for the events that are listed, and a route map is not provided.

I believe that it is correct to list the official site, but where this site leaves significant gaps in the information it provides, the inclusion of alternative sites is justified.

On the grounds of commerciality, the website does not generate a profit after associated costs have been taken into account and I am not sure on what basis you distinguish my site from http://www.portowebbo.co.uk/nottinghilltv/carnival1.htm which appears to be an equally commercial site.

Incidentally, I am surprised that the link to the Notting Hill Carnival section of the RBKC website has also been removed, as whilst it does not organise the carnival per se, it is involved in certain aspects of the organisation of the carnival, is invariably the first site to confirm dates for the carnival each year, and provides valuable information about certain aspects of the carnival.

Regards

Mark Denton Halden Photography

Hi Mark. Thanks for getting back to me. Have you considered creating an account - it doesn't take long, and no personal details are revealed. Anyway. There are guidelines on Wiki for external links because of the temptation for websites to promote themselves. Have a look at Wp:spam#External_link_spamming. We also discourage people from linking to their own website because of the conflict of interest. Guidelines for external links are given here: Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Point 4 of that list may relate to your own website. I did consider carefully the link to RBKC, and my thinking for removing that link is that when I checked it the page mainly said that they don't organise the event. I was also bearing in mind the Wiki guideline on external links: "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." I was wondering what benefit that link gave the article, and my thinking was that if there was any information in there that could be useful to the article and could be used I should do that. The only thing was the council saying they take 40+ elderly people to the seaside on the day of Carnival. I considered that information and decided it was trivial, so didn't include it. I'll take another look at the portowebbo.co.uk site. At first glance it did seem to be offering a lot of information, and it appeared to me to be a community site. I have, incidently, used your website as a reference, so you do have a link on the page. Though I was looking at that earlier and thinking that the information doesn't match other sources - your site says that the outside carnival began in 1964, though later in the article we have the date 1965, and other sources, such as the BBC bear out that date. SilkTork 15:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked portwebbo/myvillage.com - the site is quite widely used as sources on Wiki so appears to be acceptable by consensus. And I did have to change the date in the intro and so had to change the reference to your site. Sorry. If you feel that I have been unfair, and you'd like someone else to look at what I have done, then type {{helpme}} on your talkpage, and type the reason for your request for assistance. Someone will come along and check it out. Regards. SilkTork 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

My motivation for including the site www.nottinghillcarnival.org.uk was purely as a service to the visitors of the Wikipedia site. Traffic from Wikipedia to the site is fairly negligible in the context of my site traffic (Approx 0.5% of traffic in August 2006). But this site offers significan content in the form of information about the carnival together with an extensive gallery of images from the carnival and I consider it to be a worthwhile link. As regards the commerciality argument, the site is primarily a site of content with a limited amount of advertising to cover costs and the ability to purchase images if you so desire. It contains SIGNIFICANTLY less advertising than the Portowebbo site deemed acceptable. It is probably worth noting that the BBC includes links to my site ( See following page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/carnival/ ).

On the subject of the first carnival the source of my date was from this link http://www.thecarnival.tv/info/history1.htm (the official site back in 2001), but checking this date against other sources I agree that 1965 is more likely to be accurate and have amended my site accordingly.

As you appear to have taken on reponsibility for maintaining the Notting Hill Carnival article it is worth noting that this is an event where it is extremely difficult to find relevant updated information, particularly as the official website regularly changes. (Since 2000 the official sites have been www.nottinghillcarnival.net.uk, www.thecarnival.tv, www.nhct.org.uk, www.lnhc.org.uk, www.nhcarnival.co.uk, www.londoncarnival.co.uk, and www.nottinghillcarnival.biz.) I would strongly suggest that you monitor the links to ensure that they are up to date and wish you the best of luck in doing so. I would also invite you to visit the carnival this year so that you can experience the event first hand.

Regards

Mark Denton

I was looking at the article because Chrissie and I will be there this year. I use Wiki for sources of information - then while reading an article I'll nibble away or add bits. I take no responsibility for any article, even those I have started from scratch. I keep nothing on my watchlist, and trust in the Wiki collaborative community to ensure that articles progress. Of course that ideal doesn't always work in reality, and an article is almost as likely to degrade as it is to flourish. But it would drive me mad to keep watching. I might return to an article months later to check on some facts and do a bit more editing as the mood takes me. But this is not a deliberate thing. If you added your links again in a months time I wouldn't know. But as you now know some of the rationale behind why they were removed I feel after having spoken with you that you wouldn't do that.

As you are a photographer, and if you feel the Wiki project is one worth supporting, why don't you register, and upload some of your photographs. You'd have to agree to a free license for the images, but there's nothing wrong with you putting a link to your site on the image when you upload it - such as here: Image:GravityCask.jpg when I uploaded an image I requested from the late John White, and we included a link to his site in the description. SilkTork 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Fanta

Hello, since you originally contributed to the discussion regarding the use of the Nazi flag in Fanta, I just thought you may be interested to hear that there is a new discussion now (See Talk:Fanta#Nazi_flag). Bye the way, for future reference I would not consider using polling as a method to obtain consensus, it is probably a better idea that disputes are solved via discussion, debate and collaboration. Cheers, Chris.B 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I set up a Debate in the manner of an Afd or RfA in order to create a structured discussion leading to a consensus. Though I can see how some people could mistake it for a vote. The discussion you've now set up is the fourth on the matter - and I don't quite understand why you felt the need to start up a new discussion as the flag in question has not been used on that article since I took it down. Unless I've missed something? SilkTork 07:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, some people could have mistaken it for a vote. I started a new discussion because I could see that some contributors persevered with the notion that the flag should be there and it looked like it would be before long. I think that the previous discussion seemed to have been abruptly brought to a halt. Thanks in any case. -- Chris.B 08:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought about adding my tuppence to the new discussion - but then I considered to let it settle down under the principle of "let sleeping dogs lie". Where do you see the contributors persevering with the flag? SilkTork 08:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I happened upon this arguement, and while I may regret it later, entered in my own opinions. I think there is validity on both sides, but I looked more for the logic and precenents already established. I did try to be a bit humerous in the first response only to make a point. I actually found the German connection to be quite facinating. My son is a history buff so he will get a kick out of it when I tell him about Fanta's origins. We leave near a "bodega" which is a small convenience store that above the standard products that appeal to the community as a whole also carries brands that specifically appeal to the Hispanic community. Most bodegas carry Fanta. But the Fanta they carry is imported into the United States in glass bottles. (While still quite commonplace in Mexico and Latin America, in general American soft drink bottlers rarely use anything but plastic.) Also in the US, Fanta is generally associated with its orange variety, but it is not uncommon to also find grape, and pineapple Fanta on the shelves at your local bodega. (I've also seen my son downing a red Fanta once which I think was strawberry flavored.) He is fond of Fanta, so we'll see how he takes it... (Of course you will also find some other wonderful tasty, slightly libating, beverages at the bodega such as Dos Equis, Sol Beer, Tecate, Negra Modelo, Pacifico, and Modelo Especial amongst others.) Cheers! RobHoitt 04:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Endal

Hi there

We have been around the buoy a few more times than needed with regards to the inclusion of Endal's history in the main article. For any dog to have a traceable pedigree going back to the original dogs that started the line is unique in the dog world and merits inclusions in the article. Notable for a canine

"Endal is a pedigreed yellow Labrador registered with The Kennel Club. His pedigree can be traced back through 26 generations to Buccleuch Avon, the black dog born in 1885 which was bred by the Earl of Malmesbury[5] and given to the 5th Duke of Buccleuch. Avon was sired by Malmesbury Tramp x Malmesbury Juno, who are recognised as the pivotal dogs in the formation of the Labrador breed, tracing back to the early dogs imported by Lord Malmesbury from Newfoundland. Endal's Sire was Subar "Smart Move" (from the Lawnswoods breed line) and Dam "Subar Betterhalf" (from the Subar breed line)."

regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.226.29 (talk) 19:12:44, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Endal's notability gained through publicity - that is the focus of the article, and the reason it survived the discussion to delete. The dog's pedigree history is a separate issue. That he is a pedigree Lab is good enough background. Information about the dog's parentage is a bit excessive. The nature of a pedigreed dog is that the parentage can be traced back at least three generations. Family backgrounds can be interesting. Bill Clinton's family background is fascinating, as it is not certain who is his father - given that the supposed father, William Jefferson Blythe III, was out of the country for several months around the time that Clinton's mother conceived. Note that even given the very assured notability of Clinton, and the interesting case of his parentage, that none of this material makes its way into the Clinton article. Well, maybe that would be too controversial and might invoke some Bio conflict. Anyway. I would suggest to keep the article on track with the established notability - the publicity. SilkTork 09:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Portobello Road Market

Hi, I thought the image you removed (closeup of a stall) was appropriate for the article. From the existing images, one can't really see what an example of a stall is like. Would appreciate if you could reply at my talkpage, thanks. Chensiyuan 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no firm guidance on the use of images in Wiki - there are bits of advice here and there, such as Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images, but one the whole it does come down to common sense. The article is Portobello Road, with a section on Portobello Market. The section on the market only has enough space for one image - of the two available I selected the general view as it gave a decent picture of the market in situ, and had some sense that a person could identify it as Portobello. The other image was a close of a stall and had no unique features - the stall could be on any market. Placing another image of the market in the article would be inappropriate - there are other images of Portobello that could be used - a fair use image of Portobello Farm would be interesting, or a map from 1841, a picture of the Electric Cinema, a book shop - that sort of thing. That was my thinking. Regards SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 07:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Apple edit

Hi,

You just moved some templates on the Apple article, citing a bunch of MoS guidelines in the article summary. I don't believe this was correct; in particular, dambig and page protection templates always go at the very top of the article. I've undone this. Chris Cunningham 15:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I made a mistake. I've corrected it. Thanks for pointing that out. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Geoff

It was expandable; people were arguing to delete based on content, not subject (i.e. the article was nothing more than a list of names). I expanded the article to a full treatment of the subject and moved it to a title with a broader focus. To delete a totally different article which happened to share the same name as the old content up for deletion would be ridiculous. Johnleemk | Talk 07:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

"Categorically remove", to me, means to remove such sections just because they are trivia sections. You shouldn't do that, even if there are cases in which removing all the trivia is what you think is best to do. That's not saying that you shouldn't remove an entire trivia section all at once, but do it with regard to what's in there (and don't describe WP:TRIVIA as mandating that change). Myself, I like to remove trivia sections over several edits so I can record my different objections to different items... and so that if there are any worth preserving or integrating, people can see that edit separately in the history. Mangojuice^talk 12:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about the meaning of the word "categorically." According to dictionary.com, it means "without exceptions or conditions; absolute; unqualified and unconditional" [9]. It's really the "without exceptions or conditions" part that is being meant there. Mangojuice^talk 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

BIO

I support much of what you are trying to accomplish, but maybe we should take some baby steps? --Kevin Murray 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought maybe you have the support to pull it off. Be bold, what the hell! --Kevin Murray 19:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know what you are saying. I hadn't originally intended to go straight to the project page. However, as discussions had been going on for a little while with a general consensus for a rewrite and potential merge, and I had been involved in those discussion there was precedent and consensus for a bold rewrite. That, and my own enthusiasm for what I had done, along with an awareness that discussion had stalled for a while, prompted me to make the move. I had expected some discussion, and that not all my changes would be accepted. However, I found Anon's revert rather surprising. But I assume that was simply an initial reaction and Anon had not read through all the changes. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pleased that some editing and discussion is now taking place! Thanks! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 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.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alizée Search

Woops thanks for bringing this to my attention. Normally an article can't be prodded twice, so the prod was out of line. I'll give it a second look and deal with it later (AfD, redirect, or speedy). If you merge some to Ailzée, just redirect the page there :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome template

Hey! I was just wondering: I used the Welcome! template tonight, and it seems to have your sig in it. A line separating the instructions from the template itself had been removed accidentally by another editor, which I re-added, but I was just wondering if you were working on the template? --Kateshortforbob 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't purposely worked on it. I had placed it on someone's page, then noticed that my sig hadn't appeared. So I edited what I "thought" was the message on the user's page, but turned out to be the template itself. I've taken my sig out of the template now. Thanks for the heads up! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining - templates make my brain hurt! --Kateshortforbob 11:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know what you mean!!! Curiously, after using the {{Welcome!}} template I created one, the {{BeerWelcome}}. I wanted to better understand how they worked. I can't do a clever one, but a simple one is surprisingly easy to make. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam

Trying to do my best. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too ;-) Wikifalcon 00:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Pleases the hell out of me too! Regards. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the award!--Mr Fink 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Canals of Amsterdam, was selected for DYK!

On October 15, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Canals of Amsterdam, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Juglandaceae

Hi!

Thanks for Category:Juglandaceae. However, I am not sure that it is the best solution to sort the articles alphabetically according to the species epithet. After all, Carya, Pterocarya and other genera should also be placed under this category, so all Juglans species should ideally be under J. What do you think of this? Colchicum 20:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with your suggestion. I only fiddled with Walnut because we went to a 17th century pub in Kent yesterday and they gave us a bag of walnuts from a walnut tree in the garden. I was curious because I had not previously eaten fresh walnuts, so I thought I'd look it up - and, as often happens, had a little fiddle with the article while I was reading! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm Asking

Do you believe or not believe in superstition? Please leave an answer and an explanation at my talk page. Pokemon Buffy Titan 09:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Rook (bird)

Please note that there is a long established agreed convention on wikipedia that bird species are always fully capitalised - see the bird project page. Jimfbleak 14:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fascinating! I did a quick check and found that you are right. But I'm not so sure that ornithology convention is being correctly applied. Having had a quick look at a couple of ornithology websites and books I can see that the first mention of a bird has the name in capitals followed by the latin name - thereafter it appears that the name is given conventionally in lower case. Has there been a misunderstanding of the convention in the case of the Rook article - and the capitalisation been applied rather too rigidly? Regards. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The drive for complete capitalisation effectively came from the fact that although encyclopaedias, dictionaries and many websites (esp US ones) use lower case, the field guides, family monographs and national organisations like the BOU and AOU fully capitalise species. It's not an ornithological convention in the broadest sense (there isn't one except for binomials), but it's that preferred by birders and adopted nem con by the Bird Project.

In a similar way, the Plant Project has binomials as the default article title, not the common name, as would be expected from strict MOS.

All the 10,000 bird species articles are now written, some with many links, and there really is no prospect of the project changing its policy, long established and accepted by Wikipedia. The policy obviously has to be applied consistently, the only real exception being usage in non-biological article for common species such as (UK examples) the wren, skylark or kingfisher. Jimfbleak 18:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I suppose what I did has happened before, eh? Thanks for your patience. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'fraid so - but realistically it's always going to occur every once in a while. I stumbled into a similar trap when I changed the capitalisation of an Italian opera article, not realising that the convention in Italian titles is different to English, best wishes, Jimfbleak 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 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 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Pokemon Buffy Titan has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pokemon Buffy Titan 06:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

hey i was hoping u could mayb adopt me? cause im hopless at wkipedia and i would desperetely like to jazz up my user page. cya Lassie2501 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I offered a minor concern to your reasoning at the AfD. Overall I agree with what you said. I'm just not sure when you separate the author from his work(s). Notability doesn't transfer, but sometimes, an oterwise non-notable person does become notable by association. Case by case. Talk to you soon. --Kevin Murray 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to merge PROF into BIO?

It seems that the time has come to merge PROF into BIO. What do you think? --Kevin Murray 14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll take a look and make an offer. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser requests

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with your comments that Lar (the Checkuser) is '...reluctant to be as open about this affair as [he] could be'. He's bound by a number of policies – including Wikimedia Foundation resolutions – that sharply curtail the amount of information that he is allowed to share.

Relevant documents and policies include:

• CheckUser policy on Meta
• Privacy policy on Meta
• Resolution:Access to nonpublic data from the WMF

In general, a Checkuser will always err on the side of caution when considering what information garnered from a Checkuser – if any – to release to the community. Beyond protecting the privacy of community members, this policy also protects Wikipedia—discussing evidence in detail would give the determined sockpuppeteer hints on how to avoid getting caught.

Lar – and all Checkusers – are required to be trusted community members; in addition, they are required to provide proof of age and identity to the Foundation. They are expected to take their responsibilities very seriously, and are strongly discouraged from giving out too much information. If you are concerned that there is a problem with a Checkuser, you can contact the Foundation's Ombudsman commission. They will review Lar's actions, but I wouldn't expect them to hand out further information to you without a very good reason. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If I requested that he check you, he would ask me why I wanted you checked, and I would point to evidence of possible policy violations. I'm asking for that evidence of possible policy violations. Nothing secret or mysterious. Just the reasons why he did the check. Nothing hard. Simple cut and paste, avoiding the name of the person who provided the information if that person wishes to remain anonymous. I've kinda got curious about this case now. I don't think it's a big issue - I think the users (or user) can create new accounts and carry on doing what they were doing, but with more care. The block doesn't do anyone any harm - apart from I should image a moment's frustration - but you know how it is. You ask a question, and you don't get a straight answer, and your curiosity is aroused. Added to which, I haven't yet seen strong evidence of disruption - merely three accounts putting up articles for discussion. I am currently wasting my time looking through the histories of the three accounts. I have just got to October when all three start on AfDs. User:AndalusianNaugahyde started in November 2006. User:Pilotbob opened an account in December 2006, but only started editing in May 2007. User:Doctorfluffy started in May 2007. If nothing else, the blocks are wrong. It would be Pilotbob who was a sockpuppet of AndalusianNaugahyde. And if they are sock puppets, they have lain in wait for a long time for this moment. The Pilotbob account has been sleeping since Dec last year, and then both Pilotbob and Doctorfluffy were editing for six months on a fairly regular basis before the problems start. Seems like an odd background for blatant sockpuppetry. Anyway - as I said, I've just got to the interesting bits! The actual AfDs at the heart of all this! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; if you asked him to run a Checkuser on me, he would indeed ask you for a reason. However, he would not – and should not – then reveal that information on-wiki if I were to ask about it. (The exception would be the case where your request was clear and obvious baseless harrassment; then it would be appropriate for him to discuss your request in the context of sanctioning you for your behaviour.) Checkusers don't discuss details on-wiki, as it a) runs the risk of violating the privacy policy, and b) says to a sockpuppeteer, "Here's how you were caught; you can avoid detection if you change your behaviour this way...".

In this specific case, there's no particular reason to give you the evidence that led to Lar performing a Checkuser; you're not an involved party. Your curiosity, in and of itself, just isn't sufficient reason to risk a violation of the privacy policy or to provide hints to this – or some future – sockpuppeteer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser is done when there is a suspicion that a user has broken policy. It shouldn't be used because someone simply suspects someone of having two accounts. It is not against policy to have two accounts. And suspicion of having two accounts should not by itself be a reason to do a checkuser - there should be evidence of deliberate misuse of the accounts. I am obviously not making myself clear here, because what I have been asking for is the evidence that there has been an abuse of policy that would lead to a check. When Pilotbob says to Lars, I think you should do a check on TenOfAllTrades because I think he is a sockpuppet of SilkTork, Lars will ask - Where is the evidence that TenOfAllTrades has broken policy. Now, if we reveal to sockpuppets that when they are spotted breaking policy that a check will be done, and so in future they avoid breaking policy, then we needn't do any more checks. If no law is broken, then we don't need a trial. My concern here is that we've had a secret trial and when asked for the evidence there has been evasion or silence. Do you see what I am saying? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If Pilotbob (no unwarranted disrespect intended) asks me to run a check, I'll tell him to take it to RFCU and make the case there. Why? Because I don't trust him to bring me stuff that is likely to be worth investigating. The person who brought me this, I trust to bring me stuff worth digging into. I don't necessarily make them write up an RFCU case in their mail... There was no "secret trial" because WP isn't a justice system. We're an encyclopedia and CU is a tool to help us get our work done, nothing more. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to debate whether the checkuser was warranted right now. I haven't been blocked since Friday, but Doctorfluffy still is blocked. He has been talking about this on his talk page and ANI. I don't really see why I would want to unblock my supposed sock puppet so badly when I am not blocked, but I digress. I assume that the checkuser occurred because I was being an asshole to Guy. He blocked me for creating too many AFDs. Admittedly, I was a little angry about being blocked and was complaining on my talk page. I wasn't very nice and called him a rogue administrator among other not very nice things (its all still there you can read it). This wasn't really the best way to handle the situation obviously because now it has caused a huge scene on here. Since I was the first one blocked I was called the puppetmaster. I just hope I don't manage to get myself blocked by commenting on this matter. Pilotbob 02:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked because Doctorfluffy was blatantly a single-purpose account and AFD is a plague pit of sockpuppetry. Lar double-checked my results. Pilotbob was busted, utterly. There isn't a procedural appeal on the matter that means he gets to run sockpuppets because I didn't touch third base or something - David Gerard 15:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The certainty of your statements is oddly unconvincing. "Doctorfluffy was blatantly a single-purpose account" is an astonishingly unfounded statement, chilling in it's prejudgment. "I checked because I felt that Doctorfluffy might be a second account" would be more reassuring. But checking because you were already certain, even though others who have looked at this case feel there are genuine doubts, doesn't inspire confidence. It looks like you saw two accounts !voting the same way in AfDs and looked no further. You jumped to a conclusion, and when you saw the two accounts shared a daytime work IP their fate was sealed. I edit Wikipedia from work - as I work for Medway Council which employs thousands of people, there is a fair chance there are other Medway Council employees who also edit Wikipedia and may !vote on AfDs at the same time as me. I'd hope that anyone who might suspect me and the other user of being meatpuppets or sockpuppets would still their beating heart for a moment and take a glance at our edit histories to get a fuller picture. Nothing bad was happening. There was no rush. A little time spent on further investigation would have saved all this hassle. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I know first hand that his statement is incorrect. But to be fair, we have a somewhat odd configuration at the office. We have a T-1 and cable modem that we can switch from by changing gateways. This would look strange on a checkuser because IP addresses would change around randomly (and be in different class A subnets) and be the same sometimes. Additionally, I don't work for IBM and only meant to imply I work with IBM's VMWare product. We are a relatively small office and we do know each other in person, something that might not happen in a large organization. However, I could see something like this happening to other users. It would not surprise me if you, Gavin Collins, and others who engage in controversial, but not policy violating, activity have been checkusered without their knowledge. Pilotbob 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It would surprise and dismay me. Though I have on occasion questioned the actions of other users, including those with admin facilities, and am willing and able to engage in tough discussions, I don't go against consensus, and most of my Wiki activity is helping non-admin users and editing articles and guidelines - hardly the stuff that would awaken the concern of even the most nervous checkuser. Whether you are one user or three, Pilotbob, your editing wasn't damaging Wikipedia, and the process that led to the blocking of the other two accounts was questionable. Even worse, the evasiveness of the admins involved and their self-righteous belief that they can sniff out and block accounts without clear evidence and without accountability to the community is appalling. If I had the time and energy I would look into a change of policy that ensured that all requests for a check should be made through appropriate channels. If it were more open then there wouldn't be suspicions that admins were making checks on any user who disagreed with them. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rochester, Kent

Several thoughts.

• Clean up of text. Needs doing, I put up the history list of dates but it could do with a Copyedit.
• Images. I have placed several there (some of which you removed?) and left several that I thought should be removed (two of which you left!).
• To me a image must illustrate a point in the text, to be good it must have a geocoding tag and as a POV a straight horizon and a blue sky. I haven't found a wikipolicy on photos in geographical page, or the the Kent project. Overall the balance of the photo should accurately reflect the subject. i.e not too many smiling faces and orchids in the Delce.
• I do think that listed buildings should be illustrated, and stations shouldn't be unless they are notable.
• Given that the Rochester article is used heavily by teachers and children researching a potential school topic or visit, or by overseas workers deciding on taking up employment in the UK, Does what we have now more accurately reflect Rochester than before? I can see that the whole page lacks demographics, is too history weighted, says little about education, etc. and the photos were too heavily tied to festivals but they were also tied to the page as it was written rather than the one we want it to be.

So I will be reverting one geocoded photo and look forward to a discussion, either on Wiki or on one of your training runs through Strood. ClemRutter 09:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Clem, thanks for getting in touch. I've just had another look at Rochester, Kent and I agree it does need a good going over. The bare information is there, but it does need writing up in prose. I took out a bunch of images that were dark and/or blurred. I wasn't paying that close attention to what they represented, I was more concerned about the quality. I accept that there are times when the historical importance of an image can outweigh quality, but in this case it's easy for both of us to get out into Rochester on a clear day and take some nice snaps. Something that I keep intending to do, but haven't yet. How do you fancy meeting up one bright day and we can have a drink in Ye Arrow and then go out and take some photos together? The weather during this autumn has been brilliant for taking snaps, and we aren't making the most of it! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gaius Cornelius

A while ago, you were kind enough to offer to nominate me for adminship. Being rather busy at the time, I did not take up your offer, but you may wish to know that I am now a nominee. Gaius Cornelius 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. But take care with letting people know that you have been nominated, some editors view it as Wikipedia:Canvassing no matter how neutral the wording. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Your warning is noted, I have had no intention of going out canvassing. Gaius Cornelius 08:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I understand that. And it was appropriate that you let me know. But you'd be surprised at how picky some people can be about details, especially in regard to RfA. I'm sure you'll sail through as you are a level headed person. Good luck! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Joy For You

Joy

Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Send Joy to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope you feel great! Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User preferences

Hi, I saw that you removed the wikilinks from the dates in the Charles Dickens article. I would encourage you to add wikilinks to dates when they contain date and year (i.e. September 2, 2007) because this allows user preferences to format the date display in a users prefered format. If the date only contains a year then I would agree that it is a low value link that should not be included, otherwise it helps to have the wikilinks. Thanks, Cacophony (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. There has been much debate on this. The result is that the technology is not working the way it should, so a decision has been made that such date wikilinking should only be done, as I quoted in my edit summary, "only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding" - the quote coming from WP:Date#Autoformatting_and_linking. The bug discussion related to the tech problem is here if you wish to encourage the tech guys to sort out this long standing issue! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cookie For You

Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey, hope you enjoy! Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA - thanks

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 38/1/0! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

You said in a reply in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SilkTork#SilkTork that you are still not clear in what way you erred, in the matter that I opposed you over. I would be happy to discuss this further if you wish, as the feedback I have gotten about you from others is that while you are a bit legalistic/procedural, to your detriment, you have made valuable contributions to the project. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lar - I appreciate that offer, as I got fairly nasty in our encounter. I have taken on board JodyB's view of my behavior, which I have interpreted as saying that stirring up matters is detrimental to the project - no matter where it occurs. I had taken the arena of ANI to be more tolerant of extended debate - though I can now see that I went overboard and should have walked away much earlier. Anything you can add from your perspective would be warmly welcomed. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Where would you like to continue, here or on my talk? I'm fine either way but would rather stay in one or the other. ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is fine. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And of course things got busy for me and I haven't had a chance to respond. I will leave you some more indepth thoughts when I have a chance, but one initial thought: just deciding to take input is very very hard... so many of us get set into a position and don't want to take any input about it, so props for that. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the Durova incident in which you have taken a strong role is taking up your time. A potentially positive side-effect of this incident is the writing of Wikipedia:Confidential evidence - something I had been considering doing myself after discovering that it was commonplace for people to be blocked on confidential evidence. My view on the incident is that Durova is getting a fair bit of shit thrown at her for carrying out a commonplace, official, and fraught process which inevitably would end up turning bad at some point. There but for the grace of Luke Rhinehart goes many a sleuthing admin. She must be feeling awful for doing something that she has been encouraged and rewarded for doing, and now gets a big slap in the face. The fault lies not in the person but in the system. Security by design works better than Security by obscurity as it protects the security staff as well as the users. Take away the reason for creating secret second accounts and you take away the need to secretly sleuth them out. It is common for voters to have to register to vote - this is security by design; yet here on Wiki we allow voting to take place by secret accounts, so we then create secret police to monitor the voting. And when the police slip up, we beat them and humiliate them in public. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There's truth in what you say. But a fundamental principle here is "anyone can edit" meahing we want to allow anonymity. There is no perfect way to ensure unspoofable identity, even if real names were required, but our policy certainly does make it harder to prevent duplicates. I'm not sure how we could still allow anonymous editing without some checking when it's apparent things have went awry somewhere. The rub is in when is it justified to check and what rationale should be given, and what rationale should be made public (different questions)... all of this is playing very strongly in how the Durova case continues to unfold as I am sure you are aware. ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - leave the editing as free and easy and welcoming as possible. But lets put some proper registration in place for the activities that cause most concern - the meta-Wiki discussions, maintenance and voting. Editing is not the same as voting. I've been impressed by the information in AaronSw's article which demonstrates that it is mainly anons who supply the material for the articles, while it is the signed up users who format the articles and make policies and guidelines, and do the voting and have the investigations, etc. My main interest and pleasure on Wiki is editing. I like to look up info, and my first port of call for info is Wiki. If I look at a Wiki article on walnuts or toast or whatever, and I feel it could be improved, I'll do it if I have the time and inclination. And I'll enjoy doing a bit of extended research - until I get bored and move on to something else. And that is how, I believe, most anons edit. They come here to check info on Brad Pit or chicken pox, and find that the info is wrong or could be better - so they add what they know. Then us experienced Wikipedians swarm over their contributions and format it into something acceptable to the Wiki community. Clashes sometimes occur between anons, but main clashes are between anons adding info and Wiki formatters editing the material, and between Wiki formatters who have different agendas. The votes that take place are about those clashes - essentially internal Wiki formatting and meta-procedure, !voting for articles to be deleted, and tally voting for people to be elected to various internal Wiki positions.

I haven't looked at the Durova case for some time. Has there been an interesting twist? I'll go take a look. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An interesting twist? I'll say :). Shedfuls in fact. It's closed now, you can see here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Final_decision. Your thinking on how stuff gets created here is interesting (it fits mine as well). For some scientific research on the topic, read the PDF mentioned in m:Stewards/confirm#Daniel_Mayer... I believe you will find it quite fascinating, I did. I saw your question on Giano's RfA, good question. I think many WMF wikis have suffrage requirements of some sort, time since registering, or number of edits, or both. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand... I totally agree that there is a challenge around balancing the desire to cherish and value the contributions of anons (of all sorts... IPs, alternate accounts, main accounts that want to remain anonymous, etc) with the need to have a smoothly functioning project. And I also agree there is a challenge around balancing the need for discussion and for making sure points are made with the need to not belabor points too far. That latter is a balance that I myself don't necessarily always excel at, to be sure. Your observation that different areas have different norms/tolerances, with ANI being one that tolerates a bit more length, is particularly apt. So I guess the net here is perhaps I don't necessarily have any really sage advice for you anyway. But I'm always happy to discuss matters. If you're still interested in adminship at some point, you may also want to sound out other admins for their views, and even consider the coaching process and particularly admin coaching. That's not to say you are necessarily inexperienced, mind you. Different coaches bring different perspectives so you should perhaps do the legwork to review and then select a coach or coaches for yourself. Hope that's of some help. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have only just noticed this comment. The request for admin status was more to do with just having the extra buttons to help with the day to day editing of the project. I don't think I'd be doing much different to what I am doing now, except it would make things easier. I do tend to skip things at the moment which I can't do, and I'd rather not bother an admin with, though I do sometimes ask an admin to push the button for me. I hop around a bit as the fancy takes me, and there are some areas I'd like to poke around in some more - like Deletion Review - but I'm not desperate to become an admin, and the notion of being coached to become trustworthy just doesn't sit right. I don't think admin coaching would mean I'd make substantially lesser mistakes in future than I make now - I think that comes more with general experience of the project and the needs and desires of the project community. I felt I'd been around a bit, felt I'd done enough to show I could be trusted, could keep a cool head (with one or two exceptions), that I wasn't that controversial, and that my heart was in the right place. I've been an Admin on RateBeer for several years where I certainly have less scrutiny and more ability to do harm than here. However, my encounter with you (which I hadn't counted that big a deal) was seen by the community as something rather heavier than I still think it was, though I have totally taken on board the notion of not making a drama out of a crisis. And my pointing to an incident from July of 2006 in which a user had engaged me in a debate was clearly also misunderstood. I was able to find that incident because it stood out as something unusual, and the fact that it was 18 months ago also, I felt revealed something. But, I suppose I'm not a politician, and I am not able to present myself in the best light. The RfA went wrong. I understand why it went wrong, but that doesn't mean I am indifferent to the result. It's reassuring to be accepted and acknowledged, and uncomfortable to be rejected. I'll ask for the buttons next year and see what happens then. Thanks for the conversation. I do appreciate and enjoy our talks. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 08:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia

Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia makes for interesting reading.Thanks for pointing it out. I haven't got through it yet, but I'm struck by some of the measurement methods they are using to judge a valuable editor. A user who makes an edit that is read often and remains a long time is considered a valuable editor. Mmmm - I'll go edit a few Harry Potter, sex position and wrestling articles and see my "value" sky rocket! But stay away from Palladian architecture and Virtuti Militari as they might become featured for one day, but thereafter remain lost in the archives to be read only by an appreciative handful. Value cannot always be measured by mechanical yardsticks! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

O dear - and now they are eliminating IP edits from the study. I understand the difficulty they are talking about, but the challenge is how to DEAL with the difficulty, not how to AVOID it! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion - editors like User:271828182 and thousands of others get ignored in the study. As such it is an imprecise study. An interesting, but unreliable piece of opinion. The conclusions are worthless. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, worthless is rather strong. I felt it gives validity to the editing model that I think you and I agree on... that there is somewhat of a long tail model at work, and that are many different ways to contribute. I agree that no mechanical evaluation of "worth" can ever fit with the subjective value judgements (different for each one of us) humans make. I also agree that I cherish some of the very interesting and obscure topics one finds by just following links of interest more or less to see where they lead. It's not a perfect study, but I think it's better than some that came before. WP is becoming an interesting area for researchers so I'm sure it's not the last word. Mostly I just thought you'd find it interesting. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes - worthless is rather strong, but I was struck by the great care taken to conduct a research which then both ignores a significant proportion of data and uses a flawed model of evaluation on the data it has but still feels it can come to a worthwhile conclusion. Yes - I did enjoy reading it (very much so!). The essay I mentioned (writes Wikipedia) can also be dismissed as "worthless" as the research is not scientific - and I also enjoyed that. That the conclusions of both are unreliable/worthless doesn't make them any the less interesting. I look forward to reading a balanced and scientific research into Wiki editing which takes into account anon contributions, the varied ways of evaluating worth, and comes to a meaningful conclusion backed by valid evidence. The study would also need to take into account that the longer a registered user is involved in Wiki the more that user gets involved in meta-Wiki activities rather than mainspace editing. And when an account user accepts meta-Wiki responsibilities they are rather like teachers taking on managerial roles for the sake of the school - they end up spending less and less time on doing the thing they most enjoy and regard as of primary value: the teaching of the students. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Flawed research can still give insight, IF one keeps the flaws in mind. I doubt we'll ever be able to perfectly measure everything about WP editing behaviours. I do think the metric gathering art is advancing, but it's not as far advanced as it could be I expect. I agree with you about the last bit, and it's known as Namespace shift... it is a real problem. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My favorite image

Ha, I see that my favorite image has become your favorite image, hunh? Well, thanks! I'm honored. (and I've seen the code you used to put up those pics. Heh, isn't it creative, specifing negative values. I wouldn't have thought of that, so thumbs up to you.) — 0612 (TALK); Posted: 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that wasn't my idea. I saw it on someone else's page and pinched it. They weren't using your bouncing blue blob though. Your blue blob seems made for bouncing behind the Wiki globe! SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I see. Glad you liked it! — 0612 (TALK); Posted: 23:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines

We've got a couple of sub-guideline proposals at notability which are maturing and likely to be pushing for acceptance. It seems like you might want to review the concepts in the context of the recent trend toward reducing rather than increasing the processe. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Apicius

Good merge at Apicius! That's encyclopedic thinking. --Wetman (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's not why he earned a barnstar. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! It's NICE when someone likes an edit enough to tell someone. We should do it more often. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 20:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Original Barnstar
		I present this barnstar to you in recognition of your work in cleaning up I Am Legend. CyberGhostface (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Weee! I get these so rarely that it gives me such a thrill when I'm given one. Thanks!!!!!!! SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:Plot

Was there consensus or a discussion anywhere before you changed the redirect of WP:Plot?

Thanks for getting in touch. I considered that for those who wish to reach WP:NOT#PLOT there is WP:NOT#PLOT. For those who wish to reach WP:Plot there is WP:Plot. One is NOT the other is PLOT. I'll be happy to talk with you about this without a revert. Consider these wise words: "# Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.

1. Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
2. If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it."

I have highlighted the words "discuss it first" and would suggest that is an approach worth considering when you feel the desire to revert someone.

If you feel that my edit was questionable, I'd be happy to hear your reasons. I am actually a reasonable and intelligent person who has the best interests of Wiki at heart. If my edit has caused problems, and you present those problems to me, I will be happy to reverse my edit myself. Regards SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Show me where you discussed it first. I consider what you did vandalism unless you link me to a consensus discussion. This change affects 3 years of archived discussions. Ridernyc (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't discuss it first. What happened was I typed in WP:Plot, expecting to get to Plot, but found - what appeared to me - to be a fairly new (Oct this year) shortcut, which was not listed on NOT (the one listed there is NOT#Plot), so my feeling was the Oct redirect to Not was not as helpful as the one to Plot. Why would you consider me to be a vandal? Why didn't you have a chat with me and say - "Hey, Silk, was that edit wise?" Why thump me with a revert and, after I point out that your attitude might be seen as hostile, you come back with "I consider what you did vandalism"?

I'm looking at the current use of WP:Plot, and I'm considering that you might be right. In which case the best course of action would be to take this to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion - a place I didn't even know existed until I looked for it just now! Do you feel that would be an appropriate course of action? I'll give my regards again and hope you'll reply in a sweeter tone than before! ;-) SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 13:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you insist but I don't see the point. There are other MOS pages that deal with plot summaries. Why not have it point at WP:WAF which is already linked from WP:Plot. I don't see any reason to change it, WP:Plot points at the main policy that affects fiction and that policy links to a MOS that explains the policy. Ridernyc (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)