Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

But what about the children!

  • "however they were either not reliable (one was by a child)" haha, glad you caught that one. That child is probably editing wikipedia as we speak. There was a long article in 1981 (a longer version of one i had cited in The Mystery of Chimney Rock article) about the Choose your own adventure books that noted that a paperback children's series is very difficult to get press about. Thus, although the series was extremely popular in the 1980s, it was very unlikely that individual books would get a lot of mainstream press attention.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes indeed! The poor children! (And the adults they become....) I think, however, that the point of WP:GNG is that when people fondly remember something they'll be motivated to write about their memories, and the best way to differentiate the memories that are run of the mill from the stuff that will likely have an enduring resonance is to check if those memories got attention from independent reliable sources. If the child that wrote that review were to become a professional writer (rather than a Wikipedia editor!) and wrote about that book in a reliable source, then we'd have something to work on. I agree it can be arbitrary, however on the whole our guidelines are reasonable and work well. Where there are problems, it is possible to raise those issues on the guideline and see if the guidelines can be adjusted. There are a number of children's series which get an awesome amount of media attention! Mind boggling in fact! From what I have gathered when doing my research, is that the series attracted some attention - though it would be interesting to see how the claims that the series was ground-breaking really stands up to muster by anyone willing to do the research. There have been own choice novels since at least the 60s. And not all were children's books by any means! In the field of reader engagement this particular children's series doesn't appear to be that significant. I'll look some stuff up later if you're interested, as I really got into reader engagement and some of the literary theories of Roland Barthes at one time. Even published some material on it [1]. SilkTork *YES! 12:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Liberty Adventure

Please reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Liberty Adventure as redirect. I have demonstrated that Statue of Liberty Adventure passes WP:BK #1, so I would prefer that the book have its own article since a merge would result in the loss of much content. The book has received coverage from articles such as the one from School Library Journal which "contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary". Best, Cunard (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I did look at the reviews you mentioned when closing, and agreed with the others who checked them, that on the evidence available the book was mentioned in passing. There appears to be no or little material present in those reviews that could be used to build an article. Essentially they are reporting that the book exists - which means it meets WP:V but not necessarily enough for WP:GNG. I left it open for people to merge in useful material to the parent article, and that would be an appropriate first step to recreating the article. Build up the content in context within a parent article, and when you have enough material for a standalone article, supported by appropriate reliable sources, move it back out into mainspace. SilkTork *YES! 09:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Blp talk header

Template:Blp talk header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. elektrikSHOOS 01:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merrick

Thanks so much for the GA review and for the helpful comments. I shall definitely bear them in mind as I work on the article some more. Oh, and I love your talkpage notice, by the way - makes a refreshing change! --BelovedFreak 17:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to use the email trail approach to messages, so I'll reply with the previous messages attached - that way both parties are kept informed without having to page-watch, and the message history is kept in place. It's only an extra couple of clicks, and I find it worthwhile. And using this method means there's no need for instructions, as the action is done by me! Regards SilkTork *YES! 17:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Beer

Heya Silk! It's been too long! How have you been? I'm just rolling through to give you a quick heads up that I replied to your post on Talk:Beer. I just wanted to be sure you didn't miss it! Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 17:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiccup atcha Clock! It seems there's a bit more to think about than I first realised. Thanks for the heads up. I've adjusted the lead again - but I think it's going to take a bit more work. The whole article really needs a good polish, as there are some other statements in there that may not be secure. I've been working on the Brewing article for a little while now, as I feel that has needed some attention - though really, the beer and brewing articles go hand in hand somewhat and should be developed together.
I'm fine. Can't remember last time we talked. Probably when there was an edit war on a beer article - probably Beer style as that was the one that used to provoke the worse fights between the pro- and anti- BJCP people. Those fights appear to have stopped - but not before they did considerable damage. The BeerProject is now pretty much inactive. People walked away because of all that damn stupid in-fighting - and I don't blame them. I stopped contributing to beer articles for a long while because it was so unpleasant. I remember you making a heroic stand one day and trying to get everyone to see sense. I felt bad because I wanted to support you, but it just went on and on, and I didn't have the stamina to keep up with it after a while. Did someone get blocked in the end? SilkTork *YES! 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was pretty ugly. Those conflicts festered for years, bringing progress on beer article more or less to a complete standstill. I had to walk away too... there was that one editor in particular who just wouldn't budge, as I'm sure you remember. We would make progress and reach a consensus (or nearly so), and he would kick us all back to square one. A few people did end up getting blocked for blatant sock-puppeteering, but that was it. It's been a while, though. Do you think it's safe to go back into the water... er... beer? – ClockworkSoul 22:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've just looked and it's been almost a year. SilkTork *YES! 22:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to try to resurrect the project? The trend on WP has been moving away from tolerance of disruptive and uncooperative editing, so even if the old warring comes back, we're in a better position to deal with it administratively if need be. – ClockworkSoul 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. There is a clean up page - Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Cleanup listing - which I dive into now and again. Be good to get some of that dealt with. SilkTork *YES! 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, things are much smoother here editing the beer articles now that mikebe and pattoro are gone. Edmund from Cardiff (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

SilkTork, hello from a US friend. I have no particular reason for writing, but on this night I just got the bug. The truth is that every time I thumb through my talk pages I remember the help and friendship you extended to me on an occasion two years ago when I, a novice, was dealing with some unpleasant editing conflicts. Of course this has long receded in your Wiki-memory, but I remember. From your userpage it seems as if things are well with you. Me too. Continued best wishes and cheers, Nick F, Monterey, California, USA Lantana11 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for the message. Keep well! SilkTork *YES! 08:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to carry out your threat?

The article must be reliably sourced within 24 hours of the closure of this AfD or it will be deleted.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis McGiffen

I think you should. I think it's been just a little bit over 24 hours... and you still have the most recent edit to the article. The-Pope (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder. SilkTork *YES! 13:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Thank you very much for your help! I'll be sure that the next time I see an article of good standard for GA, I'll ask for an assessment. My first two nominations didn't go that well. Now I know what the problem of those articles are, I'll leave it for a while. Jaguar (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder about Dusty

Hi! Just a reminder that you had taken on the GA review of Dusty Springfield. User:Jaan and I have made some improvements to the article and I hope you will have time to look at it again soon to check if everything is done. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I am aware that I have neglected that review, and keep intending to get over there to look at it, so I do appreciate the reminder. SilkTork *YES! 22:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Toilet paper orientation GAN

Hi SilkTork, thanks for Talk:Toilet paper orientation/GA1! I can see you've put a great deal of thought and research into the nomination already. I'm the major contributor, and I have comments on some of your comments... would you like me to list them inline, or somewhere else, or wait until you're done, or...?

Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Feel free to do what you are most comfortable with. If, as the review progresses, the thread of some discussions becomes entangled or confusing I may refactor - though that would be done only to ensure clarity, and anyone would be most welcome to refactor my refactoring if they saw a more helpful way of presenting the material. Regards SilkTork *YES! 09:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

S H

Hi, Thanks for your message about Sutton whatsoever... I have left a lengthy comment on the GA page in question, which about says it for me. It's a difficult thing more to know what to leave out than what to put in. The whole profile of the article is bound to change as new subsidiary articles spring up etc (like the one on the purse) and I really have no intention of attempting to moderate it in any way. I tried to create an article which comprehended many aspects of the subject in one, rather than letting it fragment: and if all the detail is removed from here, and redirected to affiliated articles, then no-one will get the over-view. So I'm in favour (naturally) of keeping the scope of the article roughly as I left it. However if there is a brilliant transformation I shall be the first to applaud! Have fun, Eebahgum (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork *YES! 08:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Strand

Section moved to Talk:The Strand#Article name and replied there. MRSC (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You got email

Thanks for the welcome and cuppa BTW. Very nice :) Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


Göktürks

Hey, can you please check the article above? User:CenkX removes sources content of the related article. I have checked the talk page of article, but there is no post by this user about his/her contributions of removing primary sources. User has been warned once, but he/she reverted his/her edit back. Thank you in advance. Best regards. —CnkALTDS 11:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am just going off-line. I have fully protected the article for 24 hours pending an investigation into what is happening there. This means that only an admin can edit the article for the next 24 hours. I will be back online in a few hours and I'll look into the matter then. SilkTork *YES! 11:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear SilkTork, I want to thank to you for your attention. I have reverted edits to last correct revision before telling you about this issue. I do know about protection policy. Thank you once again. Regards. —CnkALTDS 11:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC

We're not shutting it down that way, we'll go to MfD which is the appropriate venue then the project's talk page. Also since the signpost just published about this discussion we'll wait probably until the end of the week to do the MfD. — raekyt 12:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not making the close clearer - it appeared uncontroversial, so I didn't pay closer enough attention to explaining the close. The clear consensus of the discussion was to mark the project as historical. This does not, of course, prevent you or anyone else taking the project to MfD. SilkTork *YES! 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do you feel you need to jump in out of the blue and close it? We're progressing with a new vote on what to do. I'm quite confident that your actions is not what the majority of the active participants in VPC wants, and this isn't how we wanted to close it if it was closed. What your closing it by was a very unofficial discussion, not an official MfD or process to shut it down. I'm going to revert you again. — raekyt 19:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I close discussions that are listed on CENT where discussion has tailed off and a consensus has been reached. My close of that particular discussion does not prevent you from taking the project to MfD, nor does it prevent Signpost doing an article, nor does it prevent you from trying to whip up interest in the project to revive it. I am an uninvolved admin who has read the discussion and closed it. If you feel that my reading of the discussion was inappropriate then please ask another uninvolved admin to look over the closure to see if it was inappropriate. You are too involved in the matter to revert my closure - that is simply going against consensus, and is potentially disruptive. SilkTork *YES! 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a simple two second throw on two template close. This project involves hundreds of pages. A procedure would have to be developed how to handle it. We haven't even progressed that far in the conversation. As an uninvolved admin you jumping in and ending the conversation is disruptive. There is no set after X days this decision must be handed down and discussion stopped. I've asked you multiple times now not to disrupt our ongoing debate. Please explain what policy your working from that demands that this discussion be ended now? Keeping in mind about 5 admins are involved in this discussion, none of which have decided the consensus is to shut it down just yet without an official MfD or other process. — raekyt 19:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion is that there was a call to discuss if the project should continue, be marked historic or be deleted. The consensus was to mark it historic. That consensus was not carried out, and an attempt was made to prolong the discussion, though there were few people involved in carrying the discussion forward. I have no problem with you carrying on the discussion in a new format, but when there is a discussion to do something, and there is a clear consensus for one course of action, then we carry out that course of action. Ignoring consensus is against the spirit and ethos of Wikipedia. You are free, however, to start a new discussion. You are also free to ask another uninvolved admin to look over the discussion to see if there is a consensus to mark it historical. SilkTork *YES! 19:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Marking the project as inactive seems odd given August has so far been the projects busiest month. I see talk of discussion about the project being shut down, but can someone provide a link? Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I found the discussion. One of the results was that Raeky sent out a lot of requests to people who'd previously been involved with the process asking if they could lend a hand (eg: [2]). I don't know how many people turned up as a result of this, but I did. I commented on a handful of nominations and saw comments from maybe six or eight other editors. The project may have a long list of nominations and the input of regulars is important, but I don't think the project is inactive by any means. I found this discussion because I was going to take a look at some of the noms and was surprised to find the gates locked and the shutters closed. VPC needs to be given more time; it's currently in the middle of a drive to increase the number of participants, which from my point of view was successful. Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Raeky asked me to take a look at this issue. I am on the fence with regards to my own opinion on the subject, but I don't think I could really be described as uninvoled- I've been at least a little involved with VPC since it began. Courcelles suggests that we should "Deliver the coup de grâce and open a third MFD." Perhaps the best way to close this would be to open an MFD with a nomination statement that sums up the opinions of the talk page discussions. However, as with my opinion of the project as a whole, I am, right now, not certain how it is best to proceed. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

People are free to open an MfD. People are free to open a new discussion on the status of the project. Nothing I have done has stopped any of that. What I have done is carry out the consensus decision of the discussion. It would be appropriate if someone wished to change the consensus of the discussion, to seek a new consensus. I am quite happy to assist with seeking a new consensus, but I am uncomfortable with an involved editor who does not agree with the consensus decision, reverting that decision when carried out by an uninvolved admin. We proceed by consensus, and by people agreeing to follow consensus; and if someone is unhappy with a consensus decision, the appropriate action is to challenge that decision in an orderly manner rather than reverting to their preferred status. I suggest that the most appropriate action here is to either take the project to MfD, or campaign to activate the project. Marking it historical is not an undoable act, but reverting that tag is going to be disruptive unless there is some consensus for it. We don't revert consensus decisions without first seeking another consensus. SilkTork *YES! 21:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

FNC

Thanks for closing that monstrosity... it wasn't going anywhere and was an utter waste of time. Hopefully those who support it will leave it closed. (I suspect that some would like to have it remain open, but I hope they realize that doing so is more disruptive than beneficial, there is [and never has been] any chance that meaningful change would occur.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, it's been reopened.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the person doing that thought it was a normal talkpage discussion rather than a RfC, and reformatted it rather than reopened it - though, yes, by doing that it gives the appearance that my close was just another comment, and that people are free to drag the discussion on. I have replaced the formal closing, and left a link to Wikipedia:Closing discussions in the history. SilkTork *YES! 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Au Pair (film)

Hello from Spain, could you write the article Au Pair (film) in spanish wikipedia, thanks. 18:45 16 ago 2010 (Spain) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.198.106 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC close on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I'm not sure why you believe you have the authority to end discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard; perhaps you would care to share with me the basis for this belief. Dlabtot (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment already left. Rather perplexed at the "believe you have the authority" wording! SilkTork *YES! 23:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi. It's only a small matter, though it was drawn to my attention that you reformatted the RfC close on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Though not absolutely required, and people do vary in how they close a formal discussion, I like to follow the procedure in Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure as that tends to seal off the discussion. When you reformatted my close it gave the appearance that the matter was still open for discussion, and that my comment was not a closure, but rather another opinion. This might encourage people to continue the discussion and then it would need to be closed again. I have restored my closure to prevent this from happening. If someone would like to challenge the closure, then the normal procedure would be for them to go to the closing admin first, and if not satisfied there, then to seek another opinion. These procedures save disruption. If there's something I missed, or you like to discuss this further, please drop a note on my talkpage. Regards SilkTork *YES! 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You really should read WP:RfC#Ending_RfCs, which explains the procedure for ending RfCs. Dlabtot (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the closure, then I am quite happy to discuss it with you. SilkTork *YES! 23:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do, I've already asked you to explain, twice. Have you read WP:RfC#Ending_RfCs? Why do you think it is within your purview to close the RfC two weeks early? Do you think there is some harm to Wikipedia in follow the normal RfC procedure, in which the RfC is open for 30 days? Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I am familiar with WP:RfC#Ending_RfCs. An RfC is open for a maximum of 30 days - it can be closed before then if consensus has been reached and/or if participation has stopped. Activity had stopped three days ago, and there was enough consensus to close. Do you feel that there was ongoing activity? And do you feel that the ongoing activity was turning the discussion to a close other than the one that I did? SilkTork *YES! 23:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"it can be closed before then .... if participation has stopped" -- based on what policy or guideline? I see nothing in WP:RfC that supports your assertion. Dlabtot (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a good point. It is common practise to close discussions when activity has ceased, though that practise is not written down. I will raise that on the WP:RfC talkpage. SilkTork *YES! 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if you want to change the process for ending RfCs, that would be the place to do so. Our policies and guidelines are actually all 'written down', lol. None of them exist simply in the heads of editors, like this phantom policy for closing RfCs if participation has stopped. Dlabtot (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC) And contrary to your assertion, it certainly is not common practice on RSN to close discussions. Dlabtot (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I look forward to your participation at WT:RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of changing process, it's a matter of formalising something that already happens. Sometimes we don't want to formalise something, preferring to leave matters to case by case judgements. My judgement in this case is that the discussion had run its course, a consensus had emerged, and it was time to put the matter to bed. Your reformatting of my close created the potential for the matter to drag on - though given that activity had ceased, the possibility of that was low, nevertheless, it seemed appropriate to make clear that the discussion was over. The aim was to reduce drama, and allow people to get on with building the encyclopaedia. I followed procedures that I have used for at least two years in closing discussions, and which have worked quite well. Sometimes people have asked me to look again at a closure, though today is the first time any closure of mine has been amended. And it has happened twice!

Anyway, what do you feel we should do now? It is not my intention to disturb anyone with my actions, and certainly not to go against consensus or common sense. Do you feel it might be better to reopen the discussion? My own feeling is that the matter is over, and best left closed, but if you feel that something would be gained by keeping it open then we could ask someone for a third opinion. SilkTork *YES! 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I have just noticed it: "When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list." That's where I got "participation has stopped" from! It's on the actual tag itself! Doh! SilkTork *YES! 00:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
" It's not really a matter of changing process, it's a matter of formalising something that already happens" - again you've made - no doubt in good faith - an assertion that I believe to be false, and I don't have any comment on arguments based on this false premise. RfCs are not normally closed via the Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure - rather, they are more often just left to expire.
I do think it would be proper for you to self revert and allow the RfC to run it's course, unless the tag is removed by the RFC nominator, as per WP:RfC#Ending_RfCs. I certainly don't see any harm in allowing people to comment. We are used to controversy at WP:RSN.
Also you said: "I will raise that on the WP:RfC talkpage." I encourage you to follow through and do so, as that is the appropriate place to discuss whether this change is a good idea. But briefly, the point of having an RfC is to garner a broad consensus of uninvolved editors and that requires leaving it up long enough for a large number of people to see it. I would imagine someone coming to a controversial RfC 28 days later would have a much better chance of being uninvolved and dispassionate about the issue than those commenting in the first few days. Dlabtot (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As we don't agree, the best course is to ask a third person to review the matter. User:FT2 is a Third opinion Wikipedian who is also quite experienced and respected. I will ask FT2 to look at it. If you feel that the wording on the tag ("When discussion has ended") might be read in several ways, and that people might not feel it means when there is no discussion activity, but rather that it means when the 30 days has expired, then I will raise the matter on WP:RfC. SilkTork *YES! 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Please continue the discussion at WT:RfC as you said you would. User:FT2 is welcome to weigh in there right along with anyone else who is interested. Dlabtot (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Silk you have to understand that Dlabtot is a wikilawyer. He doesn't understand that WP:IAR exists or that discussions our routinely closed early. He's a letter of the law type of guy. He opened the RfC because of people calling for it to be closed because he wanted to make a point, eventhough the discussion is now just going in circles. As for Silk's authority... he is an admin which does give him some purvue to determine if there is merit to keeping things like this open. Dlab, if you don't think he has the authority, ani is this way.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No probs. I have asked FT2 for a third opinion, and I have opened a discussion regarding if "When discussion has ended" is clear enough. I'm off to bed now! It's rather late here in the UK! SilkTork *YES! 01:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It's late here too (when I got this). I'll try to help tomorrow unless this closes by other means first. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the person who started the RfC reopened it again.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Although I am one of the more vocal members of the minority viewpoint in that RfC (in fact I cast the first non-RS !vote against Fox News), I think SilkTork's closing rationale was reasonable, cogent, appropriate, and quite correct. It was within admin discretion and I endorse it. And I thank him for closing a difficult RfC. Although at this point, it might be better to just let the RfC close on its own, as it seems to be doing in the "Concluding the RFC:" subsection. — Becksguy (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The originator of the RfC, Donald Schroeder, original user name was DeepAgentBorrasco. Borrasco is Spanish for disturbance. If you read his user page, Donald_Schroeder_JWH018, you will find out he has nothing better to do than ingest synthetic pot JWH-018 and cause a disturbance here. A third of his 150 edits are about reliable sources. This quacks like a knowledgeable single-purpose account. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wings

This flying Wikipedia world comes to you for your all contributions. Thank you, teşekkürler, merci, grazie, gracias, hvala, köszi, paldies...—CnkALTDS 03:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! SilkTork *YES! 19:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Award

Keeper of the Roll Award Keeper of the Roll Award
The Keeper of the Roll Award (honorary class) is awarded to User:SilkTork for noble contributions to the Service Awards Scheme. Mootros (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! SilkTork *YES! 08:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages#Proposal based on above discussions

Hi, SilkTork. You are an admin who regularly closes RfCs, so would you being willing to take a look at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Proposal based on above discussions? I posted at WP:AN here but no uninvolved admin has paid attention to it for more than three days. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just glanced at it, and it appears that FT2 is handling matters there. Have you spoken with him? SilkTork *YES! 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, at WP:AN#RfCs at Wikipedia talk:User pages need closing. He is recusing from closing that discussion because he initiated the proposal. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Closed. SilkTork *YES! 09:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Long time no see

Just wanted to say it's nice to see your signature, especially on a GA review for such an important article. The nominator is one of my talk page stalkers, so when I have a minute, I'll look in and see if I can offer any assistance. I'm just glad an experienced reviewer has taken it on. I would have hated to see a keen but inexperienced reviewer take it on and make a split second decision without any useful feedback. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Merrick

Hello SilkTork. I was patrolling Category:Good articles without an oldid and came upon the above page, which you reviewed. It currently isn't categorized and is therefore listed here as well. I couldn't think of a good cat to put it in, so if you could categorize it, that'd be great :). Then it can be added here as well, I guess. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 17:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I had listed it under History, but put in a Bio cat, which GA doesn't have. That was the issue. I have now changed the cat from Bio to history. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork *YES! 18:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I'd like to thank you personally for your thoughtful comments (backed with evidence!) and support at my RFA. I will keep that in mind while editing. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you will make a good Admin. SilkTork *YES! 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza (2nd nomination)

  • Your decision:
    • "The table itself does not meet Wikipedia polices regarding Copyvio and Primary source so would need to be removed entirely. The BBC list may be linked to rather than copied, while the BBC article mentioning the list may be used for content for RS commentary on the list. The gisha list declares that it is unverified, so is speculation, and the organisation is promotional so should be used with care per WP:POORSRC. I am minded that people have commented that they find the list useful because it encyclopedic to know what items have been banned or permitted, however, as the sources are speculative and state that Isreal deals with matters on a case by case basis, the list is misleading. The article should reflect what can be verified, and make clear what is speculation. A list makes things appear more certain than they are."
  • BBC internationally accepted, 3rd party WP:RS, It made a research by multiple sources http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm
    • "BBC News has seen documents, submitted to an Israeli Court, which give more detail than ever before about how and why Israel maintains its Gaza blockade."
    • "Israel has never published a list of banned items, saying it approves requests on a case-by-case basis." [there is no official publicly published list]
    • "Items allowed have changed over time, which has left humanitarian organizations and commercial importers constantly attempting to guess what will be approved." [the list have changed over time]
    • "The court case has been brought by the Israeli human rights group, Gisha. The group has been trying, for more than a year, using freedom of information legislation, to squeeze information from the state about what exactly is allowed for import to Gaza, and why." [Gisha took the case to the Israeli court in January, requesting data using freedom of information legislation to force government publish the list]
    • "Now, after several months' waiting, the state has given its response to the court, in a written submission, seen by the BBC." [BBC saw the papers state provided to the court]
    • "It throws a small pool of light on the process behind the blockade. The overall rationale is set out, in bold type: "The limitation on the transfer of goods is a central pillar in the means at the disposal of the State of Israel in the armed conflict between it and Hamas." [Israel states the blockade is because Hamas is in rule]
    • "The Israeli authorities also confirm the existence of four documents related to how the blockade works: how they process requests for imports into Gaza, how they monitor the shortages within Gaza, their approved list of what is allowed in, and a document entitled "Food Consumption in the Gaza Strip - Red Lines" which sets out the minimum calorie intake needed by Gaza's million and a half inhabitants, according to their age and sex." [4 documents are confirmed by state on how blockade works. How they process import requests. How they monitor shortages in Gaza. Their approved list of what is allowed in. A document called "Food Consumption in the Gaza Strip - Red Lines" which sets out the minimum calorie intake needed by Gaza's million and a half inhabitants, according to their age and sex.]
  • Other detailed Research by BBC on the extent of Blockade: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm
  • BBC List of Banned Items http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_05_10_gazaimports.pdf
    • "Source: Confidential information from international groups, compiled by the BBC. (The list refers to goods brought in by commercial importers. Humanitarian organisations, including UN agencies, also bring goods into Gaza. They have consistently been allowed to bring in staple foods and medicines, while other items are approved or rejected on a case-by-case basis)." [Confidential information from international groups, compiled by the BBC.]
  • Gisha is internationally credited Israeli Human Rights Organisation [So Gisha is Israeli, they only gathered information from Palestinians and other International Organisations]
    • May 2010 Report [3] June 2010 Report [4]
    • "The following list is approximate and partial, and it changes from time to time. It is based on information from Palestinian traders and businesspersons, international organizations, and the Palestinian Coordination Committee, all of whom "deduce" what is permitted and what is banned based on their experience requesting permission to bring goods into Gaza and the answers they receive from the Israeli authorities (approved or denied)." [List is partial, changes time to time, based on personal/real life experiences of Palestinians' requests and answers they receive from Israeli authorities]
    • "It is not possible to verify this list with the Israeli authorities because they refuse to disclose information regarding the restrictions on transferring goods into Gaza." [list is verifiable by experience, list is not verifiable by Israeli authorities, since they do not reveal information]
    • "It should be noted that Israel permits some of the "prohibited" items into Gaza (for example: paper, biscuits, and chocolate), on the condition that they are for the use of international organizations, while requests from private merchants to purchase them are denied." [some items are available for international organizations]

The case is not as simple as you claim. Gisha is a credited Israeli Human Rights organisation. BBC is already 3rd party RS. The list is unverified by Israeli state since they do not reveal every specific information, but in real life practice they ban specific items. Case by case basis refers to arbitrary practices, it doesn't mean the item types aren't banned. Kasaalan (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch - I appreciate your concerns, and hope I can address them by expanding a little on the rationale I gave in the AfD close.
The BBC list is their property as they created it. It is not a list of facts, but is the outcome of informed research by the BBC. So it's not a question of the BBC not being a RS, but that using the whole list is against our guidelines. We tend to use only part of a list - The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, Forbes list of billionaires, Forbes Magazine's List of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women etc.
The Gisha list is particularly problematic as that is a organisation with a declared POV, and they acknowledge that the list is unverified. We use such sources with care, and ensure that when quoting them we do so in manner that shows that it is the opinion of that organisation. Using their list and presenting it as fact is not what we do.
Both lists are Primary Sources, and as such we would rather have RS commentary on the lists rather than copying the lists themselves, though we can link to the lists (which is what I have done)
Essentially the information is still there for people to look at, but I have organised it so that the presentation of that information complies with our guidelines, is more neutral, and is not misleading.
I hope that helps - if not, please let me know. SilkTork *YES! 07:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Well in that case I will convert table to a top 10/20 based on item types instead individual lists like farm animals (instead goat, horse etc.) about copyright. Also some items types are available via multiple sources.
On the other hand The Primary sources can be used if reliable while they don't contain commentaries. The main reason list is not verified by Israel authorities is because they don't like to declare what they ban [e.g. chocolate, basic human needs etc.]. Israel even claimed they have no "allowed/banned items list" yet admitted they have such after Gisha's efforts. [5] Gisha took the case to the court and in October 2010 there will be a hearing about the case. Yet you also missing a point. Gisha is a reliable source, though they have a stance e.g legal freedom of movement they are not partisan. [6] The lists are based on common deduction of both international and palestinian parties, who tries to import goods via BBC and Gisha independently. Both research reveal collection method of information. [and there is no other way of collection such data since IDF does not reveal info] Also there is no counter argument that these goods are not banned by Israel, because they banned the items in practice. Israel has an self-admitted "allowed items list" with "a daily allowed calorie table for Gazans" and ban the rest. But anyway, I don't have much time for all the info gathering, since I have some academic duties, after some time I can spend time upgrading info. Thanks for replies. Kasaalan (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Deprod of Headblade

Hello, just a quick note to let you know that I deprodded this article. A Google search didn't look promising, and Google News didn't find a lot but there was a surprising amount on Google Books, which I have detailed on the article's talk page. I feel there's probably enough coverage to establish notability, but at the very least enough to warrant discussion at AFD, if you're still inclined towards deletion. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I did a sloppy search. Good pick up. SilkTork *YES! 08:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork

In regards to George Washington, I don't think there is anything else that I can help with apart from what I've done in the last month or so, my knowledge of him is limited to what's in the article. I think the lead is fixed and also with the other 3 sections on the GA3 those are meant to be on the talkpage not the review page but I don't know if I should move them. I would like to ask you if the article is up to par with your review and whether or not it will fail. Thanks. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 10:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I'm still waiting for books I've ordered so I can check sources and do some background reading. SilkTork *YES! 14:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks :) Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Please enjoy these cookies with your cup of tea. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cookies. Mmmm. Nice. SilkTork *YES! 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing urgent

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

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Gokturks

Hi Silktork! I have arraged "blacksmith slave" part. Please have a look. I hope this solve the problem. Thanks for leading the discussion. --CenkX (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's very well done. Your edit confirms my own research, and you have provided appropriate sources. I have done a little copyedit, but otherwise retained your content. Good work! SilkTork *YES! 09:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

GAs

Excellent. Thanks for reviewing it. Hassocks5489 has a wealth of high quality architectural articles. He is the most resourceful editor I know in terms of books on architecture. Check out his additions to The George Hotel, Crawley. I was asotunded that he managed to write that much about it on top of what I'd written! Talk about specialist knowledge! I had no idea the hotel was quite that notable when I started it! I'm certian he has at least 10 articles already on Brighton/Crawley which are GA standard. I don't want him to feel pressured though. I'll peruse them of his articles and recommend nominating a few more I think. Regards.

Mmm do you think The George Hotel, Crawley stands a chance of GA. I know the history section is very long in comparison to the rooms/haunting section but it only reflects what knowledge that exists on it I think. I think it is about as comprehensive as it can be... Dr. Blofeld 11:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There's certainly a lot of information there, and given that it is a small, self-contained topic, it is easier to pass through GA criteria than the big complex topics (such as George Washington which is one I am currently struggling with). The history section is long and detailed (haven't read it all, just glanced at it), and that might be broken down into sections to make it more manageable. Also, given the amount of history, the lead looks rather short on historical details. The aim of the lead is not to be an introduction, but to be a mini article which can stand on its own - the idea being that people can read the short article and get the main facts, and can then decide to read the main article for more detail if they wish - selecting which sections they want to focus on - or reading the whole thing if they have the time and inclination. The quality of the images isn't great, but is good enough to pass GA criteria, which simply asks to make sure the images are legal, are appropriate, and the captions fit WP:Captions. I think that it would pass with just a little work - though I would need to read it carefully and do a bit of background checking to say exactly how much. Sort out the history section, and beef up the lead and get Hassocks to nominate it. SilkTork *YES! 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Regency Square

Although the "lesser sections" are interesting in such a context (these sections have characteristics of a list, which is what this wikicode actually creates), I'm iffy with the semanticness issues: you're basically creating "micro-lists" composed of a single "definition term" element, which besides the semanticness issues, is, unless I'm mistaken, not even valid HTML (IIRC a definition list must contain at least one of each <dt> and <dd>). Circéus (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Review Citadel of Erbil

Thanks for the review and the comments! I saw you also did some reorganizing work on the article itself; thanks for that as well. I'll have a look at your comments and try to work on that. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive_32&oldid=1140222004"