User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

History of Sesame Street

Hi SilkTork, I'm Figureskatingfan/Christine, and I'm requesting a favor from you. I've nominated the above article to GA, but there's such a huge backlog over there, I thought I'd "expedite" the process and ask for a review. I notice that you've reviewed a GA or two in your time, so I thought you'd be a good person to ask. If it's an inappropriate request, please ignore it, and I'll be a good girl and wait my turn in the very long queue. I ask, though, because I'd really like this article to become a FA by November, which is the 40th anniversary of The Show, and it needs a GA-pass before I can get it peer reviewed and then submitted for FAC. I know that I could by-pass the GAN process, but I didn't want to do that. So would you mind helping me out a giving it a look-over/review? I'd be much appreciative if you did, thanks. --Christine (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Christine. Yes, it's an attractive and informative article. I have started the review. I have made some suggestions for improvements and put the review on hold for seven days to give you a chance to make those improvements. If you get the improvements done before the seven days, let me know and I'll check them over. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, you rock! --Christine (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

SilkTork, I have now addressed all your concerns over at GAC. The only exception is that I asked User:Awadewit to review the images, and as I explained over there, that may take a while. Please take a gander and let me know if the changes meet up to your expectations. Again, thanks for the review. --Christine (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

BJCP links

I think Hu12 was out of order by blacklisting the links and there is a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abuse_of_admin_privileges_by_User:Hu12 Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have given my view. And I have requested that the ban be lifted on the three articles that legitimately use BJCP links. Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 19:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the links from the blacklist, see link for further details. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is this another one (I simply reverted, very fishy)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Did the IP use that edit summary: "BJCP spam or Joe jobbing"? Interesting! SilkTork *^YES! 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review Darklore Manor and Necronomicon (album)

Thought you'd be interested in knowing that both articles were nominated and one was summarily deleted by a non-admin without consensus. User:Chzz is targeting all Nox Arcana albums and cites a completely different article Blood of Angels for his reason for deletion of the 2 above (Chzz also nominated that Angels article for deletion, if you recall). Chzz further states that the 2 articles have no sources, when they obviously did, plus more were added, and they are good reliable 3rd party sources. I've requested protection but wanted the input of an admin who had some experience with this issue, because, frankly, I think Chzz is going nuts with the Twinkle toolbar, and has been softly warned about making too many AfdProds [1]. Your comments and suggestions would be welcome. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have given my views. I feel Darklore Manor should be relisted on AfD as there wasn't clear consensus, and that Necronomicon should be deleted with details on the album dealt with appropriately within the parent Nox Arcana article. As there is little coverage of these albums, even among the gothic horror fraternity, enough notability (and interesting material) has not been established for a standalone article. A few sentences on the main aspects of the albums can be given in the (currently quite short) Nox Arcana article, and that would be more useful than directing the reader away from the parent article into a series of other short articles which mainly consist of trivia, filler and repeated information. Track listings are pointless as the songs are not known. My strong suggestion is that all the albums by the band are treated on the parent article - at least that way the parent article starts to grow and becomes more interesting. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:SkullSplitterLabel.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:SkullSplitterLabel.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pearl

Just to note, one of the articles I had to fight with that now banned editor from Karyn Kupcinet also made a lot of edits to Janis Joplin. I think I managed to bring her/his roar down to a dull one on the Joplin article, there might be leftover garbage that I missed from all of that. I'd be ever so proud if we could make her article a good article! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll do it. It can take a bit of time, especially with large subjects such as Joplin, but I have some experience of both writing and reviewing Good Articles, so we'll be able to do it before the end of the year. SilkTork *^YES! 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it. I helped with the GA promotion of Gene Wilder and recently rescued Scarlett Johansson from losing its GA status - ended up expanding it a great deal. That's the total of my experience, besides the FA list I did of List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men. I guess I have some experience, after all. Just let me know! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Section tagging

I was just going through articles slowly cleaning up, and I noticed you tagged the section Current_TV#Hosts with a template saying it ought to be in prose. I was considering cleaning it up, and wondering if you have any suggestions on how to turn such an extensive list into prose?

Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 06:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Start with WP:NLIST and cut out all the black and red names. Then look to see which of the remaining names are sourced to being in the show, and while doing that gather any interesting information about the hosts that are left, and from this material write up the prose section. You cannot do much just with the names on that list - it does, unfortunately, mean doing some research. You might decide as you are going through the list of people who have standalone articles to put some of them up for AfD, as they have questionable notability. That somebody has a job on TV doesn't make them notable - see WP:ENTERTAINER. Adam Yamaguchi's article, for example, reads like a promotional CV - it has no sources, and a quick look on Google turned up blogs rather than anything reliable. OK, a lot of work, but that is why I didn't do it myself - but I couldn't, after reading the article, leave such an awful list unremarked upon! A name that stands out that you could find interesting material on, is Laura Ling, but there's already a section on her. It might be easier to just remove the whole section and replace it with a category: Category:Hosts of Current TV. If you do struggle with it, ping me again and I'll chip in. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street

Replied on my talk page. Basically, I agree with your hesitations. May not be NPOV. —mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it and should have time to comment over the weekend (which is a long one in the UK). I'm watchlisting your talk page too, so please feel free to discuss the matter here. Geometry guy 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping me with the City of London School article. I'll bear the comments you made in mind and try and see if I can make some improvements to the lead when I have time. I came across some of the articles you've been working on and I was very impressed by your work in improving articles related to alcoholic beverages and I must award you with this barnstar.

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For a hard working editor and in recognition of his work and enthusiasm in significantly improving articles on Wikipedia. Tbo 157(talk) 16:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy GA Review

Hi DroEsperanto. I note that you have taken the GA Review for 2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy, but that there is nothing on the talkpage to indicate a review is taking place, and Talk:University of Bristol admissions controversy/GA1 is empty. But I have looked at your contributions and found this, which suggests you are actively engaged in the review. It would assist others now, to know that the review is taking place, and some of the issues being raised - this is so that nobody else starts doing a review, and also so more people can help out and bring the article to GA status. To do this you need to activate Talk:University of Bristol admissions controversy/GA1 by placing your review comments in there. This also assists with record keeping, so when people wish to look into the GA review in the future, it can be clearly seen what went on. If you need any help, let me know. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, whoops! I'm sorry, I'm kind of new at GA reviewing. I actually told a contributor who found that to not act on the things I wrote until I was done. Was that not kosher? If so I'll redact my comment. And should I move my review to that page even if it's not done? Sorry if I've caused any inconvenience! — DroEsperanto (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

People do reviews in different ways, and it's up to you how you do it. The /GA1 page was created in order to have a place for GA Reviews and to keep a record of them. It is very helpful to put your comments in there, and people might wonder what's going on if that is empty. So, yes, put your review in there. A good GA Review is a discussion between the reviewer and the editor(s) - the more you can let the editor(s) know what you are thinking, the better really. Even though there are criteria which the article has to be measured against, there is a fair degree of personal interpretation of some aspects of the criteria, and it helps sometimes to talk things though to get some clarity. You don't need to deliver a complete review in one go - indeed I often start a review by saying I am doing a review, and I have spotted one or two strengths (to make the editors relax a bit) and one or two weaknesses (so they can work on something), and I'll give a fuller review later. Some reviewers work through an article in bits, and give feedback as they go along.

This template is useful:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

You don't need to use it, and some reviewers are very much against a "tick box" approach to reviewing - but most reviewers and editors find it helps focus attention on the GA criteria. The template can be found at Template:GAList2, with a guide to how to use it. Let me know how you get on - and feel free to ask me any questions. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and you are allowed (encouraged even) to sort out minor stuff yourself. If you see a spelling mistake or typo, then just fix it. If there are a lot of spelling mistakes, then you can tell people to do a copyedit, but you needn't point out every spelling mistake yourself. If the editors are total boneheads then you can direct them to these people, who are willing to help out on copyediting. SilkTork *^YES! 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. Am I encouraged to help make non-minor fixes as well during/after the review (i.e. if I put it on hold)?— DroEsperanto (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Take a look at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles - "While it is not a reviewer's responsibility to fix an article, fixing small problems is often helpful." But don't get too carried away. If you are making significant changes to an article you may start to become too involved and this may impair your judgement. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime

Following your close of this AfD, I have raised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing prisoners of Chile for a similar list posted a couple of weeks ago. I have notified the (SPA) author of the list; then I thought of notifying the violent defenders of the previous lists; then I thought in that case I should notify everyone who took part in that AfD; and then I wondered of that would be canvassing and I should do nothing. Please advise. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

O gosh - that's a dreadful article. I think that might qualify for a Speedy Deletion under A7.

The guidelines for notifying people are here. It is a courtesy to notify the originator of the article, and if you have Wikipedia:Twinkle, it will do that for you. I don't usually do much more than that - though I may notify people in various circumstances where it might be appropriate. This is a different article to the one just deleted, and - with the best will in the world - you cannot go around informing everyone about an AfD because they took part in a related one. Everyone is welcome to have their say at an AfD, and the more people involved the more rounded is the discussion, so some means of informing people who might be interested in that particular AfD is certainly worthwhile. I suggest a note on this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile, and leave it at that. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 22:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I have done as you suggest. JohnCD (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Blood of Angels

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Blood of Angels. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

School articles - Headmasters

Hi. Following the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, is it worth advising editors on talk pages of school articles to convert lists of headmasters to prose. I've found quite a few GAs including Aquinas College, Perth and Stonyhurst College where this may or may not be relevant. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When a GA article is found not to match the GA standards it can be listed for assessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. When reading an article that has a problem I'll do my little bit and correct it. But there's a limit to what anyone can do personally, and If there are many problems or the work looks time-consuming or sticky I may decide to pass on by. I still intend to go back to WikiProject school and bring in a wider viewpoint on their guidelines as I'm not sure their rationale for the alumni list is acceptable. It would be good to get other people's views on that. However, we are all volunteers on this charity project, and can only do so much - I have a few other items on my to-do list, including dealing with this. Thanks for the heads up though! SilkTork *^YES! 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've also started a discussion on there about how much information should be included in a school's history section as I found that this varies alot in articles. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Guinness and Draft Guinness

Hi, when making a drastic change to any page, regardless of what change to what page, would you please open a discussion on the talk page even if only for the record. If you would like to write an article about Draught Guinness I suggest you do that after first learning a few things like how to spell the name. ~ R.T.G 09:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

O dear. I understand that people can and do make mistakes - I make mistakes myself. No problem. But when people are aggressive and arrogant as well as mistaken that does make it hard to be polite. Anyway - Thanks for your notice. I can see that you don't quite understand why I made the changes I did. The article is about a beer brand called Guinness Draught, though people have been conflating it with the company, the Guinness family, and the brewery. I changed the article to make the distinction clearer between the brand and the company. The brand is identified as Guinness Draught by the company, beer, websites, notable beer writers, industry and other media, while the company that makes the brand is known as Guinness. I can see that somebody else disputes the value of changing the name of the article to Guinness Draught and is requesting a discussion on the matter. That is appropriate, and I will set up a discussion. I have noticed that you have made a crude revert which has undone a variety of edits, including those indisputably done under policy, so I will undo your revert. If there are aspects of any of this that you still are not clear on, please get in touch with me. SilkTork *^YES! 10:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I drank the stuff for nearly twenty years. "Draught" is a term rather than a brand. It means "Comes out of a beer tap in a pub". The oldest Guinness, and most recognisable for some Irish people is not draught, it comes out of a bottle. I mean no disrespect but you really are not familiar with the origins of "draught" and "Guinness". We have a lot of Irish editors. Guinness, the Irish drink makers, is a brand as familiar as Coca Cola or Budweiser. Think about that. Was it really Draft Guinness Brand all along or was it really Guinness, comes in draught (out of beer tap) which they talk about a lot? ~ R.T.G 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The references I supplied above support the brand being called Guinness Draught. They show that the brand is called by that name in keg, bottle and can. Nitrogen is used to create that foamy head. When in the can and bottle a small device releases nitrogen when the container is opened. This device is called a "widget", and was invented by Guinness. Guinness call the brand Guinness Draught to emphasise the use of the nitrogen which gives the beer the same quality regardless of how it served - it is the same when served from the can as it is when served from a keg in the pub. It looks like you think I wanted to talk about draught Guinness - that is, Guinness served in a pub from a keg; and it looks like you feel that "draught" should be spelled as "draft". Draft is an American spelling, and the Wikipedia guidance WP:ENGVAR would indicate that such spellings should not be used in the Guinness article - for example, the article uses "colour" rather than "color". I hope I have now clarified the situation, but if not, please let me know and I'll explain a bit further. SilkTork *^YES! 20:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

When I click that link to the Guinness website I get a splash page asking me to verify my age. The largest thing on the page is the Guinness logo. The word Draught does not appear on the page. The word draught in the beer context is relatively new to things Guinness. One of the logos features is the date "EST^D1759". There was no draught beer for a hundred years after the name of this brand was settled. And. You spell a thing how it is spelled. Not nessecarily how the Americans spell it. Those guidelines are largely to cover use of words such as specialised and specialized. The name Guinness Draught is no doubt trademarked letter for letter. Changing the spelling is unnessecary, incorrect and therefor misleading. If you wish you should make Guinness Draft redirect to the appropriate place. ~ R.T.G 14:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that - try this one - scroll down to Brand variants: "There are two main Guinness variants: Guinness Draught and Guinness Foreign Extra Stout. Guinness Draught, sold predominantly in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia, is available as Guinness Original, Extra Cold, Extra Smooth and most recently as Guinness Red." I hope that works. SilkTork *^YES! 16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Variants yes fine. That does not make the brand anything different. Just go to Guinness.com, decide what they THEMSELVES are calling themselves AND what they are registered for business as, just agree to use whatever that is. ~ R.T.G 20:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The link you give there describes the "Guinness" brand. I think you are just a wind up. ~ R.T.G 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FPC

Hi there, I've uploaded an alternative without the shadow of the Domtoren. I thought I'd warn you, in case you might want to reconsider your oppose. Gr. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)