User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Nomination for deletion of Template:Connected contributor

Template:Connected contributor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Please stop replacing {{Notable wikipedian}} until this matter is resolved. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork *^YES! 12:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I tried to respond to a topic in the village pump, and even though I was logged in, there was no edit option anywhere on the page. Is there some edit count you have to reach before participating in the wikipedia community?

EDIT: I would really like to get involved with the wikipedia community and decision making proccess, I feel I have so much to contribute to it.

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 08:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If the topic was in the archives then section edit options are not available. Which topic was it? SilkTork *^YES! 09:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Essays

Hi, thanks for renaming the WikiProject. I noticed one particular move in the move log: 23:31 . . SilkTork (talk | contribs) moved Wikipedia:Essay Categorization and/or Classification/Assessment/Statistics to Wikipedia:Essays/Assessment/Statistics Shouldn't that have been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays/Assessment/Statistics? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 22:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Separately from that, I'd like to see an article about the project in the next Wikipedia Signpost. Someone added a note, but I think there's enough info there for a full story. Care to write it? I can't because I'm one of the principal subjects. Same with Xeno. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the name - thanks for pointing it out. I found doing the name move was a bit more involved than I initially thought! I'll bear your comment about an article for Signpost in mind, though I do have a growing list of things to do, some of which are overdue and need my attention. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and the rename still might break one or both of the bots that are indexing for it. I should notify them. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Community

It was just the main village pump (all) with all the topics in their entirety. here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mod mmg (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That is the main page which transcludes conversations from the relevant pages. If you have a proposal, then go directly to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and you can post there. SilkTork *^YES! 09:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping

If you, SlowArt, and I all find my suggested lead exceptable, why aren't we using it? --Griseum (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is unlocked for editing - you are welcome to make those amendments. SilkTork *^YES! 08:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who chronology

Your edits to the article are a bit overzealous. Some of the deletions you have made have clearly indicated dates, such as for Unquiet Dead. The episodes themselves are primary sources, and no deduction is required to establish the dates for some of the entries you have removed. If the article has any usefulness at all, it is being undermined by your changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

At the moment my intention is not to remove episodes which are dated in the scripts, so if I have done that then that is a mistake, and you are welcome to restore the episode you mention, along with the reference link that states the date was in the script. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork *^YES! 23:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User:RobVandeB/Murray Carter

I started copy-editing the Murray Carter (bladesmith) article when I became aware that it was substantially the same as the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Carter. Our policies do not allow for that, and so I have deleted the article from mainspace and brought it back to your user space. You need to address notability concerns, and provide reliable sources - that is sources other than statements by Murray Carter - which can support the claims to notability. I would strongly advise not returning the article to mainspace without first asking an experienced editor in good standing, preferably an admin, to look over the article to confirm it is acceptable. Any questions, please get in touch with me. SilkTork *^YES! 09:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reasons in moving the article away from the mainspace, but I do not completely agree with the reasons for deletion of the article in the first place. Murray Carter is a WELL known bladesmith worldwide and an authority on the subject. The fact that the article after modifying it remains "substantially the same" is inevitable, since it is what it is...a brief biographical story. After reading the policies about quoting sources, I thought I could include statements made by Murray Carter (is every autobiographical story against Wikipedia policy, per se? ) in addition with external and reliable sources.

When overviewing the article after deletion, I noticed I failed to include some reliable and external source in some places and added them in those places accordingly. Therefore I felt the notability and sources issue were resolved. Furthermore I cleaned up the article some more and altered the layout a bit, before moving it into mainspace.

After that I asked if the article could be placed in the scope of the Cutlery WikiProject, which they did and following that User: Mike Searson (a Veteran Editor II and very knowledgeable with the subject) reviewed and contributed to the article.

I'm kind of baffled fighting for the article, especially since the article existed for almost two years without any problems (!) I rather would have seen that a clean-up banner had been used of sorts, within the article to address what is wrong with it, but that's another topic, I guess.

Please understand I'm not attacking you, but I just wanted to set out my motivations and hope you're willing to help me fix the article!--RobVandeB (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It can be frustrating editing Wikipedia, and it helps to take a relaxed attitude to everything, otherwise it could drive a person mad! People's personal motivations vary, and can range from boredom to maliciousness. While some people seem to try and second guess people's motives and act accordingly, I have always taken the approach that what really matters is the benefit to the project as a whole. After leaving you a message this morning, I thought I would do some research into the claims made in the article regarding being the first Caucasian to earn the title of a Yoshimoto Bladesmith, and could find nothing about "Yoshimoto Bladesmith". Yoshimoto appears to be a Japanese surname, and I couldn't find any mention of it in relation to blade or sword making. I also note that Kumamoto is a capital city rather than a rural village, and couldn't find any village with that name. And the claim that he was the first foreigner on the Japanese island of Kyūshū to obtain a shotgun and hunting license appears to be fairly trivial, as Kyūshū is only a small area of Japan. The claims are difficult to authenticate and to assess. The other significant claim to notability in the article is that he is an ABD Mastersmith. There is a list here which numbers around 70 - [1]. I'm having my doubts about the notability of this person. What do you know about him? How did you hear of him? SilkTork *^YES! 18:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help!

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 03:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Group/User talk:SilkTork is going to be deleted

page blanked

Hi, I'm a bot and this is an automated message. Template:Editnotices/Group/User talk:SilkTork is blank and you are its sole author. FrescoBot interpreted it as a deletion request and asked administrators to satisfy it per G7 criteria. Next time you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the tag {{db-author}}. If you didn't want to remove the page, please consider a different way to store informations or put some content in it. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Tetley's Bitter and brewery demerger

It has been proposed on the talk page for Tetley's that we demerge the page so the brewery can be a buildings based article (mainly of local interest) and the brand can be looked at from a business and marketing perspective. As the Carlsberg UK have proposed closing the brewery then the articles are in some need of a split. As we are all busy in 'real life' this has been delayed. As you have edited many brewery related articles, I thought I'd bring you in on the loop before I made a move to split the articles once again into Tetley's Bitter and Tetley's brewery. Incidentaly, a page has been made on Joshua Tetley which would also benefit from extra detail.

Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there is enough material on Tetley's Bitter, especially regarding the move of the beer out of Yorkshire, to justify a standalone article per WP:PRODUCT. I have a few things to do which are overdue, when I have addressed those I will give a hand sorting out the articles - I have a number of decent sources. SilkTork *^YES! 09:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re Catholic Church GAR

Hello, SilkTork. You have new messages at EyeSerene's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've left a brief review on the GAR. Please feel free to refactor anything as you see fit, and I emphasise that my conclusion is tentative and awaiting your thoughts :) EyeSerene^talk 14:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I conducted a separate review without consulting yours, and though we differed in detail we reached the same conclusion so I have delisted the article. SilkTork *^YES! 11:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Picking one of your talk pages at random, I would like to express my appreciation for your hard work and careful (in the fullest sense of the word) consideration of the article. I think almost all editors would concur with your decision, but your independent reviews brought value to the article and ensured it was not delisted because other editors supported such an outcome, but because GA criteria were not met: that is the way GA should be. I hope further that your review comments will help editors improve the article to GA status and beyond! Thank you, Geometry guy 19:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments Gguy, and it was a pleasure working with you SilkTork. I was very interested in your review; I think it's a good illustration of the (perhaps surprisingly) robust way GA's single-reviewer process works at its best, in that although we differed in some details we were largely in agreement, and of course the outcome was the same. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. And it was good to work with someone calm, patient and with a subtle understanding of the ways of Wikipedia and Wikipedians - I hope our paths cross again EyeSerene. SilkTork *^YES! 11:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation - Cowboy creation

Howdy, you are cordially invited to give your input at the photo shop

Enjoy your day! --Scott Free (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Lawson

I see that you have substantially contributed to Robert Lawson (architect). The article has been nominated as a good article, but needs some attention to ensure that it meets the standards. The assessment is here. In particular, the article needs strengthening in its referencing. Can you help to improve the article to the required standards, so that it passes as a good article. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Adabow (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trees

Hi. I was considering merging the 7 archive pages at Talk:Tree shaping into 2 pages. The combined size would be within reasonable archive limits (around 150kb), and would make searching for things much easier. I checked the "What links here" for each, and there are no incoming links for any of them. But before I boldly do so, I figured I'd check with you first, for unconsidered problems. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure why you feel long pages are easier to navigate than short pages, people's experience and our guidelines indicate otherwise - we have many (most?) archives of the same length or shorter than Talk:Tree shaping. If people wish to search there is a useful search box, and each page is linked with a nav box to aid movement between them. You might be creating work for yourself only to end up with less useful archives; however, as you have checked for links, I don't think there will be technical problems - though it might be an idea to check that the search box still works afterwards. SilkTork *^YES! 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's subjective. It would also require the few people who do remember where things are, to relearn which pages those threads appear on. (That's the stumbling block I was running into. Trying to learn and then recall where certain arguments/facts had appeared.) 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Proposal retracted. Thanks for the input. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Russell Crowe

SilkTork, You were listed as a volunteer under editor assistance. There is an ongoing conflict over edits to the biography page Russell Crowe. The article has a principal editor, Wildhartlivie. I began an edit based on my looking for information concerning the Mercer Hotel incident involving Crowe and found little about it in the wiki biography. The controversy started there. After several reversions and a consensus of meat puppets, I'm not sure the article can be edited. The edit history includes:

1. The assertion already in the article that Crowe has Irish ancestry was unsourced. After I added a source[2],Wildhartlivie reverted it back to unsourced.

2. Crowe was involved in a phone tossing incident in NY and his arrest garnered a lot of media attention. My opinion is there are a number of problems with the aricle's treatment of the phone tossing episode. It includes information about settling a lawsuit; the lawsuit was never filed so to that extent the article is inaccurate. The amount paid by Crowe is listed in the article as $100,000. I believe this amount was cherry picked to minimize the significance of the event. In fact, the terms of the settlement were never disclosed leading to a wide range of reported settlement amounts from 100,000 to 15,000,000. All of my edits to clarify the phone tossing event were reverted. I would like to see the amount discrepancies explained and the impact of the episode included.

The balance of the article doesn't appear that bad considering (i.e. very little is included in the article about his charitable activities and there are dozens of media articles on those). Of course I don't think it benefits the article to flesh out the charities section when unflattering edits are purged. I sought third opinions from editors and received a response from CambridgeBayWeather but only to the extent of locking the article temporarily. He recommended dispute resolution which led me here. Your take would be appreciated. Eudemis (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am looking into the matter. I would strongly advise you to tone down your comments, and to be neutral and polite when mentioning other editors. I have looked at some of the comments you have made and your language can be very provocative and upsetting. I understand that editing Wikipedia can be stressful and become personalised - what I suggest is that after you have typed out your comment you look carefully over what you have written before clicking the Save button, and go through and tone everything down. It can be helpful to type out your frustration, but it's never helpful to actual publish it, so always remove the nasty bits before clicking that Save button. SilkTork *^YES! 05:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your time, which I know is limited, spent looking into the Crowe article. I was going to engage in the talk page discussions ( I never posted a WP:RfC; someone else may have) but decided it might be better if I didn't. Also if you require any additional sources (i.e. Nestor Estrada mentions, the phone incident's impact on Cinderella Man) let me know. I found far more sources than what were used in the edit. I can at least save you duplicating that effort. You might want to mention the charity work that is largely omitted. As a fan I would suspect she would want that included and maybe reword "At the opening ceremony in characteristic Crowe style" as non encyclopedic. Estrada's name (and some with his photo showing off the laceration) appears in sources too numerous to count. [3] The impact on Cinderella Man's box office can alternatively be sourced from Newsweek [4] or [5] or the New York Times [6] The New York Times piece actually mentions the size of the box office drop immediately following the incident. Other articles mention the box office slump coincides with the incident, "Crowe had released back-to-back disappointments in Cinderella Man and A Good Year—the box-office slump coinciding with his 2005 arrest for a telephone-throwing incident at a New York hotel." [7]. Virtually every article calls Cinderella Man a failure, i.e. The Boston Herald, "the reason for "Cinderella Man's" failure" and "most importantly, Crowe is a brute who sent a New York City hotel worker to a hospital for eight stitches after allegedly hitting him in the face with a telephone." [8]

This is the replacement for the dead link in current footnote 6 [9]

Also the link supporting his Irish ancestry is [10] at current footnotes 4 and 8. Eudemis (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much time at the moment to deal with this on a point by point basis. I suggest you carefully and slowly edit the article, and discuss any objections calmly and neutrally on the talkpage (always talk about the content, not the editor), and if you continue to have problems, ping me again. SilkTork *^YES! 19:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understand your time limitations. Unfortunately my most restrained approach here isn't going to be successful with the group swarm that my initial edit or talk page entry will trigger. Edit warring complaints and not following their "consensus" are the only non insult responses I saw over 4 days. I do think in some situations of gatekeeping, articles can't be edited. (I am still being badgered by a member of this group, Doc9871, posting accusations under unrelated headings on my talk page.) Of course these media sources won't change. Perhaps over time the article can improve and pick up one or two entries to better reflect this episode. We can hope. Eudemis (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Focus on content not on other editors. Continue to edit the article in a positive manner. Discuss differences of opinion on the talkpage in a civil and neutral manner (regardless of provocation). Contact me if, after you have done this, you feel you cannot make progress. However, I will not be supportive if I see that you have been rude or hostile to other editors. You'll note that I have been editing the article and have left comments on the talkpage, so you will not be returning to the article without some awareness having been shown that there is a focus on activity on that article. Be bold. Be civil also! SilkTork *^YES! 11:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping

Hi I having problems with Griseum editing style. I added content to Tree shaping with references and Griseum removed them. I ask for citation because Griseum is referencing the talk page, he removes the tag and then references talk page again. I changed the formatting for the alternative names, so each name is easily read and can have more content added at a later time. Griseum changed it back. Griseum has made a whole host of changes to my edits and didn't discuss them first, and will not discuss them after the fact either, he has gone back to the COI and NPOV argument instead of talking about the content.

It's hard to tell exactly what changes Griseum has made because he disguises his changes, example:- a single word change. diff go down to line 114 to see a big block of red text, the only change is the removal of the word Artists. Because of this, I believe it would be hard to track all the changes. I request that you please roll back the changes to when you opened it to editing and lock it again. I understand that any further changes would then be a slow process, but at least then my editing suggestions will be taken on the merit of references, not just removed because I made them. Blackash have a chat 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that edit. He has not disguised his change. When he removed the word "Artist", the Wiki software presented it in the manner you see. That is the software, not the editor. To see all the changes done during a block of editing you can use the holes. You can click on the hole next to the start of the editing block, and then either click on (cur) (which is the latest edit - "current"), or on one of the new right hand holes which now appear, then click on Compare selection revisions. For example these are all the changes that took place on April 17. I will assist you by looking into specific disruptive or damaging edits that you have challenged, but I am less comfortable dealing with assumptions of bad faith ("he disguises his changes"). I note that you are having a discussion on the article talkpage about your concerns, and everyone is joining in, and Quiddity is being helpful. I feel it would be more appropriate for the moment for you to continue with the discussion and see what assistance Quiddity can offer. SilkTork *^YES! 18:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I went and tested what you said in the sandbox. I think you are mistaken about the software. Here is the diff where I only removed the word Artists. Here is the diff were I cut and pasted the paragraph back up one line and removed the first word , looks like the edit Griseum made diff Here is the diff if only an empty line is removed. The removing of the word is not the issue but the lengths that Griseum will go to to hide just how he is changing the page is.

To date there are 15 edit changes of Griseum I don't agree with, and he removed 11 of my references. You have said don't revert, but Griseum has already done so, what are you going to do if he reverts my edits again? Blackash have a chat 14:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If a line and a word are removed at the same time the result is as presented. I find it disappointing that you would rather insist that it is an example of bad behaviour than consider if the changes themselves are positive or negative. Much ill-will can be removed if people looked at the result of an edit rather than made assumptions about motive. Some people edit as therapy, some people edit to impress friends and relatives, some people edit because they are bored. The reasons don't matter - what matters is if the edit is useful. Forget motives - aim to improve the article, and I think you will enjoy the experience much more. SilkTork *^YES! 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your activities at WP:Research

Please review the guidelines for straw polling. Consensus building was not a problem until you arrived and improperly modified the article without making yourself aware of the situation. Taking a straw poll while the contributors are in the middle of getting work done that was decided upon via consensus is generally considered to be bad practice. We're interested in your ideas, but please read the discussions we've already completed or review our work plan before taking any more actions. They are likely to address the majority of your concerns. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 21:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that my involvement is changing the consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 23:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)