User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions about User:SilkTork. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

7X24

I agree with your close on the Atheism 3.0 AfD, but in my opinion it might have been better to wait the full 7 X 24 hours, considering it was ca contested discussion. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 6 then 12 hours early, etc. This is one place where it matters. This definitely does not mean I disagree in the slightest with the close, and I certainly do not plan to take exception to it, but just a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Of course I am in full agreement - I closed the original discussion to extend AfD from 5 to 7 days. It is something I have advocated myself. When I closed that AfD the time date said 7 days, and I didn't look further. It might be helpful to have a similar date notice as is carried on the Prod template:

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days. Please check the history to see when this template was added. / This message has remained in place for seven days and so the article may be deleted without further notice.

Changing the wording to:

The discussion may only be closed if this message has remained in place for seven days, unless the discussion meets the criteria in either WP:Speedy keep or WP:Speedy delete. Please check the history to see when this template was added. / This message has remained in place for seven days and so the discussion may be considered for closing or relisting.

Do you think it's worth starting a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, there actually was such a template there for a while. In any case it would presumably be easy enough to do it. The only technical problem I see is that presently relisted debates do not have to be open a full 7 days extra, but perhaps the solution is to change that also. Let's bring this to WRT:AFD, The basic reason is to keep things orderly and prevent people from making errors. I have a clock overlay on my computer screen to display GMT when I work on Wikipedia, and it helps, but it still takes some thinking when the day changes. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll start a discussion - linking to this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Histmerging

Hi SilkTork, not sure if you have the article watchlisted, but if not, please take a look at Talk:Planking (fad)#History-split and the recent logs of that article. Before performing any more history merges, could you please have a re-read of Wikipedia:Parallel histories? Although it is an understandable mistake to make, it took Anthony over an hour to repair it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Parallel histories, thanks for the heads up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your eyes, please...

There are three that need the eyes of someone who has not edited them. The pre-incubated versions had definite problems that I believe have been addressed in at least two of these awaiting assessment, and I have thus set those two's talk page with the assessment template. Hope you might look in, as at least two appear ready to graduate. :) Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not done a full review on any of them, but did have a quick look to see if they had addressed the issues raised in their AfDs.

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Deeper and Deeper (film) has a list of awards the film has acquired, which looks promising, though in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeper and Deeper (film), there was concern raised about lack of reviews which appears to be still the case. There was also concern about the lack of reliable sources dealing significantly with the film, and the article could still be criticised for that, as the sources tend to be the organisations who gave the awards, and these organisations are not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, bar one. There is a sense of scrapping the bottom of the barrel with references such as this and this. This, however, is a good source, though I'd like to see some reviews. I think the article as it stands is possibly OK, but it's fairly borderline and if it was put back into mainspace it would be worth putting it through AfD again to get some consensus.
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Peter MacDonald (computer programmer) has some sources added since the Prod, though the concern was that "No in-depth coverage of this person appears to exist", and that still appears to be the case. I'm not seeing a clear assertion of notability.
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/$30 Film School - this has got problems with the history, and would require a history merge to put back in Kindzmarauli's edit of 17 August 2010 in which he nominated the article for AfD. This article is more promising, though of the two significant cites added since the AfD, one leads to a dead link which I can't find on WayBack.

I don't personally feel confident enough in the articles to put them into mainspace. Someone else may have a different view, so I have left the reviews for someone else. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Atheism 3.0

The Atheism 3.0 article has been recreated by a new user, after it was deleted 3 days ago at AfD. I've asked the user to userfy the page until he gets it up to shape on his user page, and since you were the closing admin in the AfD, I figured I'd bring it to your attention as well. It seems silly to have this go to AfD again so soon, but I'm not sure of policy when it comes to this particular issue. Perhaps you would be able to userfy the original page for the user instead? Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems silly to have to spend hours defending a perfectly decent start to a new article because someone else did a poor job of writing it and a poor job of defending it. I don't think you have standing to insist on userification and I do not consent. If you don't have solid policy mandate I will take an imposed userification as a case of censorship. I know you probably think otherwise,,,somebody said forgive them they know not what they do...but that doesn't make it right. I feel harassed and have lost interest in helping out on any other topic but the topics that get hit with this kind of deletionist edit warring. So if the schemes to get me blocked, which I know you were not involved in, succeed, there is nothing lost because I am not interested in other topics at WP unless I get some apologies or clarifications. Whydont cha give me a day to look at the old one and to look at the deletion discussion and if it seems to be the case that maybe you are correct I will concur. But now it seems like a POV swarm and I don't like it. If you are not willing to back off for a day then template for a deletion discussion silly though that may seem to you.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the new version and though the wording of the text is different, it uses the same sources as the deleted one. The concerns regarding the deleted article were that the sources were not sufficient, and that they centred on one author. The new article does not address these concerns, so I will delete the article per WP:G4. As per the request below, I will userfy both versions to Devilishlyhandsome's userspace. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Old copy of Atheism 3.0 requested

I have been beseiged with a torrent of POV warriors ever since I tried to help out at Militant atheism and became so worn out by the shenanigans of a self-described churchman who tried to manipulate me into making a remark that he could use to mount a (failed) block attempt on me. Look at my edit to that page though, nobody has a problem with them I worked very hard and IMHO contributed very positively. Much to the chagrin of my accuser, the page and that whole issue died down and the result is my good edits stand.

Worn out by all that, I picked up on the red linked to Atheism 3.0 and spent quite a few hours either building that page, or now debating with two guys who think that four people, themselves included, through what they describe as a "vote" constitute a binding perpetual consensus that Wikipedia can't have an article on that topic.

To keep the discussion fair, I requested a copy of the old article. This is necessary because they are swamping me with a torrent of spurious objections which appear to rely on irrelevant comparisons to the old page, which I can't access. And much of what they contend it flatly fallacious. For instance, there is the claim that Ph D's and Harvard published authors are not R.S.

I don't have all the time in the world. I requested a copy of the old one and the other fellow agreed so I thought we had some peace for the moment. But he seems to think that the minimalist earlier discussion means that a new writer, who works diligently to produce a much more suitable article, is somehow barred from a recreation.

There was not a re-creation ban. I don't know if they are religious believers on a POV crusade to blockade or if they are legalistic Wikilawyers but their notion that the page is somehow now off limits to new authors we new ideas is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the wiki ways. I find it difficult not to become quite disillusioned with the whole Wikipedia project AND religion. But for the next twenty four hours I hope that you will be willing to post me a copy and everyone will hold their fire in this interminable edit warring on this topic.

If there is a policy not a guideline which implies a recreation ban automatically on deletions, and I doubt there is one, they can force userfication. Otherwise I will insist on an ordinary deletion discussion.

This time I also recommend

Notification of all interested parties
Full discussion of the actual issues of this version after there has been time to bring it to say C class, probably three days max
AN understanding that it is not a vote
A statement of what policies if any this article in this version supposedly violate.

I am trying to assume good faith but many of the claims that are being made are so outragous I am beginning to wonder.

Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The new article is based on the same sources as the deleted article, and it was the sources that were the reason for deletion. As the new article is essentially a recreation of the deleted article our policy per WP:G4 is that it is deleted without a need for a new discussion. As you have requested I userfy the old version, I will also userfy the new version in your userspace so you can work on it. I will be quite happy to look at the article on request as you develop it and advise you when it is ready to be moved back into mainspace. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So where is the old version? I never laid eyes on it so you have no standing to assert that the one I wrote from scratch is a "recreation of the old version". It is a novel article on the same topic. When Copernicus wrote up the nature of the solar system it was not a "recreation" of the Aristotelian model. Frankly, I am surprised that you did not honor my request to hold your fire, even for a mere 24 hours, and my offer to review the old article with the possibility of ocncurring with your theory that this topic is eternally non-notable. At any rate,you are not making good as far as I can see on your promise to userfy the old article and so as the record stands right now this issue is not being handled with transparency. I am not saying it is not an oversight, but it is a convenient oversight. You are claiming that this article is somehow an identical replication of something which is hidden from public view, and that is an overt suppression of freedom of thought which I can only think you would want to rapidly rectify.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New development/Found old version/Request for reconsideration/Proposed lang for referal

I found the old version. Thank you. (It would have been nice if you linked to it but all's well that ends well).

I am objecting, for the record, requesting your personal reconsideration, and proposing draft language for us to agree on for referring the matter to an independent third party. The referal to an independent third party is whether or not you agree to reconsider and reverse the userification.

I also need to point out for the record how the procedure for the userification inadvertantly creates a false impression. I don't deny good faith on your part but the way you processed the userification request may confuse observers. The OLD version was placed ON TOP of the NEW ARTICLE which I created, which makes it look as though I somehow had foreknowledge or wrote on the same thread which was not at all the case. I am not trying to suggest that you are being deliberately deceptive, nor do I at this point think that is the case, but the effect of your action is that someone investigating this matter may get the wrong impression from the way you pasted the old version and then re-pasted my article. It would have been more appropriate to make them into separate user pages and I don't rule out the possibility that possibly this was done intentionally or with a vaguely self-aware lack of diligence in assuring that your conduct as an admin is correct and proper. Hypothetically. But whether you are subtly slanting the record by unintentional procedure, subtle bias, or overt malfeasance (not alleged) the fact is that by merging the versions you have created an appearance contrary to fact as if I deliberately recreated with foreknowledge of the old article and the deletion debate.

So all I ask at this point is that you (1) clearly understand that I am not alleging any willful attempt to distort the record and that you (2) be willing to acknowledge that you pasted or otherwise caused the old and the new article to appear in that same thread at Devishlyhandsome/Atheism 3.0.

Since we are both likely to be approached by a delirious POV army of fanatical POV warriors, I am also going to establish for the record that it is plain and obvious to anyone no matter how blinded by religious fervor that I was in no way a participant in the prior article and deletion discussion because obviously there was not a single verbose defender of the article and it is obvious that when I undertake a task I leave no stone unturned. If I had been around for that debate I would have argued as strenuously as I am now and so I ask that any and all intelligent persons who look into this matter be willing to admit the obvious which is that this development of a new article is in fact a bona fide good faith third party writing and don't muddy the waters with the predictable ad hominens and unsubstantiated allegations that somehow I was supposedly aware of the earlier discussion.

I will also ask that you demonstrate good and proper administrative conduct by being willing to recuse yourself from decisions or appeals where proper. IMHO actually this userification is not a correct administrative action but even if it is it would be something that an independent admin. So technically for the record I am going to ask you the following:

Please reverse the userification and
Please recuse yourself from deciding whether or not userification of this new article but an uninvolved editor is subject to userification
Please refrain from attempting to influence the opinion of other admins or arbitrators or arbcom
Please use the following language for the request or negotiate an alternative:

Notice of Referal for Appeal or Arbitration
In the matter of userification of article Atheism 3.0
July 25, 2011
Devilishlyhandsome, Appellant (DH)
SilkTork, Administrator of Record (ST)
Statement of facts
Written by Devilishlyhandsome
This proposed language was provided to SilkTork by Devilishlyhandsome as agreed language for referal to appeal or arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This language [is/is not] accepted by SilkTork
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Devilishlyhandsome created an article Atheism 3.0.
I SilkTork had previously closed an afd (article for deletion) discussion and deleted an earlier article on the same topic written by other user(s).
The articles are different and use one or more of the same references.
Devilishlyhandsome states that he was not aware of either the earlier article nor of the deletion discussion and deletion at the time he created the article.
Devilishlyhandsome states that he created the article in response to a redlink at Militant atheism.
I userfied the new article to Devilishlyhandsome/Atheisim 3.0]]. I also userfied the old article with this edit, intermingling them.
Devilishlyhandsome had clearly stated that he did not consent to the userfication but in my opinion it was consistent with WP policy to userfy the article despite the creator's objection because a previous article covering the same topic had been deleted recently
Devilishlyhandsome indicated his objection to the userfication and to the process and offered this draft language for referal to appeal or arbitration

I am not insisting that you absolutely must use this statement or accept this language, but it would be a gracious gesture that would help get all of this resolved and I would appreciate it.

In any case, business is business, I am not getting all worked up into a heated pitch of animosity, I understand the logic of your decision and your action and I don't say that you are somehow a terrible admin or a dictator. But in my opinion for the good of the wiki project and intellectual freedom and in keeping with my own sense of intellectual integrity, it is important for me to respectfully object and request that you actually reverse the userification pending an independent administrative review or other process with a disinterested third party, simply because you were the presiding admin of the earlier matter and therefore are not a disinterested admin. If you do that, or even if you don't,I will be happy to cooperate with the review process and at this stage do not allege that WP has been entirely coopted by religious POV warriors, at all. But I am deeply concerned that WP seems to be under an incessant POV attack and I don't intend to watch WP go down the drain. Please advise me of your views on possible reconsideration, by yourself, and the above proposed language. And thank you BTW for the userification, which is a step forward.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The deletion of Atheism 3.0 was by my reading at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheism 3.0 that there was sufficient consensus that the article did not meet our inclusion criteria per WP:NEOLOGISM due to the nature and quality of the sources. The recreated article was deleted per WP:G4 as, though the wording was different, the article relied on the same contested sources. My comment at the time of the AfD was that I felt there could be an article created on Atheism 3.0 if sufficient quality sources could be found. I offered userfication of the material on request. You posted a request on my page for userfication, so I copied the deleted material onto your userspace and left a link to it on your talkpage. I assume you are not contesting the userfication, but of the deletion of the material. However, I can remove the material from your userpage if you wish. That is not a problem. The offer to userfy the material is open to all, and if someone else wishes to have the material to work on, then they can apply to me or to an admin on the list at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles.

I think, though, that it is the deletion(s) that you are objecting to. I have looked again at the AfD. There are four people, including the nominator, who called for deletion; one who called for a merge, and three who called for keep. I looked at the arguments put forward by those who called for keep, and they felt that the article had reliable sources, so the article should be kept. Those calling for delete had examined closely the sources and felt that they revealed that the term Atheism 3.0 had been coined by one person, and that only that person was writing about the term. I felt that those calling for delete had more fully examined the sources and had more closely applied our policy guidelines. I also felt it worth commenting that our guidelines do not completely forbid neologisms, but that they require more coverage than was evidenced so far for Atheism 3.0. I feel my close was appropriate. You can however request that the close of the AfD or the speedy deletion of the recreated article, is reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Independent admins (and other users and editors of Wikipedia) will look at my decision and either uphold it or overturn it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The basic problem is that G4 calls for deletion of substantially "identical" articles. These clearly are not. They are utterly different in their approach to the material, neither was written with prior knowledge of the other, which doesn't really matter anyway, and, what commentators completely overlook, the references are different. This alone is grounds for reversal and I am simply bringing to your attention that, despite the closeness in time, this is not an identical article and thus the removal from mainspace is in error and I hereby request you yourself re-consider and nullify your removal on that basis and acknowledge that the article may be re-instated to mainspace on this basis.
Secondly, regarding the possibility that you would immediately tag the article for a de novo Afd, there are at least twice as many references cited and additionally my addition of qutoted comments on Epstein which were quotes from the syndicated Burke article. The additional citations are:
^ PZ Myers|Biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris |http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/1/kings_and_queens_of_the_ther.php
The condoning atheist|rebekah|Canadian Atheist|canadianatheist.com
Plus A BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE to Church, State, and the Crisis in American Secularism. Indiana University Press. Ledewitz, Bruce (2011).
These additional citations are, respectively, a PhD professor and a national atheist organization and a scholar. With 5 or 6 vs 2 refs, and different text, these are not "identical"; also, my article had a To Do list with two items listed and full talkpage headers.
A final point is that a new proper noun attributed to a movement is not the same thing that most people mean by neologism when merely a new word without a new referent. The same could be said, at one time, of "Existentialism" and "Expressionism."
With regard to your remarks about userification vs deletion, I assume you are simply joking. By "reverse the userfication" what I mean is to recognize that now that this Request for Reconsideration has been brought to your attention it is clear that this is not an identical article and thus not a G4 candidate, and to acknowledge that. If you so acknowledge, I intend to improve the article before re-instating it as a third article (or "version" if you prefer, because I understand that you or another person may immediately template the article for a de novo Afd, which is your right. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Eoin McDowell

I see you have deleted the page 'Eoin McDowell' because it "appears to be a vanity article created by the subject". This is absolutely, 100% not true and having been a frequent contributor to the page I was left disheartened and upset at how my hard work was carelessly erased because of one person's opinion. It is not like this is a new article created the other day as a joke; it has been around for years and so must have been approved by other users. It is not as if the article was unreferenced; all information was clearly and accurately referenced, so why suddenly delete it? I feel this action was hugely excessive and unfair on the subject, and should never have happened without proper discussion beforehand. It is for this reason I request that the page is restored, and a proper discussion is had with regards to its validity before anymore decisions are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.240.129 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the article, Eoin McDowell, and set up a discussion as you requested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eoin McDowell. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you need to strike through

... the bit about "copyvio check is done by most except the poorest GAN reviewers", as per Most of us (GAN reviewers) have little or no interest in forensic copyvio checks – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read the thread, so I may be taking Pyrotec's statement out of context, but I assume that we are both singing from the same hymn sheet that it's obvious copyvio that we should be looking at. I also have no interest in doing any form of copyvio check that would involve having a copy of Hansard's Copyright Law Essentials, a magnifying glass, and a sheet of litmus paper by my side. We are talking about the basic "material copied from sources", where the sources have a copyright claim. If the Wikipedia text says "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua", and the copyrighted source text says "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua", then that would be flagged as a concern with the nominator. If the issue is not resolved after reasonable time has been given, then the article is not listed as a GA.

I think we all want the same thing, and I assume that some form of wording about making a check for copied text will be added to the GA criteria eventually. Wikipedia:Copy-paste is a handy guide to the issues that I think we are talking about. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to the unanswered question, it was deliberate misrepresation of a long section On SandyGeorgia's talk page about copyvios in DYK and that some (I beleive four) articles with copyvios were found by DYKers in GAs. Ling has already had to make this statement in the very same section "All excellent responses, and I apologize to Malleus for misperceiving/mischaracterizing the agents and their roles. Is it possible that we can now roll up our sleeves and work on the problem(s), rather than focusing on personalities? Thanks!" but does not seem to have learnt anything. Two of the GA articles with copyvios were reviewed by me. I believe Malleus Fatuorumon was also caught out. I happen to think that Malleus is an excellent reviewer and I like to beleive that I do quite a reasonable job in undertaking GAN reviews. My main objection is the character assination approach employed by Ling on this page, on SandyGeorgia' talk page and on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. You are basically being feed bullshit by Link and are responding to these half-truths. I urge you to read that page. If you are not willing to do so then I suggest you consider this: Pulvermacher's chain is a shortish article, with not too many references, which I awarded GA-status. The editor who found the copyvios in the GA writes (on SandyGeorgia's talk page): "Yes, Pulvermacher's chain would be an example of an article that would be quite difficult and time consuming to check for copyvios, particularly because the sources are more or less offline (Here, however, the fact that a particular fact is cited to multiple sources suggests that this was done legit (though of course one can't be 100% sure without actually checking the sources)). So yes, doing a spot-check is not going to help much. But there are a lot of cases where a spot-check can be done." (check yourself). I'm not objecting to copyvio checks: I'm objecting to "tick in the box" statements (of the form: I guarantee there are no copyvios), poor reviewers will either tick the box regardless or entirely ignore WP:WIAGA; and those people who have only reviewed articles that use websites as references are unable or unwilling to recognise that other types of references exist. Pyrotec (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:CD

I have replied on my talk page. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Voltage doubler

Hi SilkTork,

I would like to discuss your close of the GAR for voltage doubler. I have been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks so could not take part in the discussion at the time. Your close said the scope could be clarified and then resubmitted. Yes, I agree this could be done, and there were some good ideas from Roger during the discussion. However, the fundamental problem and reason for going to GAR has not been solved. The GA reviewer was of the opinion that the article title should be taken literally and the scope adjusted to suite. Myself and Roger are of the opinion that the scope should correspond only to the conventional industry use of the term. I am worried that a large chunk of work could be done to rework the article only to have it failed again if the same GA reviewer (or someone who agrees with their point of view) reviews the article the second time around and I will have made a wasted effort on an article that will still not get GA. The purpose of appealing to GAR was to get a clarification on this point of principle - how should the accuracy of article title and scope be judged? Please advise on how to proceed from here. Spinning Spark 18:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Spinningspark. I am sorry that you felt the GAN/GAR experience was not helpful. The GA process, like the AfD process, can be beneficial to the development of an article. Ideas are exchanged, improvements are suggested and discussed, and flaws are pointed out. I am very supportive of the GA process because of that, as well as that the experience, (usually - but not always!), can be motivating for editors, and because the general reader is getting a decent article which has met basic standards. However, to be fair, the process is simply of one fellow editor reading through an article and checking it off against the GA criteria and making an independent assessment as to if the article has met those criteria. If a reviewer reads through an article and feels it doesn't meet the criteria, then he doesn't list the article. We ask that the reviewer says why he feels the criteria hasn't been met, and we encourage, if possible, reviewers to make improvements; and it's helpful if reviewers give as much feedback as possible, but essentially the reviewer is only checking off if the article meets the GA criteria. A GAR is little different to a GAN - it is, again, checking if the article meets the GA criteria.

In the Voltage doubler GAN, the reviewer felt that it was difficult to pin down the scope of the article, so there was an issue with meeting criteria 3 (a) - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". This view was upheld at GAR, and I closed accordingly.

Electrical circuits are not my thing, so I am not the best person to advise on structuring such articles. You could approach those who write such articles - try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering and Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy, or putting a notice on the talkpage of the article. Good luck! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You are entirely correct that the article was failed on criteria 3a but I think you are missing the essence of the reviewer's objection. The opening of the article gives a clear statement of the scope. The reviewer objected that the scope is restrictive and does not semantically match the title. My position is that the the scope corresponds to the industry use of the term. I am fine with GAR upholding the fail and requiring a rewrite of the article. What I did expect from GAR however, and which did not happen, was a firm position on the principle of how scope should be determined regarding the literal/actual usage of terminology.

This is not a question of the structure of the article at all, it is a question of basic principles - the GA hardly got beyond this opening question of scope. On the question of the actual content, I see no point in approaching more third parties or wikiprojects. This was the whole point of asking Roger to get involved. As an expert on electronics Roger was asked to comment on the scope. I had no idea what he was going to say beforehand. Roger broadly agreed with the scope of the article but did make a suggestion for expansion. He did not support any form of "literal" interpretation of the scope. Are we to keep recuiting more experts until we find one the reviewer agrees with? One may as well not bother with experts at all if that is the case. Spinning Spark 09:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If I can help you, I will. I cannot help you on the article, and I think we are agreed that the GAR was closed correctly, and I have offered a suggestion as to where I feel you can go for help. So those things aside, what is it you would like me to do? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What I would liked to have happened is that the GAR close included a statement on the principle of scope so that the article could safely be reworked without fear of a second rejection on a matter of principle. I do not need help writing the article. I do not see the point of asking further expert help - that has already been done and in any case I am an expert myself. Spinning Spark 23:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A GAN/GAR checks off an article against a list of criteria. There was a consensus that the scope of the article was problematic, so it couldn't meet criterion 3a. The purpose of a GAR is to check the criteria again; it may by way of discussion include additional helpful matters, but it's not the main purpose. It isn't a trial of the reviewer, or a place to question the GA criteria or process, or to make rulings on scope - it is just a place to question if an article meets the GA criteria. I'd also add that we are all fellow editors, so any comments I made on the scope of the article within the GAR or here on this talkpage would be as an individual and wouldn't determine the outcome of a future GAN. I am sorry that you expected more and didn't get it, but I don't think I can give you what you want. The best I can do is suggest you do as Roger advised and rework the opening paragraph and then resubmit for a GAN. My understanding is that this wouldn't involve much work, though you could do as Roger suggested and then find a reviewer who queries why you don't mention the Cockcroft–Walton generator, or why there is no history of the development of voltage doublers - such as which was the first one; or ask why there are no example uses - such as in loudspeakers. There is going to be no guarantee what a reviewer will look for or pass as acceptable as we are all different. It's the same as an MOT. It's always best to get the MOT work done at the same garage that's doing the test because opinions differ on the quality of welding and levels of rust, etc. It is fairly common in a FAC to have some people supporting and others opposing. That's the nature of humans, and the nature of making judgements. I hope this helps. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words (5 years after the fact)

Hi there,

This comes a bit late, but I'm glad you liked that enormous edit I did on "Astral Weeks." It's one of my favorite albums, and right before I started graduate school, I was reading up on Van Morrison and was disappointed that Wikipedia didn't have anything more on the album. So during my down time at work, I cobbled together an entry on a TextEdit document, then dropped it in when I was done. I wasn't too thorough about citing sources - part of it was just laziness - but I was careful not to lift passages from Heylin's book, not unless he was quoting someone, in which case I tried to keep the quote intact. (I presumed that was permissible.)

Thanks again! - M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.105.44 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's awesome. We must be talking about this comment after I noticed this edit, which - as you say - was just over 5 years ago. It's made my day that five years later you get to read my comment and it's pleased you. I hope you feel motivated to make more edits to Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)