User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 27

Soliciting comment...
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I normally do reviews when requested, and I'll keep this in mind, but I won't be able to look into it for a little while.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Disputed statement redirect
Your 2012 redirect of Wp:Disputed statement here left this redirect to itself in Wp:Accuracy dispute: "If only a few statements seem inaccurate, see Disputed statement." Just what are we supposed to do when only 1 or 2 statements are disputed? Meters (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There was some recent vandalism:, that removed the section you were looking for. I'll restore it. Thanks for noticing.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Meters (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And I have blocked the IP account responsible for two years: User talk:207.70.191.74. It is a school IP, and there has been persistent vandalism from that school for years. It has been blocked for increasing periods, and whenever the block wears off, the vandalism returns. If it happens again when this block ends, I suspect the next admin with do an indefinite block. Again, thanks for the heads up - we need people to be alert to when something odd has happened.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 17:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I will take a look shortly. If it's urgent, please leave a message here to alert me.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your label at Further Reading for Herman Melville
Hello! I took your labeling the Further Reading list as being "too expansive" or otherwise excessive as a sign of consensus on this issue. I have now pared down that list and clarified on the article's Talk page how I proceeded. In the case you should think the list is no longer too expansive, it would be appreciated if you removed the label. Cheers, MackyBeth (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Good work. I have now removed the tag. You are welcome to remove such tags yourself if you feel the issue has been addressed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. I do like a barnstar! I'll put it in the collection.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Budweiser
I almost agree with what you've done at Budweiser but I do think it a big enough change to have merited an airing on the talk page first. 'Be bold' is not unlimited. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Which aspect of the disambiguation page do you feel is not appropriate?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  21:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply the fact that you have, unilaterally as far as I can see, changed an article to a disambig. It feels artificial since by far the most significant use of the term is the beer(s). I think it merited reaching consensus first. We may well have reached the same conclusion but that is incidental. [Maybe you did, but I can't find it]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Compare, for example, with Pilsner, which goes straight to the beer.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not getting from you any reason why you think the disamb page is inappropriate, other than you feel there should have been a discussion first. See WP:DRNC for comments on that point. There hasn't been significant changes. The page is back to where it was originally at Budweiser trademark dispute, and now we have a helpful disamb page for those readers who are looking for the beers or the breweries rather than the trademark dispute when they type in Budweiser. And well done for picking up the errors here and here, though they were errors made by me rather than deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. As a piece of advice going forward, to prevent possible misunderstandings in the community which can lead to friction, do check that when you are calling an edit an act of vandalism, that it wasn't a mistake made by an editor in good standing. Some editors have been known to react poorly to such careless edit comments, even when done innocently!  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This page has previously been vandalised and the problems didn't look accidental. However point taken, fair comment. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As to why it should or should not be a disambig page, that isn't really the point. My point is that if you want to make a radical change to a page that deals with a controversial subject, you really ought to rfc first. But as it seems that I'm the only one with a concern, the change is accepted and acceptable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of the name 'Budweis'
The problem with what you've done (we are both close to 3rr, so I won't revert again) is that Budweis is a redirect page, which is not what we should use. (I agree with striking 'German'). It is also demeaning to give preference to the imperial name. It seems pretty clear to me that visitors will be able to see the logic just as well from 'also known as'. Finally, Budweis.org fails wp:nn because it has no municipal standing, just two friends who set it up. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean about using a redirect; however, this is one of those cases, per WP:DABREDIR, when a redirect is more helpful. The link I gave was just the first I came upon in a Google search, and was provided simply to indicate that Budweis is a current English term for the city. The next one in line is c-budejovice.cz, which is the official city webpage, and that says: "Budweis is looking forward to you!"  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Touché! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion on Shakespeare.
Hello SilkTork: Your good suggestion for the edit on Romeo and Juliet I had posted there after the RFC was recently closed out. It looked like the best edit version among the general consensus. A single editor has removed it. Could you glance at this? FelixRosch (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've had a look. I assume you are talking about this edit. It looks like the contents of that edit are disputed, in which case you need to discuss the matter on the talk-page to find out the reasons for the disagreement. I would suggest that the disagreement relates to the way it has been worded which is to confuse critical commentary on Shakespeare's play with sources for the play. Though I gave a suggested wording, I didn't apply it to the article; if I was to introduce that wording or similar, I would place it in the Sources section not the Critical history section. I hope that helps.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was the edit, and your suggestion is helpful, along with my agreement and consensus. During my placement of the edit, it also seemed reasonable to include some mention of the play as an adaptation in the Lead section as well since virtually everyone acknowledged this as an adaptation on the RFC, along with a "See also" in the Critical History section there to the Sources section. Each of the RFC participants, except the one opposition, appeared to voice support for at least acknowledging the play as an adaptation of the earlier play. Your wording was that last one listed in the RFC and seemed to have the benefit of the previous suggestions as an enhancement. FelixRosch (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

John Carver (Mayflower passenger)
Changed title back - there is another John Carver who is identified in the title for his individual accomplishment. The other title changes you made are fine. Mugginsx (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah. I see what you mean: John Carver (disambiguation). OK. The problem we have is that John Carver redirects to John Carver (Mayflower passenger), bypassing John Carver (disambiguation). We need to either rename  John Carver (disambiguation) as  John Carver, or make one of the John Carvers listed at John Carver (disambiguation) into the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and rename that article as John Carver, placing a WP:DLINKS note at the top of that article, directing readers to  John Carver (disambiguation).
 * John Carver (footballer) gets the most readers, but perhaps not significantly enough to become the Primary topic - and though that article may currently have usage, it may not qualify for long-term significance. Most of the incoming links to John Carver are for John Carver (Mayflower passenger), but that by itself is perhaps not sufficient reason for the article to become the Primary Topic, as the link usage is not vast.
 * I suggest that John Carver (disambiguation) is renamed John Carver, and that the each incoming link to John Carver is checked for the intended destination, and updated to point directly to the correct article (which would mostly be John Carver (Mayflower passenger), though I can see a few that are intended for John Carver (footballer).
 * Would you agree?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine. I do not know how to accomplish all of that.  Would you do so please?  These titles to Mayflower passengers have gone back and forth so many times, I can't keep up.   If you think you have found a solution, that would be good. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll do it, no worries. Sometimes titles do change back and forth. This is all part of the Wiki process of working out which is best. When we have a consensus on which is best we write a guideline, so if in doubt, consult the guidelines.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Googledoc?
Hi there, by any chance did you send me a message asking me to open a googledoc? If not (and I'm guessing no...), I suspect your hotmail account may have been hijacked. You may wish to look into it. I'm not going to be opening the "googledoc" link to check the contents, but it appears to have something to do with landofislam.org. Risker (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Yes, Microsoft sent me a text alerting me to that. It's my old joint Hotmail account that my wife still uses. An international work colleague sent her a Google doc which she then sent to her home email to open later. A virus appears to have self activated an hour after arriving and spammed the contacts list. I don't know how that is possible. If anyone sent that email address a message about it, they got a reply signed by me saying it was safe. All messages were deleted so they couldn't be seen. It feels like there would need to be someone in the account to do that - I have not had experience of a virus before. Do they self-activate? It has been a bit of a problem as I have spent a large part of the day responding to concerned queries from friends and relatives! Sorry for the inconvenience Risker.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind...
...if I used this on my user page? The Media Viewer is something I have issue with. I figured it would be polite to ask before I just copied it. - Aoidh (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do. I consider this to be a very significant moment in Wikipedia history. Unless the community get it together to raise their concerns with the Foundation, I can see that Wikipedia and its mission will effectively become the property of the folks at WMF, and the community will become unpaid, unprotected, and disenfranchised assistants to the Foundation. I'm not convinced that a Wikipedia fork would be effective; I would rather work with the individuals at WMF to improve relations and communication and also to establish appropriate procedure for conducting changes to Wikipedia. I think that's our task.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and ✅. Thanks. I don't like Media Viewer, but the way it's been handled is a sign of something I like even less. There aren't many things that would cause me to just stop contributing to Wikipedia entirely, but this mess, if it continues to become more and more of a mess, would likely be it. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. - Aoidh (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So now i know why this new media viewer exists, which was frustrating me as an editor. it may have use for some readers, but for me it seems to be getting in the way. I also really dont like the tone WMF is taking in this, and this superprotect thing seems a really bad solution to a real problem. we are not employees of WMF. this is a very unusual arrangement, and the power wmf has over us should be very carefully limited, as should our ability to reject what they want done. Its similar to the separation of powers in the US tripartite system of govt. I really have trouble right now wrapping my head around this. im not signing it, yet, but i really want to follow this. thanks for posting this on your page (came here cause i made a change to an edit of yours, wanted to learn more about your editing style-it was the brewery/sf thing, i hope i didnt mess your efforts up-please let me know)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mercury. I assume you're talking about this. The power of Wikipedia is that it is edited by people from all over the world, so editors with local knowledge, like yourself, can make the necessary improvements. We each take up the baton and carry it a little further down the road. Keep up the good work.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Concept DAB at Budweiser
Please see Talk:Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch). Some editors favor going back to the original pre-July 23 version of the Budweiser article which they view as a WP:CONCEPTDAB. Since you did some of the July work on Budweiser you may want to comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up - I have left a comment.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. I do like a barnstar.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare edit
Hi SilkTork; Following your suggestion on Romeo and Juliet to place the edit on the sources of the play in the Sources section from the Critical response section, I then did place it in the Sources section as a consensus edit. (As you stated on the Talk page there.) Another editor, the one who started the RfC, then immediately deleted it, even though virtually everyone at the RfC recognized that the issue raised in the Harold Bloom book was a valid one. Since I am in consensus and agreement with your suggestion, can you make a suggestion of the best place to post the edit on the Sources for the play. I support your suggestion and tried to already place it in the Sources section, maybe you can make a wording suggestion or post something in your words to enhance it. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi SilkTork; Normally, I would go ahead with posting the edit directly, but since I have accepted your suggestion on its placement in another section I thought to at least ask you if you had a preference. FelixRosch (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not active on Wikipedia at the moment as we are in the process of moving house. It may be another month or so before I am able to look into issues.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  05:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi SilkTork; Good wishes on your move. The material on Harold Bloom presently not on the Romeo and Juliet page I think is important because of Bloom's recognition in the field. I'll try to get back to it next month sometime since Bloom has an importance factor for Shakespeare. FelixRosch (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Elastic Rights
The article stub was certainly poorly written, but it did make a valid assertion of notability which a quick search on the internet supports -, , ,.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Restored. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  06:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)