User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 40

Talkback
Hello, SilkTork. You have a message from Amortias (T)(C) 22:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Responded.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Will respond further in the next day or two.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi SilkTork,

How are you doing today? I trust you're fine. Just to know how you're feeling. Warm regards. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. I will be looking at my potential admin candidates, including yourself, shortly. I haven't forgotten you, it's just that I'm not on Wikipedia much these days, and when I am it's for short periods in which I'm generally involved in something else.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Carthago delenda est?
I reckon this drastic edit wasn't intentional. Another editor has reverted it. Favonian (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. I had an old version of the article open (it was the original edit by Larry Sangar that I had mentioned on Talk:History of Carthage), and I saved it by accident! Good to see people catch it so quickly. I noticed myself immediately and went to correct it, but got an edit conflict!  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  18:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disappointed
There is a reply posted March 20 at Talk:History of Carthage. Don't forget to have a heart! Elfelix (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I missed this earlier. I'll take a look.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Diana (film) page
Heyy, sorry to bother you again over simple things. I'm new here, though I've had experiences on other wikis, and Wikipedia runs much differently than the other sites. This is why I feel as if I'm doing something wrong by undoing edits.

This page right here was edited by anon multiple times, and by the page was finished, it looks really strange. I reverted it back to Oshwah's edit (I know he's an admin here), but the anon changed it back again. Could you please take a look for me? Thank you very much!

3primetime3 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have rolled it back to the last stable version, semi-protected the article, and left a note on the IP's talkpage.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Potential admin V.2
So since our chat, I have started to be more active but of course with me being in school, this isn't my top focus at the moment. I have been more active in the Afd front while my account has now got the pending changes reviewer status on it. In January, it was over 300 edits in just one month alone. Of course I haven't focused on just one article and trying to improve it which might hurt me but activity is up. Matt294069 is coming 00:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at your activity in the next week or so, and give you some feedback.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not so active on Wikipedia at the moment so I have suspended all discussions with potential admins. When my circumstances change, and if you're still interested, we can talk again then. Sorry for the inconvenience.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Matt294069 is coming 21:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Basel dispute help needed
I'm running into a wall here and your were listed at the editor assistance page as willing to roll up your sleeves. In the section on notable people I can't seem to work well with editor ZH8000. I don't know who's at fault but I'm in a quagmire. The first item was his removal of Ana Ivanovic from the list in question for not being notable. I felt she had longstanding consensus so when he removed her completely I added her back a couple times, telling him on his talk page that if he removed something and was challenged about it, that it should be brought to talk before he removes her name again. He wants her removed first so we have butted heads.

In the same section I also checked the list of names and none of them had any sourcing as to why they should be notable for Basel. They did have wikilinks to their articles. However a couple were redlinked and a couple made no mention of Basel in their wiki articles, or if they did it was a place they traveled through. I did not, as ZH8000 did, remove them. I added a citation needed tag instead. That has now also been removed. I'm not sure the proper steps but I'm ready to throw up my hands a let the article go down to whatever quagmire it winds up in since no one else seems to want to help. It's not an article I frequent but it happened to be on my watch list and I'm at a loss as to what to do. Any advice or help would be great. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The da Vinci Barnstar

 * Thanks! I do like a barnstar. The essay still has a long way to go, and any assistance in developing it would be great. I tend to forget about it unless someone edits it!  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

MFD
Hi, Might I ask infuture that if you have an issue with my closure (whether it's AFD or MFD) that you actually come to my talkpage first ? ....., Had you done so I would've been more than happy to revert my close..... Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's good to know. Thanks for telling me.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I've come across like a grumpy prick but it seriously does annoy me when someone reverts simply assuming I won't budge or whatever as that's never the case - As I said If anyone has an issue with my closure I'm always happy to reopen & relist :), I avoid DRV like the plaque so that's another reason why I reopen, Anyway thanks & Happy editing :) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you thought I had made assumptions about you; I just saw an error and undid it, like correcting a spelling mistake. (Deletion discussions run for seven days unless there are specific reasons listed at WP:Speedy keep for closing early, and "Snow" closes are no longer used.) I did intend to drop you a note, but was called away in real life, and when I returned you had left me a comment indicating you were already aware of the situation. No worries.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh right sorry, Anyway no worries it's all cool :), New day & all that, Anyway Happy Editing! :) – Davey 2010 Talk 01:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

have you ... ?
Seen that film clip ? I can put it up somewhere if you haven't. You really should see it ...210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ST : you might enjoy this, and it might cast a different light on what you see as 'history' ... plus it's funny. (It fits better with my aging memory cells than what is currently peddled as fact, too.) Hope you enjoy, especially note how smarmy and defensive Lou Adler is :-) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-untold-and-deeply-stoned-story-of-the-first-u-s-rock-festival-20140617


 * I've been to a bunch of festivals that I enjoyed, but which are not famous. And I've been to festivals which were not very good, but which are famous. I've seen bands who were really good, but never made it. And I've seen bands who are crap, but did make it. It's the way of life. I suppose you know that the UK based Reading Festival pre-dates both Monterey and Fantasy Fair, and is still going. This site is useful, as it details those early 1960s UK festivals - and you'll see there was a bunch of them that were held in 1967, along with Lincoln in 1966, Uxbridge in 1965, and Richmond in 1964. My first festivals were Hyde Park in July 1971, and Weeley in August 1971.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Template:WikiTree name deletion discussion?
SilkTork, best wishes to you for good health. I noticed that you did some tidying on Template:Find a Grave, and thought you might have something to add to the discussion on deleting a similar template Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_18. I'd value your opinion - thanks! Kjtobo (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. That template should be deleted with extreme prejudice as it a sloppy way of avoiding proper research, and would diminish Wikipedia's reputation.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fuller s logo photographic.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Fuller s logo photographic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

GA queries
Hi SilkTork. As a novice reviewer, I still have few doubts about reviewing GAs. Considering you have reviewed so much, would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding them in general here? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Be glad to.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Here you go:
 * Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer avoid an article where they have not much access to any of the sources given? or fail it if the nominator has partial access themselves?
 * Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Subtle and interesting questions.
 * For checking against 2c (no original research), I will seek out a certain percentage of the cites (how many will depend on the circumstances, but generally at least 10% as a guideline - though some articles will require more than than), and confirm that what is said in the article matches what is said in the source. If a statement does not have any sources, and the statement is challengeable, then the article has already failed 2b. If the sources used in the article are all off-line, and are obscure texts that can't be ordered from the library or bought off Amazon, then I will use other sources. If the information is so obscure that it cannot be located in any other sources then I will discus the matter with the nominator to ascertain if the information is required, and if it is required, why the information can only be found in obscure texts. If I am satisfied with the response, I will asked for the text to copied out exactly on the talkpage. If the problem is not confined to one section of the article, but the whole article relies on obscure texts, then, personally, I wouldn't get involved. If on checking sources I find problems I will discuss the matter with the nominator, and then check more cites in the article to see if the incidents are isolated or more widespread.
 * For checking against 2d (copyright violations), the same sort of thing applies. Checking a percentage of the cites and making sure that information is not simply copied over word for word from the source. If a phrase sounds odd I will do a copy and paste into Google to see what turns up. If the copyright violation is deliberate then the user doing it will sometimes use an obscure text that is not found on the internet, so Google will not help. And while the information itself may be found in other texts, the exact wording (which is what is copyrighted, not the information itself) will remain hidden in an obscure text.
 * Even though I am diligent, and have been outspoken against the habit of some reviewers accepting obscure sources in good faith, I have been caught out on a case of copyright violation with Roman Dacia - I raised the issue, but didn't follow up on it, and at that time checking for copyright violation wasn't one of the GA criteria; it was later found the nominator had relied too heavily on source wording and the article was delisted.
 * Criteria 3 (broad coverage) is interesting as it is a matter of judgement by the reviewer. Broad coverage is less than the comprehensive requirement of FA, and is often seen as the major aspects of a topic that a general reader would likely require, rather than expert detail. We are a general encyclopaedia providing an informative summary of a topic for the general reader. We are not expected to be a detailed text for university students. I do a little background reading of a topic I am reviewing to get a feel for the main points. I would rather rely on that research than my own knowledge, as my knowledge may in itself be biased or incomplete. Other encyclopaedias are useful for getting a feel for what are the main points, and I will access those rather than entire books on a topic. This is quicker and more likely to be appropriate for checking "broad coverage".
 * I like that in GAN the reviewer takes individual responsibility for passing or failing an article. Other people may comment, but it is just one person who decides. This means that in general the reviewer will take care to get it as correct as they can. However, this can also lead to an agony of indecision for some reviewers who find that they can't quite make the final decision, and I have known some GANs linger for months, or stall completely, because the reviewer lost their nerve. I have also had some of my own nominations been failed because the reviewer couldn't bring themselves to pass a contentious topic. If you feel that a topic is so contentious, or an article so high profile, that you might worry about passing it as GA, then don't take it on. On the other hand, another aspect of GAN that I like is that it is a light and easy process, so an article can be delisted as easily as it is listed. And an article can be nominated again quite quickly. As such, if a mistake is made, see it as part of the learning process rather than something major.
 * I hope that helps. If you have any other questions either now or at any time in the future, please ask.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It did very much. Thanks a lot. I think these questions are the most hard to give a straightforward answer because of it being subjective. To also aid others, I've been writing an essay FA and GA answered queries where I've summarised your responses. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

GA review: Industrial Revolution
Hello SilkTork:

I am a major contributor to Industrial Revolution and would like to continue improving the article. I plan to address as many of your criticisms as possible, but some of these will require time, especially those that may require consensus.Phmoreno (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I tend to keep a review open while positive progress is being made, and will always give reasonable notice of intention to close. I have the review on my watchlist, so comments can be made there with the expectation I will notice them. If I haven't responded in several days, then please ping me. I will copy this over to the review page.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  13:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

File:SilkTorkBoat.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SilkTorkBoat.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:TopGearTrack.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TopGearTrack.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Charlie Chaplin 2207447904 crop.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Charlie Chaplin 2207447904 crop.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Drop of water splashing crop.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Drop of water splashing crop.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)