User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 25

GA Sweeps Completed!
Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of hop varieties
Hello, I noticed you changed a sortable table in List of hop varieties to sections. I object. I'm not going to revert right away because I want to discuss first. I rather liked the idea of sorting by alpha acid. If you have other ideas for how to organize the list, please post at the discussion page. Thanks 72.93.87.3 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Corruption in Ghana
Thank you for your well thought out explanation, it makes me feel bad about what I wrote originally, therefore I struck the comments. Okip  19:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's cool. Don't feel bad, your intentions were good, and your solution was elegant.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for stubifying Corruption_in_Ghana and closing the AFD keep for now. Please let me know if there is any efforts to revert unreferenced material back, and I will actively help you revert it.
 * Thank you. I always appreciate a star. I think we should support and thank each other more often - it creates a positive, warm atmosphere that aids in the building of Wikipedia.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding AFD B2C Jewels
I've responded back wrt the deletion. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ganesh_J._Acharya
 * I am unclear on what point you are making, or what you wish me to do. There were four !votes for delete and two for keep, so the consensus was to delete. Added to that, I examined the sources cited, and did my own quick research, and found little substantial evidence of notability - not enough to satisfy the criteria in the relevant notability guideline: WP:Company. It may be worth reprinted the criteria here, so you can look yourself, and see if you feel the sources used satisfy the criteria:


 * A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.


 * The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story. Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.


 * The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.


 * Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.


 * The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:


 * * Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
 * * Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.


 * If you wish, I can WP:Userfy the article for you, and advise you on reliable and appropriate sources.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can do that it will be great. It will help us learners understand the process. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Done - User:Ganesh J. Acharya/B2C Jewels.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for WP:Userfy of User:Ganesh J. Acharya/B2C Jewels Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

e-mail
I've sent you an e-mail.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Replied.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

redirect problem after your close on Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday)‎
I really should have consulted you before doing this, but I admit i slipped up here--and I do not want it to appear like I was deliberately wheel-warring--I was just correcting something which you seemed to have forgotten--please see the talk page discussion for the reasons :   If you are quite sure about that part also, please just tell me, and I will re-delete. But otherwise perhaps the best thing is to take this to RfD.  DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. My bad. I didn't do a history merge. I will merge the history now, then leave the redirect in place. I would have thought "Feast of Tabernacles (Christian holiday)" to be an unlikely search term, but if there is at least one person who feels that somebody might do a search for such a term then we can leave it in place. Redirects are cheap, after all. Though I would have no objections to the redirect being taken to RfD. I wouldn't join in the discussion as I am easy either way. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 18:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)