User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 36

RE: Talk:Wisbech Grammar School/GA1
Hello, thanks very much for this constructive review. I think I've hopefully managed to address most of the points you've raised, or at least as much as think I can using readily available sources. Do let me know if there's anything else I can improve on. Rob (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Boyko,_Viktor_Sergeyevich
Good day SilkTork! Could you help me to understand my mistakes in that article? If we take a look to the Talk:Boyko,_Viktor_Sergeyevich we could see that a pair of the article's sections was removed. IMO credible independent reviews and interviews are a worthy part of article. Comment this situation please. Best Regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, SilkTork. Thank you for your answer. It is very pithy.Doctor Zevago (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't recall making any comment, though I did keep your message on my talkpage when I archived all the November messages so I could be reminded to look into the matter. I did glance at the talkpage, but was somewhat daunted by the amount of links. I will get around to looking at the matter, though you'll need to bear with me as I am not on Wikipedia much at the moment, and when I am it is just to check out information for off-Wiki activities I'm involved in, though I may make an edit here or there while I'm here!  SilkTork  *YES! 23:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. Will it be convenient for you if I answer on my talkpage? Or here is better? Best Regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wisbech Grammar School
Hi SilkTork. Thank you for your message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. The schools project has been largely inactive for a very long time, but now has a new coordinator. Please don't hesitate to continue keep us informed of any developments concerning school articles, especially GA, FA, and any that might be the subject of a deletion process. Thanks again, --Kudpung (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Incubator RfC
It looks like there's no consensus for your incubator policy changes. If you want to move forward without reverting, can you merge the old policies in with your new formatting changes? Gigs (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting in touch. I haven't yet had time to analyse the effect that the project has had, though I've had a quick look at some of the articles that have been through the project and have noted that initially there were a few people who did do some work, but that they have stopped helping out, and that recently a number of articles have been moved into the project, and then deleted a few months later with no work being done on them. It would be interesting to talk with both the editors who initially helped out and the main contributors to the articles involved to get a better understanding of how people feel about the process. I'll also take a look later at the comments in the RfC you set up.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Centralized discussion listing
In your edit, you removed the link to Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE citing WP:CENTNOT. Could you elaborate as to how it violates WP:CENTNOT? (Also...why didn't you archive it?)Smallman12q (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion is not of general concern to the community - it is very topic specific. It should be brought to the attention of those users who might have some understanding of the matters raised. You could try raising awareness of the issue at venues like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. I hope that helps.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion
I have nominated this redirect for deletion. Corvus cornix talk  04:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Manuela Testolini was the wife of Prince. She is mentioned in the article. And it is sourced. I think there has been some misunderstanding, and you have got her confused with someone else.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Attack on Cloudbase" GA Review
Hi. I've followed your advice concerning the lead section, and expanded it. Sorry for this slow response to the review, and thanks for your patience.  Super Mario  Man  15:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Heartbreak Hotel
I'm currently working in the points you pointed out, some of the books marked for sources are not available online but I found a couple with more info on Google books though. About the covers I'm doing some research about them. --Gduwen (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for informing me about the article Heartbreak Hotel. I've spent some time over the last few days adding some new information and tweaking it here and there. I hope that my work is acceptable. I would love to see this article get GA status, and I'm more than happy to help towards that goal. Cheers. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Pavement GAN
Hi Silk Tork. I just noticed that Pavement (one of my favorite groups) was up for review today, apparently too late to help out. I would love to take a stab at improvement after looking at your notes (Full disclosure: This would be my first GA effort). If you're open to it, I could give it a go. If I've missed the deadline on this one, no worries. The Interior (Talk) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please work on it; and when you feel it is ready, nominate it again for GA. My comments were that I felt it was a long way from GA status, and would take a lot of work. It may be best to start from scratch, using other GA and FA articles as a guideline, because the current article has little organisation, and no solid reliable base from which to build. Most of the article appears to consist of statements added randomly over the years. The statements may be true, may be rumour, may be opinion - we don't know, as they are unsourced. You could start by getting some books on the band, doing some proper research; then looking at how other band articles are structured, work your way forward section by section. From my own experience of working with poor quality articles, that's the best way - ignore what's already there. Trying to make sense of what is there will drive you mad - and you could waste a lot of time trying to track down sources for rumours and opinion which don't exist. Good luck! Give me a nudge when you've made some firm progress, and I'll take a look.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I'll suss out some solid sources and start looking at it fresh. Will update you when some progress has been made.  The Interior (Talk) 00:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think the White Stripes would be good model to work from? The Interior (Talk) 00:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No. The lead is not complete. The article is not tight enough - it's quite rambling for a band of that stature. And there's nothing on critical/popular response. Some GA articles I've done on musicians are Chuck Berry, George Harrison and Van Morrison. They are quite long, but the artists are very significant with long careers. Something on Pavement should come in much shorter, though there should be sufficient commentary on a significant album like Slanted. The structure on a band/music artist would be: How the band were formed, history of the band's development with sufficient attention to major recordings (either as part of history, or a distinct section), section on live performances if significant enough, section on music/instruments/style if appropriate, major events if appropriate, critical/popular reception, legacy if appropriate, private life if appropriate, discography, members. The lead section would then pick up on the major points of each section and give a standalone overview of the band. As a basic - Lead, History, Reception, Members, Discography, References. The History section may be broken down into subsections as appropriate - but if the history is short and simple, then keep as one section. Take a look at a few GA articles to get a feel for what others have done - and pick up ideas for layout and prose style. I like Pavement, but I have no illusions of their importance. The article need not be long or deep to satisfy broad coverage for GA criteria. They are not Nirvana - oh, I just looked at that article, it's really poor for a FA.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your detailed notes. Much better to hear now than after the fact. Kudos on the Van Morrison article, he's very well covered. Will have to do some research on audio clips, I have a few in mind for Pavement. I will consider the overall composition before beginning, as well as have a closer look at the GA guidelines.  There looks to be at least one good book source, as well as a lot of high-level rock criticism to draw from.  This will most likely be a holiday project, so I'll get back to you at the end of the month.  Thanks again for your attention to this,  The Interior (Talk) 05:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Hi SilkTork, I know I agree with the outcome, but I'm not certain I'm happy with your methods. There was an argument that the information was clear to any listener in the same way as a plot summary, thereby not falling under OR, and the RFC was dealing with that. We have dispute resolution for a reason and I'd say the way you handled the situation is likely to cause more problems than fix. If you see it as clear OR, would you mind commenting at the RFC?  Worm   10:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, I agree completely.  Worm   13:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Portsmouth
Hi SilkTork, I understand how incredibly busy you must be; but now is the time that I have started building Portsmouth to GA Status once more. I understand that you're one of the only few people who have looked at this properly and would understand how much (close) this article would be to GA Status. I have started doing most of the things that were included on the old GA Review including the prose, references and especially the quality of sourcing. Given that it has been quite a while since Portsmouth has been reviewed, I have started to build it up to GA Status. Please, if you can, could you look up this article and tell me what needs doing? I feel that it may as well be close to a GA at this time. Thank you, Jaguar (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help out on Portsmouth, but that would have to wait until the new year. I just had a quick look. Not every statement in an article needs sourcing, but statements that might be reasonably questioned, or where a reader might want confirmation, would require an inline source. I marked statements that would require sourcing in one paragraph. The intensity of such sourcing would not be required throughout the article, it just happens that that paragraph is particularly rich in information, but it will give you some indication that the article needs a bit more work. I also noticed some one sentence paragraphs, which disturb the flow of reading and so tend to fail in a GA review. I haven't examined much else, but did shuffle the sections around to fit in with WP:UKCITIES, which is a useful guideline. I will take a closer look later. Well done on the work you have done so far!  SilkTork  *YES! 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Paris Metro Line 12
I noticed that you have carried out the second GA review. The article has certainly improved since I did the first one, but I think you are correct to put it on hold. --DavidCane (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the lack of English language sources, and that what I've been cross-checking so far is suggestive that the translation may have moved the information too far from the original French sources.  SilkTork  *YES! 02:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had the same concern. Given the historic, cultural, technical and architectural significance of the Paris Metro and the fan base for this subject, I would be very surprised if there weren't some English language publications on the subject (this one for example). I agree that some of the sources were showing evidence of liberal interpretation of what they cited. There was one source (ref 39) that is used to cite the name of one of the planned new stations, which didn't actually contain anything on the name - just the location. Some of the information is tangential (TV studios in La Plaine Saint-Denis). The text was originally patchily and very literally translated from the French version of the article and was almost unintelligible in some places. --DavidCane (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ramones (album)
Err, you moved Ramones (Ramones album) to Ramones (album) but there are 2 albums of that name, there's also Ramones (Screeching Weasel album). That's against the standard naming guidelines for albums, WP:ALBUM. Will you restore it? Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation guides otherwise. We tend to disambiguate as little as needed - preferring if possible not to disambiguate at all. And we go for what a reader might expect to find. The Ramones album is the primary topic here, and the other album is a cover album of the primary topic, as such it is not an equal disambiguation. If it is felt that a reader may be looking for the tribute album and land on the Ramones album by mistake, then we can put a hatnote on the top of the article. I'll do that now, just to be sure - though we do have a disamb page already). The advantage of using Ramones (album), is that will reduce the chances of people ending up on the wrong page (as I did) because another editor has written [[Ramones (album) rather than Ramones (Ramones album) - and if somebody does write Ramones (Ramones album), they will still end up on the right page. I hope that explains my edit, though if not, please come back to me.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It explains it but I don't agree. I'll prob make a move request at a later point. Although strictly as you have moved a stable article it should be reverted and your arguments should be put forward at WP:RM. I do like your offer of a nice cup of tea. I thought you'd personalised it just for me! Any biscuits? :) Tassedethe (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Chocolate digestive or HobNob? The notion of a primary topic is not mine, it's the consensus view, and it makes sense. See Thriller (album) and Thriller (Lambchop album), Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album).  SilkTork  *YES! 00:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dacia Traina
Please reinstate Dacia Traina at Dacia (disambiguation). I see no reason to remove something that some people will be looking for there. Thx SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's there as Roman Dacia. Do you feel the description is not enough, and that Dacia Traina and Dacia Felix should be mentioned as well? You are probably correct. You may be WP:bold and amend the description yourself - you needn't ask my permission, we are all equal volunteers on this educational charity project.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the whole objective of an alphabetical disambiguation page would be to help readers find things. You have now made that next to impossible, as hardly anyone is going to bother to try to find a geographical name in all that text unless that name is listed on tha page alphabetically. I will give you some time to think about that and fix so it works, before I start a discussion there and ask for a 3rd opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I get the sense that you are upset and frustrated. I apologise for being responsible for your frustration, though I don't quite understand why you feel you need to come to me to ask for my agreement for making a trivial, non-controversial edit; nor why you feel you need to make an ultimation that I think about my edit and "fix it" or you'll ask somebody else's opinion. You can make the edit. Somebody else can then change it. I can then change it. So it goes on. The intention all the time is to build on what the previous person has done and improve things. Sometimes we get it wrong, and what we thought was an improvement is not. Fine. A quiet amendment is better than a dramatic and provocative message on somebody's talkpage. This is a collaborative project - we need to get along, and it helps if we are polite and civil with each other, are tolerant and respectful, and are also confident enough to make small edits. I change and improve my own edits all the time. I trust you to do the same for me. And I trust that when I do the same to your edits you will take the amendment in the right spirit and either build on it, or further amend it in our ongoing quest to get things right. Go forth and build the encyclopedia!  SilkTork  *YES! 21:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you about all of these principles, and you are mistaken in thinking I am upset. Sorry you got that impression. Confused would be more like it, about your edits there..
 * Would you kindly reply the issue (alphabetic listings) I wrote you about?
 * Perhaps I have misunderstood something about the most effective use of disambiguation pages. I am always interested in learning.
 * You need not copy your reply here to my page also. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on arranging the links on a disamb page alphabetically, though, in common with other disamb page editors, I would prefer to arrange the links thematically, or in order of importance/most likely search target. People will arrive on a disamb page either because they have put in a search for an article with a name that can apply to more than one article, or because they have been directed there from a primary topic article. In the case of Dacia (disambiguation), people woould not be arriving on that page if they searched for Roman Dacia or Dacia Felix or Dacia Traiana, as using those terms would take them direct to the article they are looking for. They would arrive at Dacia (disambiguation) because they were looking for the Roman Dacia article, but had used the search term "Dacia". They would then need to browse through the list of links, looking for the one that matches what they want. Arranging the list alphabetically wouldn't assist them because they don't know the Wikipedia name of the article they are looking for (if they knew it, they'd already be reading the article!). Arranging the list thematically helps because they would at least know if what they were looking for was a car, a place or a person. However, once the list has been arranged either thematically or by importance, or both (sometimes people put the most likely searches at the top, and the rest thematically), then arranging within the thematic groupings alphabetically may aid editors compiling the pages, to ensure there is no repitition, etc. However, as I say, I have no strong views on it, though you may meet resistance if you changed thematic listings into alphabetical listings. Perhaps start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to see what others think.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored Scandinavia, reworded though, and as long as you leave that alone (no offense), as per my motivation on the talk page, I'm satisfied. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mitigating Corruption
The topic of mitigating the possiblity of corruption in regards to COI has sparked my interest also. May I invite you to a cup of tea to ponder best practices in regards to what to do when a COI is declared and confirmed. For example I started a Declared COI template and posted it on a few talk pages. Thanks. Eclipsed  (talk)   (code of ethics)     08:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. We do already have a widely used template for users who are connected to a subject, so it would make sense to add declaration to that template. I have added it. See Template:Connected contributor - Connected contributor.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Connected contributor would need to also have the bit in your template which provides evidence of the declaration. And perhaps some of the links you have as well.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts on the connected contributor (+ multi) template:
 * The wording: "A Wikipedia contributor ... may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article.". When there are confirmed and verified connections, then the wording should be different.  Suggested wording: "This article includes contributions from users who have declared a connection with the subject".  This is both more accurate, and concentrates first on the article, then the users.
 * The blue ! icon: How about a handshake icon instead? This would denote that contact between the user and wikipedia is 'established'
 * p.s. wasn't sure if you wanted to post here or on my talk -- move to best place if you wish.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     15:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Move to talkpage of Connected contributor.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Flying Burrito Brothers
Hi SilkTork, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Yes, in theory I would be interested in working on the FFB and Guilded Palace of Sin articles. I have a good general knowlegdge of the band's first 2 or 3 years of existence but I don't have the 33 1/3 book, which is sure to be a great little resource. I have the one from that series about The Notorious Byrd Brothers album and used that in the Wikipedia article of the same name. However, I am currently working on getting The Byrds article ready for a GA review and "Mr. Tambourine Man" ready for an FA review, so I'll only be able to help out in odd spare moments. However, looking at the FFB article, one area that I could definitely help to improve is the discography section...particularly the singles discography, which is a bit incomplete. Although it might be worth splitting this off into a separate discography article, since it’s starting to get fairly big. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting question on the FBB talkpage about which is the appropriate name - Brothers or Bros. The album covers use Bros. Sadly there appears to be no official website. It may simply be a case of either/or, though some comment on the article to that effect would be useful.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Malaysia
Hi, thanks for reviewing the Malaysia article! Seeing it being made a GA has made my day. Bejinhan  talks   06:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination)
Because you initiated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made a comment on the AfD, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. The article, however, has not significantly changed since the original AfD discussion, so I feel an appropriate course of action would be to speedy it. What made you feel that it could be moved back into mainspace at this point?  SilkTork  *YES! 12:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mainspace move came from another editor who felt it should be moved based upon changes and "userficiation"(?). I always felt the article got short shrift on the mainspace, however, the move was to preclude deletion from Incubator.Jettparmer (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination)
Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination). Jettparmer (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Bader
Hi. I was just wondering if you'd had a chance to look at the article yet. Dapi89 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah! I was just posting something!  SilkTork  *YES! 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Battle of Belgium/GA1
In this case, I didn't have access to the offline sources used, so (after confirmed the sources used were RS) I accepted those sources AGF and then confirmed the information was accurate with other sources. In other words, although I couldn't confirm it came from the specific page number of the specific source cited, I did confirm where possible that the information in the article was accurate. Being a journalist, I do understand the importance of sources, but in this case I felt my review was fairly done. I certainly think, however, that it's not at all unreasonable for you to vigorously review and verify those sources yourself if you feel the need. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Pink Floyd/1
Totally not getting this. You're defending the use of non-free sound files in articles for which there's not even an attempt at a rationale? I hate to patronise, but you do realise that non-free sound files fall under the non-free content crtieria, don't you? J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries about offending me, all of us are capable of misunderstanding what we read. I make mistakes myself, so I understand when others make mistakes, or don't quite get something. Sometimes, anyway, it comes down to interpretation. I totally understand your concerns about the use of non-free material, be they images or sound. However, I again refer you to the GA criteria which specifically mentions images, but does not mention sound files. While non-free content is referenced in the criteria, it is referenced in relation to image files, not sound files. Any concerns you have about the sound files should be taken up in one or other of the venues I indicated to you in the assessment. I'm not sure I can help you further. If you do wish to discuss this again with me, please do refer to Good article criteria and any statements on that page which may relate to sound files. I may have missed something.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It refers specifically to images, yes, but it does say that "valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;"- that phrasing covers all non-free content, not just images. Perhaps it would be worth raising this on the criteria talk page? If the criteria does refer to media other than images, it would obviously be worthwhile clarifying that, while, if it doesn't, it would be useful to work out why. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just about to reply that the section is the image section when I noticed footnote [5], something I had not previously noticed. As I said, I'm quite capable of making mistakes, and I've made one in this instance - the footnote reads: "Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion." So you quite correct in saying that the soundclip doesn't meet GA criteria. I have to attend to my daughter right now, but I will then go over to the asessment and amend my comment. Thanks for drawing that to my attention.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The reassessment has been closed, but I have raised the issue with the closer- perhaps there would be the best place to mention the issue. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked and the media files have what appear to be appropriate rationales. Anyway, I agree that if you have continuing concerns then raising them with the closer is the best avenue in the first instance.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They do now, as I have removed the problematic ones. I contacted you because I've found you to be very reasonable in the past, so I was wondering if I genuinely had missed something obvious. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

happy holidays from PPI
Hi SillkTork, you previously assessed articles with WikiProject: U.S. Public Policy. Your input is appreciated, and contributed to the research in the | Public Policy Initiative. The project has been pretty exciting; there are over 25 university classes signed up for spring semester. This project is about more than public policy; it is about using Wikipedia as a teaching tool and recruiting (and hopefully retaining) college students as editors. If you are still interested we will be starting more rounds of assessments in the new year. I am the research analyst for the project, feel free to contact me. If you already responded definitively, I apologize for not following up properly, I just had a baby and have been a bit overwhelmed. Happy holidays and I will enjoy my lovely cup of Red Blossom jasmine tea and think of you cheers, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Guoguo12 --Talk--  15:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi SilkTork! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to encourage you to look into the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thinking of me Sage, and I will consider this as I can see the educational value of the project, and the knock on value to Wikipedia.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Three laws of robotics
Hi

I am finally back after fixing my PC (new mboard cpu and memory) and find it a little surprising that I was the only person to have been interested in editing the article.

Anyway I will try and plough through all the suggestions and comments - one though was that the OR was mentioned in an earlier review - if possible can you tell me where that was mentioned as I must have missed it. I only saw the original FA and FA review.

Merry Christmas Chaosdruid (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like I made a mistake. Anyway, good luck with your ploughing!  SilkTork  *YES! 09:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Line Mode Browser's GAR
Your closing comment at this article's GAR – " "It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it" – appears to imply that the review was conducted improperly. In what way do you think it was improper? Malleus Fatuorum 14:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Malleus, that was not in my thoughts at all. My thinking was that the GAR had been called because the nominator felt the review was not satisfactory, and I was quoting the advice in line with the notion that calling a GAR because the nominator felt the review wasn't satisfactory is not best use of resources. I hadn't untangled the syntax to the extent that my quoting the text could be read as implying that I felt the review wasn't satisfactory. I confess that I do personally support the view on this guideline that a quick fail is not helpful (other than in exceptional circumstances), and there is much to be gained from waiting 7 days - avoiding conflict being one! That personal feeling may have unconsciously directed my selection of that text; though I hope not, as I would not intentionally bring up such a view on a public forum as it's not something that I think is particularly significant. I am aware that my own GA reviews are not perfect. I'm aware I have a particular trait of being rather slow, and this can and has frustrated people. So be it. As far as I'm concerned, we're all volunteers, and GA reviewing is one of those fairly demanding yet unrewarding tasks that can bring more complaints than thanks, so I wouldn't criticise or nitpick another reviewer, especially a dedicated and experienced one, unless there was substantial reason to do so. As I commented in the GAR: "A GA review took place in November during which several issues were noted and the article was failed. The nominator felt more time should have been given; however, over a month later and the article still does not meet GA criteria." That is a clear support that your fail was appropriate as over a month later the article still does not meet GA criteria. I wouldn't like to say that I support a quick fail review, but I don't want there to be any feeling that I am publicly criticising you, implied or otherwise, so is there a way you feel I could ammend my closing comment so that it doesn't read as though I am implying your review was improper?  SilkTork  *YES! 16:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)