User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 37

Corruption in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
A while ago, you made this page a redirect to the main article on the country. Any specific reason why? Mind if I make it a separate article again and develop it some more? --Banana (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The first stage would be to develop it some more, and when the section becomes too large, then to break it out into a standalone, leaving behind an appropriate summary in the main article, as guided by WP:Summary style. At the moment there isn't enough material to justify a standalone article - it would simply be a mirror of what is in Corruption_in_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo. The "Corruption in Foo" articles are in a poor state at the moment, and it would be good if they were cleaned up. Corruption by country is very poor. It's mostly a red link farm. Corruption in the United States would be better as a category. Corruption in Canada is a non-starter. There is a sense that perhaps something solid could be made from Political corruption, with sub-articles by region. I think it's a fairly big project to take hold of and organise, but it would be good if someone started it.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just making sure there wasn't a reason other than lack of content. Happy New Year!--Banana (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Eric Clapton
Hey there. You are a good article contributor, the sentence which has been in Clapton's article for some time...

...'Clapton has been viewed by critics and fans alike as one of the most important and influential guitarists of all time.(100 Greatest Artists of All Time: Eric Clapton Rolling Stone) (Meisel, Perry The myth of popular culture from Dante to Dylan), Eric Clapton: Blues guitar legend BBC News)

....The user The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous has removed this for the following reason.. "Miesel is an English prof, not a recognized authority on electric guitarists, sub headlines are not RSs unless designate as a sub headline. no citation for RS immortals position".

I'm not suggesting the user has something against Clapton and is biased in any way, what i'm asking is what is wrong with that sentence?? Would the sentence.. Clapton has been referred to as one of the most important and influential guitarists of all time... be more suited?? I dont get "no citation for RS immortals position"... the user previously removed a sentence because of "rm content of which citations say nothing about EC being "one of the most influential guitarist of all time"... the Rolling Stone citation where Steven Van Zandt from the E street band with his view on Clapton states exactly that. I have looked at other guitarists and for instance, Stevie Ray Vaughan's influence with a Rolling Stone citation. Raymond A. Horn PHD is used in Jimi Hendrix page The Praeger handbook of education and psychology, Volume 4 ...so an English professor (Perry Meisel) at New York University who has written on rock n roll is not ok, but a psychologist (Horn) is?. A mention of some of the cites on Clapton.. (Bob Gulla (2009), Guitar Gods : The 25 Players Who Made Rock History) (Basix Guitar Method) (Rock music journalist, writer John Tobler Rock 'n' roll: the first 25 years) As a good article contributor can you solve this please?--NicholasJr7 (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just popped back to the article and see that the problem continued. I note that AKA was blocked for editing warring. I like Eric Clapton, and would be interested at some point in editing that article some more - but perhaps not right now. Do give a ping if there are more problems on the article. And thanks for the initial note - good to see that people are concerned about inappropriate editing.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Blues
Not my style of doing things, but hey... I'll be back in a couple of days, so I hope any discussion stays amicable between now and then. Happy new year. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No reason for it not to be amicable. I don't take offence easily. Though, reverting has never been my favourite form of editing. I've restored to the correct use of the term as the reason given for reverting is not neccessary. See Don't revert due to "no consensus", and also Reverting. The blues is the form that appears to be widely used when discussing the blues. I did a little research before making the move, and I also checked back in the archives to see if this had previously been discussed. It looks to me as though "blues" has been used as the title incorrectly, and others reading the article have simply assumed that the person naming it "blues" did so because there was a valid reason which they didn't know about. If there are valid reasons for calling it "blues" then it would be worth presenting them so a discussion can take place.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a courtesy call to let you know that per a db-move request from User:JDDJS I have moved The blues back to Blues. The briefness of the move discussion on the talk page would normally have lead me to decline the request but in this instance I felt that in the event that a more protracted discussion was going to occur (not looking especially likely but who can say) the article should be at its original title for the duration. Hope this is OK with you, best wishes for 2011. Nancy talk  10:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Trout slap Nancy. That was a breathlessly brief discussion. I wasn't even aware of it. I have opened a new discussion, and informed significant contributors and WikiProjects.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Nobel Peace Prize
Happy New Year, Steve! There is a question at the above I would appreciate your views on. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you as well mate! I've taken a look, and left a brief comment. I also restored a version of the sentence in the lead, as it's better to have something than nothing. While I was looking at the article I was struck by the admirable detail on the reaction to the award, but also noticed that some significant aspects of the award were either missing or poorly covered. The article's GA listing could be challenged. However, I don't think it would take much work to put in those details. I have left a comment on the talkpage. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 12:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept the responsibility for the deficiencies. I kept thinking there was sufficient background in the LXB article to warrant going lightly in the reasons why Liu was awarded the prize. Anyway, I didn't feel it would have necessarily warranted more than what the Nobel Committee said, to avoid OR issues. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Evesham
Have you ever considered that the list-to-prose rule,  while excellent, possibly makes absolute ridicule of lists of notable people? IMO it's one of those cases for a clear exception, because the solution  is simply  to  cut  the list  out altogether and make a List page that  doesn't  need to  be written in  prose. --Kudpung (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I know what you are saying, but it just needs working at - Deptford.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Responded.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Bader
Hi. I am not going to be around much for the rest of January. So I don't have the time to make the massive changed required in the time left. Sorry. I think GA should be stopped. Thanks anyway. Dapi89 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look and bear in mind that you are not able to contribute much. There are other people, though, who seem to be editing, so we'll see how it goes. It's useful if someone is around to do the work, but it doesn't need to be the nominator. And if the work is not much, the reviewer can (and often does) do it if nobody is available to do the work. GA is not actually an award to an individual, it's a peer-reviewed assessment that an article has met minimum quality standards - so it is article focused, rather than person focused. However, I tend to also think that the process is a motivating one for people involved, so I do drop a well done and a User Good Article template on the talkpages of the significant contributors (regardless of how long ago they contributed - some articles may have had their most substantial work done a while ago). Who knows, anyway, we may still be tinkering with it when you come back in Feb. Have a good break.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Dapi89 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Find A Grave, again
If you're not yet heartily sick of the endless discussions about linking to Find A Grave, then an effort to write down the usual arguments (similar to WP:PEREN) has begun at External links/Perennial websites.

For any talk page watches: People with a talent for turning apparent mountains back into the molehills they really are would be particularly welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that page earlier. It's an excellent idea, and should be linked to from any relevant templates.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:29, 8 January 2011 (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)


 * I've just looked at Online_Ambassadors and I'm not comfortable with there being a selection process, especially one in which the community is not involved in making the selection decision, but a self-elected committee. If the process by which people become involved in this project were more open and in line with Wikipedia principles I would be interested, but not with the current set up.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've responded at the RfC; the intention with the current process is to have a process that is as open as possible, just without the sort of public dissection of editors that happens at RfA.  My thinking was that, since the people making the decisions about applicants are known&mdash;and, I daresay, trusted&mdash;not having the actual discussions of applicants take place in public wouldn't be a cause for much concern.  But if community opinion differs significantly from the result of the previous discussion on how to select ambassadors, we can certainly change the process.  I'm doing my best to help us create an ambassador program that works&mdash;that provides students with competent help and feedback, and that is fun and worthwhile for the Wikipedians who can provide that help.  The details of how to do that aren't exactly straightforward, but I think we're making progress.


 * I hope you'll reconsider: join the ambassador program and help shape it into the kind of program you want to see! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Propagator
Hi, as Heated Propagator was virtually unfindable when I searched for it (I searched for Propagator), I have moved the article to prominence at Propagator and moved the other article to Propagator (Quantum Theory). Should make it much more visible - I've also linked to our Propagator article from Plant propagation (I've created a new section in there). Cheers! --PopUpPirate (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I always respect boldness, and someone who is prepared to take action to solve a perceived problem, so I will start by saying well done. I have little involvement in either article, as I merely updated the cat on Heated propagator 2 years ago, so I am not fully qualified to make an informed judgement on your action. However, I did wonder why a stub that gets 145 views a month, would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, when the other article gets over 4,000 views a month? I looked at GoogleBooks - and there seems to be slightly more books on propagator in relation to Quantum Theory than in relation to seeds. However, a web search resulted in many pages of links to seed propagators. I suspect that while the Quantum Theory propagator may be the main article, a number of people may have encountered your difficulty of arriving at Propagator looking for information on seed propagation, and there not being a link through to the appropriate article. My suggestion is that Propagator is restored to the Quantum Theory article, and a link added to a piece on seed propagators, which, as the current article is a stub, and all the information is already contained in Plant propagation, should point to the appropriate section in that article. Someone looking for details of a seed propagator would welcome the information being placed in context inside a fuller article on seed propagation. And Seed propagation mat should be merged with Plant propagation and Seed propagator and Heated propagator redirected to the appropriate section within Plant propagation. What do you think?  SilkTork  *YES! 12:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have read your profile and agree entirely with your Bold philosophy, it cuts through the crud so often! Cheers.  I googled for Propagator and couldn't find a Wiki article, as the article was on QT, whereas most other links were to the heated props.  That probably explains the page views - heated prop was orphaned.  Granted there's probably more books on QT propagation but it's probably because there's a lot more to write about it!  A heated prop is a simple device, so the page will probably be short, and there's not much to write about them, but it's of interest and importance to a wider range of people (I'd guess).  I'll sit back and see how it pans for now - thanks for the nice comment --PopUpPirate (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The change has been up long enough now to judge the impact. Traffic for Propagator (Quantum Theory) has to mainly go through Propagator. Looking at the viewing figures for Propagator (Quantum Theory) compared with those for Propagator and looking back at the viewing history for Propagator (Quantum Theory) when it was called Propagator, it appears that the majority of viewers are looking for Propagator (Quantum Theory), and are passing through Propagator. Some have already found Propagator (Quantum Theory) and are skipping Propagator, so the overall viewing figures for Propagator are down. It was worth trying, but we have to restore the article to the old title and provide an appropriate hatnote directing people to Plant propagation.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also just noticed that the language wiki links from Propagator go to articles on the quantum theory.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unhalfbricking
I'm not clear what's going on here. Either you are reviewing it independently and dispassionately with respect to WP:GA criteria, or [you are editing it]. I regard those two roles are being somewhat inconsistent. Please help me out here. Rodhull andemu  00:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. You are thinking of the incompatibility of someone who is a significant contributor to an article doing a review. However, reviewers are encouraged to fix problems - see Good article nominations - point 4 of How to review an article. I try to help out as much as possible. My main aim is to improve the article, though I am very much aware of the motivating aspect of the GA project, and so will praise and support contributors where appropriate, and enter into discussions, and give advice, pointing to relevant guidelines. Even if an article doesn't meet GA criteria, I feel the review process improves articles and everyone involved learns a little something. It's all good.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Blues
Thanks for the heads-up re the naming discussion. I'm not here much, but I happened by today, saw it and weighed in -- for what it's worth. Peace. deeceevoice (talk)
 * That's cool. I see that it has been decided to keep the article at Blues, and that's fine. Thanks for dropping me a note.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Free image query
- F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
How I had neglected to split KFIL into KFIL (AM) and KFIL-FM shortly after I tagged it in a mystery to me. Thanks for the kick to remind me. I hope you'll appreciate the results. - Dravecky (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Heartbreak Hotel
Good job with the writing accounts, I was certainly worried about that. And at last, a good article.--Gduwen (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mississippi Central Railroad
Hi, now that Mississippi Central Railroad is a disambig, do you have any suggestions how to disambiguate the links in North America Class I, Mississippi railroads, and Tennessee railroads? I'm at a loss myself, so your help would be greatly appreciated. Here's links to Dab solver to make finding the links easier: Template:North America Class I, Template:Mississippi railroads, Template:Tennessee railroads. Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 21:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and as I don't know which of the railways those initials relate to I think it would be more appropriate to leave that for someone who does know. At least at the moment people are being directed to a page where they can work out which railway they might want to look at (and it might even be all three).  SilkTork  *YES! 22:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

First rock and roll record
Could we talk about this article please? I had a lot of input into the shape of the article some years ago when I was a newbie here - it certainly needs review and changes, but can we agree a way forward at an early stage? Personally, I favour a timeline approach, perhaps a change of title, and a constructive approach that does not simply delete refs to 1916 recordings because they are not "rock and roll". Happy to discuss further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to talk, and collaboration is my favourite way of working on articles as it is better to have several views. As I'm working on the article I am wondering if it should be merged with Origins of rock and roll - the two cover the same territory, and it might be appropriate to have one as a section inside the other. I would think that First rock and roll record would be appropriate as a section inside Origins of rock and roll, and the section could then concentrate on listing those records which have been claimed as "the first" rather than having to deal with matters that probably belong more to the origin of rock and roll, such as general discussion of the origin of roll and roll. Having it all in the same article would make it easier to distinguish between those records which were part of the origin of rock and rock and contributed toward "the first", such as "The Camp Meeting Jubilee", and "My Man Rocks Me (with One Steady Roll)", but which are not actually claimed by reliable sources to be "the first".  SilkTork  *YES! 11:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the discussion in one place here for the moment, but it may be better to move it to the article talk page to get others involved. What I favour is a massive improvement to the Origins of rock and roll article (it's essentially pretty crap at the moment) supported by a timeline, probably as a standalone article (though I haven't checked the guidance as to whether that is supported).  An article on what people have verifiably suggested as "the first R&R record" would be pretty short and also fairly random - as well as the usual contenders you have more off-the-wall ideas like Wardlow's suggestion of Blind Roosevelt Graves from 1929.  It seems to me that what is needed, to inform readers, is a timeline and article that combine those ideas with refs to other relevant recordings that "bridge the gaps", without necessarily themselves ever being defined as "the first rock and roll record".  That would be much more informative than an approach that solely refers to those recordings referenced in WP:RS as "the first".  Actually, thinking about it, if we can link the Origins article with a timeline (title to be agreed, or possibly incorporated within that article), we might not need an article titled "The first..." at all.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Just a warning that I'm going to be busy in the real world over the next week or so, so my time here is going to be very fragmented. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PPS: Would it be better to concentrate on the Origins article, to improve that, and then see what we have "left over", as it were? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with pretty much everything you've said above. I would like to keep the title "first rock and roll record", though perhaps more as a redirect to the appropriate section within Origins. The title is both useful and a likely search term. I agree with moving this discussion to the talk page of one of the articles. I think the Origins article, as that is the one we intend to work on. And provide a link to it from the talkpage of First.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest, then, that the priority is to improve the "Origins" article, using material from the "First" article and elsewhere. When that is done, we can review what needs to happen to the "First" article - either total incorporation into "Origins" as either text or timeline, or a separate linked article as either text or timeline (or combination of the two).  (I'd be sorry to see it go, but I acknowledge there is too much WP:OR in there.)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)