User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 38

Miss Globe
In March 2010, you have closed the AFD (HERE) of the Miss Globe International article, however, the new owner of the pageant, Rasim Aydin and his staff continue to edit the article and insert promotional materials and provide a list of people which impacts upon BLP considerations. The content of the article has been challenged many times. On March 16, 2010, you had removed the contentious list of people from the article and you cited that none of the people should be replaced in the article until there is a reliable source for them. I think the article has to be reverted from the point of your previous edit.--Angel Clinton (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being alert and letting me know. I have done a bit of work on the article. It appears there are two different organisations, and there has been some editing warring. I have protected the article, removed the list of women, and indicated that there are two different organisations. I am also questioning the notability as there are few quality sources on this organisation. The organisation exists, so there should be a bit more on it that can be found.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same opinion as yours. The Miss Globe International website claims that the pageant started in 1925 (as a national pageant I think where the winners were from countries where they held), but, it went international only in 1988 . --Angel Clinton (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the website, it says that the "Miss Globe Organization" started in 1925, but the Miss Globe International was founded in 1988. Miss Globe Organization holds the trademark of the following pageants: Miss Globe Beauty Pageant (a.k.a. Miss Globe International), Miss Globe Beauty Bathing, Miss Globe (Deliart Associate is part of Miss Globe Organization), and Miss Globe Beauty. "After the establishment of the organization Miss Globe International® (founded in 1988), all of these trademarks were gathered under this name", but they continue to hold separate events like Miss Globe and Miss Globe International. Confusing but interesting.--Angel Clinton (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article with your observations.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great
Hi there, I was wondering if you could comment on this situation here regarding this edit. To me, the additions are off-topic as they have no bearing on Alexander's personality, nor does the source he uses tie the Persepolis incident to Alexander's personality. I think it's just a case of gratuitous use of language such as "Savage orgy" for its own sake. The edit summary he uses also doesn't inspire confidence (whenever I see claims of "censorship" I cringe). Athenean (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You're being quoted
Here. But it's not really about you. Still, feel free to join in. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The/the Beatles
Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded. Thanks for letting me know.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Need help dealing with article content
For some time now I have had problems with an article listed in Wikipedia mentioning me and would like to see if I could arrive at some resolution. The man whom the article is about is very difficult to deal with and for now the situation seems relatively calm, considering. However rather than stir this still simmering situational pot I feel it is best not to contact him directly.

Because of the touchiness of the situation I thought that working through an editor on this issue would be best. I will be glad to explain the situation and what I feel would be helpful suggestions at your earliest convenience. I am new to this so really don't know where to begin. Any help is appreciated!

I thank you in advance for your time. Apocalypto13 (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to take a look at the article. You can discuss it here on my talkpage, or, if there are personal issues, you can email me by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link on the left hand side.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Silk Tork, I may be blind, dense or both but cannot find the "E-mail this user" link on the left hand side. Maybe my browser is not showing it? If you could just put the e-mail link in your response to this, that would be great. Apocalypto13 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Email link only appears if you have enabled email on your own account. Click on "my preferences" at the top of the page. Scroll down to E-mail options at the bottom. Tick "Enable e-mail from other users". Save. Come back to my talkpage and you'll see the "E-mail this user" link. Click the link and you'll be taken to an email form.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Still no e-mail button after carefully following directions, but will try again later. Maybe it takes awhile to "register" with the site. Apocalypto13 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I discovered the problem -- my browser. I have e-mailed you and look forward to your response. Thank you for your patience. Apocalypto13 (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have your email, and have responded.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance list
A problem has been identified at Editor assistance/list. You may like to read Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Paris Metro Line 12
I worked on the article today, and now I feel virtually blind on whether there are still unsourced material or not. Could you check and put some if necessary? Many thanks! --Anneyh (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've ticked a few. I know what you mean about being cite blind. If I've worked closely on something I can find it hard to spot the cite gaps after a while. Generally, opinions and data (dates, times, amounts, etc) and quotes need citing, plus any statement that might be making a claim (longest tunnel, first underground train, etc), and anything even potentially contentious about a living person or organisation. When paragraphs are quite rich with data, then several sentences may need citing. When a paragraph remains on the same point, and simply expands upon the point, then a cite at the end should be sufficient. The best time to place cites is when you are writing the article, and you have the source material to hand. Finding the cites afterwards - going back through all your sources, trying to find the right page, can be a nightmare. I love GoogleBooks with the search function - you can be taken to the right page of the right book in a fraction of a second (provided they have scanned it!) Good luck!  SilkTork  *YES! 22:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AlAhramLogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:AlAhramLogo.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hugahoody (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador selection process
Hi SilkTork. I just wanted to let you know that an on-wiki process for Online Ambassador applications is active now: Online Ambassadors/Apply. We'll see how things go; if it doesn't show signs of turning into the kind of toxic atmosphere of RfA, maybe it will make sense to have the on-wiki method be the only one.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Sage. I do have a strong interest in the principles and aims of the project, and fully understand that there will be teething problems with setting up an initiative like this. It is appropriate to be careful with who is chosen as an ambassador. I'll take a look at the amended process and give you my thoughts.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

TB
Gnevin (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Malvern, notables, hatnote
I think you placed the hatnote for verifiability. If not, please excuse my thinking you did. I agree there is a need. The only item in the list now in the article which I had a part in is for Philip Woodward. The first reference covers his award, which mentions the horology. The second may be inappropriate without the first, but strengthens since the first states the horology is important. The final clause was left over from whoever started it. I think it an awkward formula for a happy statement. Is there a way around the present wording, e.g. starting "Philip Woodward, 1919-" with standard implication, or "..., long time resident, still active in ..." with reference to local newspaper interview -- presumably someone identifiably in Malvern could try to get this. If you reply could you use my Talk page please. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Philip Woodward article says: "Philip Woodward (born 1919) is a British mathematician, radar engineer and horologist. He has achieved notable success in all three fields. Before retirement, he was a Deputy Chief Scientific Officer at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (RSRE) of the British Ministry of Defence in  Malvern, Worcestershire." That could be slightly rephrased for the Malvern article:- "Philip Woodward (born 1919), a British mathematician, radar engineer and horologist, was a Deputy Chief Scientific Officer at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment (RSRE) of the British Ministry of Defence based in Malvern." Clear, direct, neutral - informing people who he was and his connection to Malvern.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Athletics and Category:Female athletes
I understand your reaction here, however, Athletics is not the same as Track and field. The opening sentences of the athletics article is helpful: "Athletics is a collection of sporting events that involve competitive running, jumping, throwing, and walking. The most common types of athletics competitions are track and field, road running, cross country running, and race walking." There has been some thinking done on this topic - Talk:Athletics_(sport) - and track and field has been split off from athletics. Think of it like Category:Maleae and Category:Apples with Maleae as Athletics and Track and field as Apples. Marathon running, for example, is an athletic event, but it not a track and field event (it does not take place on a running track, nor on the "field" enclosed by the running track). Grouping marathons and other such non-track and field events under track and field is as inappropriate as grouping a pear variety under the apple category. Where there is a doubt, it is better to have an event under athletics than it would be to have it under track and field, and it is only when there is a clearly identified specific that meets the track and field descriptor should something be classed as track and field. If you have further queries about this please let me know before I continue recategorising. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Carry on. It looked like forked editing to me given past discussions on categories at CFD. But if there's going to be a parent category for which is also called "Athletics", it seems to me the name should match the name of the article, as in, since "Athletics" is an ambiguous term. (That's just a suggestion from my perspective.) Thanks for telling me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Athletics (sport) name is a little contentious, and in discussions it appears that the name Athletics might be preferred. While articles can be named and renamed with relative ease, categories need to be more stable. As Athletics is a disambiguation to most of the articles that would appear under the main Athletics (apart from the baseball team), then that is a safer title to use. I'll carry on.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:Beer
I didn't do anything really, I just fixed some code errors and formatted your tab code to match the template I made. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi could you check out the Afd for Schenecker double homicide it totally up to you to say Keep or Delete. But for me personally is a clear cut case Keep just like with Murder of Joanna Yeates.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel like it you can also check out the Britanee Drexel Afd. In my personal opinion its the same situation as with the Schenecker and Murder of Joanna Yeates articles. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading to Plymouth Line
Hi SilkTork, now that Reading to Plymouth Line is a disambig, don't forget to WP:FIXDABLINKS - or at least get some of those who have been discussing the split for so long to help out. This tool will help. It's mostly template fixes so it shouldn't be too hard for someone who's familiar with it. Cheers, -- Ja Ga  talk 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi JaGa. I am always puzzled as to why you ask me to do work which you are as capable of doing yourself as I am. We have spoken about this before. Wikipedia is a volunteer charity project, and people do their best in the time they have available to them, and people will tend to work initially in areas that interest them, and then help out on tedious tasks if they have the time or inclination - but nobody is compelled to do anything (well, other than to take care they are not doing harm). That particular splitting you are talking about was a long and complex one that nobody had done for more than two years because of the amount of work involved. Sending people a nag message at the end of it instead of pitching in and helping out yourself is not conducive to the spirit of support, co-operation and collaboration that embodies the spirit of Wikipedia that I respect and enjoy so much. If you spot a spelling mistake - fix it yourself instead of sending someone a message. If you see that an article needs sourcing, it's acceptable to put a general message on the article asking people who are interested in that sort of work to alert them, but it's even better to do the work yourself; it's not really done to pick on the last person who edited the article to ask them to do all the work. You may not have noticed but I did send a message to those people involved in that article letting them know what had happened, and that clean up work might now be needed as I am not an expert on the topic. I know you are well intentioned, but I have already indicated to you that I am uncomfortable with these messages. I would respect you much more if you pitched in and did the work yourself rather than send people these messages. I would love to know that you were helping out by tidying up after me. I would think that was great. Really I would. How about creating a template to be placed on newly created disamb pages that says that work on sorting them out needs to be done. And the template could put such articles into a category to enable editors to work through all the articles that need attention. I think a general message would be more in the spirit of Wikipedia than putting the weight all on one person. If we make a task too onerous for one person, then that task will be ignored.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your input is sought
If you feel so inclined, you may want to weigh in here. An edit war is brewing, and I would like to find a reasonable solution before much time is wasted. Homunculus (duihua) 19:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Use one of these sources, and if anyone reverts you again, let me know and I'll talk to them.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Good man. Thanks for the suggestion. Homunculus (duihua) 20:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BeeradvocateLogo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:BeeradvocateLogo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
 WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 23:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

St Twrog's Church, Bodwrog
Ping. BencherliteTalk 14:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. As ever, I hope that I can apply points from this GA review for future articles.  I fear that GA reviewers are going to be rather bored of "St Obscure's Church, Llanobscure" by the end of User:Bencherlite/Operation Anglesey!  Regards, and happy travelling, BencherliteTalk 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheddar
Thanks for having a quick look at Cheddar. If you do review it, I have to warn you that I will be away for a few days so I won't be able to help with the GAN if it opens. But in the meantime I will be willing to extend it and do anything that will help it get to its long deserved GA Status. Regards Jaguar (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If I do review it, it won't be until after March 3rd. Somebody else may have picked it up before then.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Anglesey or Isle of Anglesey
I looked at the Isle of Anglesey and saw that the article was written as Isle of Anglesey, while it was titled Anglesey, which was a recent page move. I checked sources which indicated that Isle of Anglesey was the official name, and one used for books and articles on the place, so moved it back. But I note that you use Anglesey exclusively. What are your thoughts on the naming issue? Should it be opened up for a wider discussion? I am always for the usage which is most common, but a search for Anglesey on Google and GoogleBooks threw up mixed results which were unhelpful. Is it one of those either/or situations, and doesn't really matter, or does usage come down mostly on one or the other?  SilkTork  *YES! 16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I spotted that you had moved the page back... It's one of those slightly unusual situations where everyone is probably right, so I try to stay out of it and express no opinion! As an outsider, my thoughts are these. As a geographical entity, "Anglesey" refers to the main island itself strictly speaking, but is generally used as a shorthand for the group of islands or the county. My wife, when speaking in English anyway, would never say that she was from the "Isle of Anglesey"; she'd say she was from Anglesey. The county's official title is "Isle of Anglesey County Council" in English ("Cyngor Sir Ynys Mon" in Welsh, "ynys" meaning island), yet the county's territory includes the islands off Anglesey, which both the Welsh and English titles would suggest were not included! Someone from Holyhead, for example, isn't "from" Anglesey in one sense, because Holyhead is on Holy Island which is connected to the main island by a causeway - although it's perfectly possible to cross from Anglesey to Holy Island without noticing that you're changing islands. My source books for the church project use Anglesey in the arguably loose sense e.g. "Anglesey churches" whether the church is on Holy Island, Ynys Seiriol, Church Island... and so on.  So, it's a mess and best avoided, I think!  BencherliteTalk 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Best avoided then. I'll leave things as they are and what will happen will happen. Thanks for getting back to me.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it, in English my wife would say "I come from Anglesey" but in Welsh "Dwi'n dod o Ynys Mon"... and that might partially explain the confusion in usage! BencherliteTalk 16:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the one straight pass and for your comments at Talk:St Mary's Church, Pentraeth/GA1, to which I have replied. Yours, BencherliteTalk 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And another one! Thank you.  BencherliteTalk 21:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Grigory Potemkin
Hey. Thanks for noting your intention to review the article. I kinda need it review in the next 24 hours or so for the WikiCup, and you mention in another of your posts that you're going to be away. For that reason - and not because I don't value your reviewing skills - I'm going to try to find another reviewer who can review today. Your thoughts on the article are still very much appreciated whenever you can give them. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 16:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had expressed an interest if the review had not been done when I next looked. I did not make a commitment, and time pressure does not appeal to me. Good luck with the nomination and the game.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's understandable. I was slightly less concerned myself when I put it up for review a month ago :) Thanks anyway, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Chzz  ► 14:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * SilkTork I'm in total agreement about disliking time constraints in GA; however, having looked over the article, and having been assured by Jarry that the referencing is 100% solid (books, so I have to AGF) and no copyvio and suchlike, and also knowing that Jarry is a fine editor...I think I can do it properly, over the next 6 hours for him; I have the time, it looks interesting, and Jarry has agreed to look at any problems I find immediately. Not that I will make any concessions, of course - if it fails, it fails. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 14:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there has been a misunderstanding, and I apologise if I gave the wrong impression. I said I would be interested but was busy. I said if nobody had taken the review when I next looked then I would do it. The intention was to reasure the nominator that the review would not be waiting another month. No worries.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No misunderstanding; it's all absolutely fine! I just wanted to let you know that I was doing it, out of courtesy - that was all :-) Keep calm and carry on :-)  Chzz  ► 17:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)