User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 40

La Stazione reply
Hi, I think I answered your questions at Featured article candidates/La Stazione/archive1. If you feel that your issues have been resolved, please indicate an unambiguous support. I'm sorry if this comes off as curt, but the nomination has been open for two months and I believe that if the reviewers don't specify their level of support, it may be archived at this point. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is ongoing discussion and article development then a FAC generally stays open as far as I'm aware, but I'm not a FAC regular. I did not intend to either support or oppose - I was on the FAC page for another reason and the depot discussion caught my eye. Since commenting on that particular FAC some aspects of the article have caught my attention. I don't think it is FA quality at the moment, and to be honest, I would ask for more development if I was doing the GA review. I suggest a little more research and development, building up the lead per WP:Lead and some copyediting would improve the article. Good luck with getting to FA.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Some points
I was incensed because I made a philosophical argument and two others immediately jumped to declare it invalid. As to "make sure", there are many ways to achieve this. I will argue that this !vote of a couple dozen of editors in an obscure forum can not change how this cite works. So, there is no consensus. Establishing it will require a discussion comparable to that of flagged revisions. I struck the last clause in my comment that was not helpful. Ruslik_ Zero 07:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping
SilkTork, as you will see, Blackash continues to exert a strong opinion on the talk page on issues with a strong commercial and personal COI. I think it is essential for Blackash to be banned from the Tree shaping talk page so that editors with no commercial interest or personal involvement can discuss the issues of article name and current practitioners without continual interference.

This argument has gone on for years now. Several editors who came long ago in response to an RfC in this subject have been unable to make any progress because of continual interference from COI editors. Slowart obviously also has a COI but at least seems willing to withdraw from certain discussions if Blackash does the same. Something needs to be done. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did consider suggesting that the topic ban should include discussion of the topic anywhere on or linked to Wikipedia as I felt that the matter would not die simply with a ban on directly editing the article. I'll take a look.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Incubation project
I see from the discussion at the Incubation project that you are interested in that project. You might be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I have commented. I note that the project page was suggesting that people delete pages out of process - a similar mistake that the Incubate project made. It's useful that people are paying attention! Well done.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

page problem - Generation Y
I believe there are attacks on a talk page and should be removed. The thread has become not relevant to the article. The user accuses me of vandalism from editors. I removed my comments from the talk page and replies I believed were attacks. The other user agree the thread is off topic yet it is still on the page. I am hoping you could look at this and see what to do. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_Y#Off_topic

75.148.160.76 (talk)


 * I've removed the thread. I've taken a look at the article and it appears to be developing appropriately. I did a little research on Gen Y and what I read matched what was being said in the article. There appears to be some disagreement among sources regarding the starting birth date of Gen Y people, and that is reflected in the article. I hope the matter is now resolved. If not, please let me know.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. 75.148.160.76 (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Electric two-wheel vehicle‎
Hi SilkTork,

Thanks for helping out with Electric two-wheel vehicle, but I have some real problems with the new name. I did not see any consensus for the name change. In fact, the discussion was closed with a "no consensus" finding. I might have missed something else in the discussions. I'd like to get your input on the possibility of changing the name back. Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I wanted to let you know that an editor has started a survey to vote on changing the name back.  I thought you might want to participate.  Cheers,  Ebikeguy (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your speedy action in this matter. Cheers,  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it back, much appreciated. Talk page seems to be having problems, though. Ng.j (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's now been sorted. Took a little while as I had made two name changes, and it took a while to catch up. I'll do some checking to make sure everything is in the right place. I think I'll need to look at the edit history as well, as I think somebody did a quick revert thinking that might help the situation.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RGS logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:RGS logo.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. It has been replaced by File:RGS logo.png.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Suzanne Segal deletion
Dear Steve, I wish to bitterly complain about the deletion of Suzanne Segal. I found her work to be very important and she authored a book that has helped a lot of people. I know that a certain user WLU has deleted much information about her in Wikipedia.

He deleted references to her from these links.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization AND  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization_disorder ....begining 7 March 2001.

Then WLU proceded to destroy the page of Suzanne Segal. He started this on 8 March...by saying....."No assertion of notability." NOTE: She did get her Psy.D. degree from an accedited school "The Wright Institute", and I "do think" that this is a sign of "notability". "The Wright Institute is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges and the Psy.D. program is accredited by the American Psychological Association." Here is link to her school. http://www.wi.edu/program.html   Please look for your self.

It seems to me that there may be a case of "religious biasing" on his part (WLU). Suzanne wrote about "spiritual" experiences related to the "disorder" and this may not go well with people who are "closed" (ie biased opinions) to this "area of great interest" to the community. Which seems to be the reason for Wikipedia.

I also read throught the "debates" which lasted only 10 days......which resulted in the .....total destruction of Suzanne Segal from Wikipedia. I was not at all impressed by the comments used to defend or defeat this link. TEN days is not much time and since most of the "folks that would want to find information" on Wikipedia don't go to the "debate link", much less go there in the 10 days.

I was shocked to see this activity done by WLU. For me it was done behind the scenes.

I would like to know...did anyone ever look to see how often this link to Suzanne Segal was "used by the public" (how many "hits")? It did not "seem to be taken into account" before it was deleted. I am not saying I know it all. If this link was a "waste of your server-data-allocation" because nobody was interested in Suzanne Segal...then I will gladly not interfere. But it is my impression that WLU is "supressing information" because he knows how to work the system.

I personally read her book...and refered it to many people. I do not know Suzanne Segal or her family. I am writing in the interest of the community. I have met many people who have had the experience she described and these people have a "right" to information.

I would "kindly" like to request that her "link" be reinstated to Wikipedia. I would like to know what "can I do" to show that this is of interest to the community. What is concrete "proof" that this web page was good for the community. Please help me stop WLU from deleting "useful" information. Here is a link to our disscussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WLU  ... see DPD

NOTE: IF YOU TELL ME TO "STOP" BEING INTERESTED......I WILL NOT ARGUE..... Thank you Steve. By the way my wife is also from France. I lived there for 18 years. A very lovely place. CHEERS Van Vanlegg (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure that there are other people who may have helped you that are not notable, so that alone should not be used as an argument for keeping an article. I think the closing admin correctly followed the arguments and the procedures. However, if you feel that the discussion was incorrectly closed in any way, you are welcome to appeal to deletion review. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article again, and doing some research, there are plenty of book sources, scholar sources and web sources. I think this is one of those cases where I wasn't paying close enough attention, and went by what was said in the AfD. It would have been inappropriate to close an AfD against consensus, and I cannot simply change the result now, though looking at the matter more closely, I think that if I were to get involved in that AfD now I would not close it, but !vote and suggest more time to gather more sources, and may have a go at sourcing it myself. The options open now are: 1) I undo my close, and WP:RELIST; 2) As Ohconfucius says, a deletion review can be opened; 3; I WP:USERFY the article, and help you build in more secure references. A main complaint of the AfD was that the article relied heavily on one source, which was written by the subject of the article. Our guidelines and policies are against articles which rely mainly on WP:Primary sources and which are written by the subject about themselves. It is OK to use primary sources and material written by the subject about themselves as long at they are not the only or main sources in the article. Given the options I would recommend option 3. When the article has been built to a satisfactory state, then I will move it into mainspace. I have some experience of this, and have managed it with some deleted articles much more contentious than Suzanne Segal. My concern with Option 2 is that the AfD was closed appropriately, and a DRV is not a second AfD, so people there will be looking to see if the AfD was technically closed correctly - which it was: I followed the consensus. Option 1 would allow little time to improve the article, and the result may likely be another deletion. Userfying is the best option. Let me know what you want to do.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Webster's
I've completely overhauled the Samuel Webster's page. I'd appreciate a second opinion as it's my first project.--Farrtj (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work. You have a decent amount of information there, and you have presented it well. I've tidied up the cites. Formatting of cites is a tricky business, so it's quite normal that someone will tidy up the cites. The important thing is to cite - formatting is not so important! I also built up the lead a little per WP:Lead, though it could be developed a bit more. You might want to do a bit of copy-editing at some point as there are a number of short sentences which disturbs the flow when reading. On the whole an impressive bit of work. Well done and carry on!  SilkTork  *YES! 11:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)