User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Hello SilkTork, would it be OK, if I ask you to give your evaluation on this issue? Thank you in advance. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I much appreciate the constructive criticism received in connection with this article, and have now made a number of changes to the article which hopefully addresses the concerns expressed here. Please let me know if they are still not yet addressed. In the interests of keeping all FAC related discussions in one place, I would ask interested editors to kindly list in bullet point any remaining concerns about the article at the nominations page, so that they may be dealt with, and for the evaluation/nomination to proceed. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I just wanted clarification about the 7-point 'False Fire' statement/insert in the article. Are you suggesting that the formatting (or any part of it) be removed, or that they should be countered? Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that the section, including the inset, is weighted in such a way as to give prominence to a claim that the Chinese Government staged the event. I don't know the full background to the incident, but each time I read Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident I am impressed by how much it reads like it is anti-Chinese government and pro-Falun Gong, and that there are some strange conspiracy theories put forward by the Falun Gong which are being given more credence than statements by the Chinese government. My feeling is that there could be greater neutrality in the article as a whole, and that might be helped by removing the inset. SilkTork *YES! 11:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree that a stranger political conspiracy, with a surreal oriental twist theory you won't find come across very often. The more I find out from editing Falun Gong articles, the more it feels like I'm in Twin Peaks. I'll work on your recommendations. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this when I was out walking this afternoon. I think the claims made by Falun Gong that this was staged by the Chinese government need to be treated separately from the rest of the article (though mentioned in the lead), and dealt with as soberly as possible. The claim that the CNN crew knew in advance about the burning is best treated apart from the Falun Gong claims as at the moment they are being conflated. Reliable sources which comment on the claims by Falun Gong should be used in preference to direct statements by the Falun Gong. I might take a look myself to see what is available as my interest has now been aroused! SilkTork *YES! 16:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- The only thing I would add is that the claim that the event was staged by the government gets a lot of play out there, and even Ownby, the more or less recognized expert on FG, devotes a fair amount of space and some credit to the allegation in his book of last year. My own opinion is that there's a good chance they heard, maybe through an informant, that some sort of "fire" was supposed to take place that day, hence the cops carrying fire extinguishers, which they don't generally do, but that they were as surprised by what eventually happened as anyone else. But the cops carrying fire extinguishers, for whatever reason, does definitely give the "conspiracy theory" some legs. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Funny, that! The False Fire section was written to do just that, put the most important part of the FLG allegations together in one place, and I put it in the box to make it visually neater, and have all the surrounding debate in the section. As you see, some observers have picked up on different aspects of the analysis - for example, the Washington Post and The Age have picked up on some of the points. In addition, if we wwant to dig deeper, there is Danny Schechter, who from what I read is fond of regurgitating the Falun Gong line part and parcel and adding his own rhetoric icing on top, although I don't have access to his book. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- For me, there are two separate issues - who were they? and was the video real? - and these need separate treatment. The FLG line (which is weak, IMHO) relies on the underlying assumption of inherent 'goodness' of the FLG practitioner, who supposedly would never contemplate any form of killing; then the video itself, which FLG/NTDTV have quite successfully debunked, it is now clear to me was a botched reshoot. Ohconfucius (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting theory. I don't know enough to make a comment one way or another - though some of the comments made by the FG on their False Fire video does sound like some of the claims made by those who think that the Apollo moon landings didn't take place. "Why is the CCTV camera zooming in on the scene?" Well, maybe because the operator became aware of the situation either by noticing it, or by being informed of it! It's hardly evidence that the event was staged by the government. However, the notion that some of the close up shots were filmed by actors is plausible, though not actually convincing. Why would the government do that? As someone once said, if you hear footsteps on the bridge, is it more likely to be a human being than a giant troll?
- Each time I look at the article I don't see a False Fire section - when I first commented I think the section was called something like "Video evidence" - currently there is a section called "Reporting and analysis". I don't think that fringe theories fall under either "evidence" or "reporting". And I see the theory is reported in the aftermath section. I note that Schechter is mentioned, and that he has written a book on the FG. Hmmm. Are his comments independent of the FG, or was he commenting on the FG claims? Having chased down one source to find it was telling a different story to that claimed for it, I would be interested to see if Schechter has reached independent conclusions as to a government staging of the event, or if he is simply commenting on aspects of the FG claim. There is an important degree of difference between the two. SilkTork *YES! 06:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've come to know Falun Gong as kookiest of the kooks, the fringest proponent of fringe theories - about on the par with the Chinese government. The Chinese cultural context is magnified when these two interact. You are right that there was a section entitled 'video evidence', which got merged into the 'victims' section. It has now been broken out again following a reorganisation of the content. The 'False Fire' insert has been there for some time - perhaps you hadn't noticed it. The article has been restructured completely since I nominated it for WP:FAC, and indeed it has changed since you made the recommendations yesterday. I would appreciate it if you could look at it again, and see if you believe it satisfies your remaining concerns. That being the case, I would appreciate it if you would make a note accordingly at the FAC nomination. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk)
07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)edited 04:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)- SandyGeorgia has asked if you would be so kind as to review the recent changes to the article and comment on them at the FAC page. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've come to know Falun Gong as kookiest of the kooks, the fringest proponent of fringe theories - about on the par with the Chinese government. The Chinese cultural context is magnified when these two interact. You are right that there was a section entitled 'video evidence', which got merged into the 'victims' section. It has now been broken out again following a reorganisation of the content. The 'False Fire' insert has been there for some time - perhaps you hadn't noticed it. The article has been restructured completely since I nominated it for WP:FAC, and indeed it has changed since you made the recommendations yesterday. I would appreciate it if you could look at it again, and see if you believe it satisfies your remaining concerns. That being the case, I would appreciate it if you would make a note accordingly at the FAC nomination. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk)
- The only thing I would add is that the claim that the event was staged by the government gets a lot of play out there, and even Ownby, the more or less recognized expert on FG, devotes a fair amount of space and some credit to the allegation in his book of last year. My own opinion is that there's a good chance they heard, maybe through an informant, that some sort of "fire" was supposed to take place that day, hence the cops carrying fire extinguishers, which they don't generally do, but that they were as surprised by what eventually happened as anyone else. But the cops carrying fire extinguishers, for whatever reason, does definitely give the "conspiracy theory" some legs. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this when I was out walking this afternoon. I think the claims made by Falun Gong that this was staged by the Chinese government need to be treated separately from the rest of the article (though mentioned in the lead), and dealt with as soberly as possible. The claim that the CNN crew knew in advance about the burning is best treated apart from the Falun Gong claims as at the moment they are being conflated. Reliable sources which comment on the claims by Falun Gong should be used in preference to direct statements by the Falun Gong. I might take a look myself to see what is available as my interest has now been aroused! SilkTork *YES! 16:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Controversial merge
Merging White-collar worker into middle class is highly controversial. It breaks major delimiters in class theory. Can you explain it before I revert the edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you would want to revert it. The white-collar worker article was unsourced, and highly speculative. And my limited understanding is that white-collar workers are middle class. My aim here is to improve the information on middle class and the various related groups within that class. It would help if you explained to me the significant difference, and why you feel that white-collar workers are not part of the middle class system. SilkTork *YES! 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Workers are an oppressed group in modern societies. The middle class is a group who are a beneficiary of that oppression. Subsuming the oppressed group beneath an article dealing with their oppressors is broadly offensive, and encyclopedically inaccurate. More importantly, "white-collar worker" is a generic term covering the most minor mail boy and all unskilled non-manual occupations. "Middle class" doesn't cover these terms. I'm reverting because you don't have a handle on the literature of white collar work and its social place. The other mergers appear apt and appropriate to me. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I accept I have a limited understanding of the situation - however, what I have picked up from studies, and all sources I have read, put white-collar workers in the middle class. I don't quite get from the sources I have read the understanding that you have got of white-collar workers "covering the most minor mail boy and all unskilled non-manual occupations". Do you have a source for this? Take a look at this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. Also, please look into some of the sources I provided for Middle_class#Professional-managerial_class which gives some useful discussion of aspects of the "new working class" and the Petite bourgeoisie, who are at the lower end of the middle class. The middle class is a very broad swath which at the middle and upper end includes the ruling class. The middle class does not, however, consist entirely of the ruling class, which you seem to suggest with your comment about the middle class being "oppressors". The politics of the middle class are the most complex of the three main classes, and, yes, need to be explored with care. I will, of course, accept your revert if you provide sources and a rationale for your explanation. At the moment - from my perspective - you are reverting based on your opinion, which does not appear to have a basis in fact. I am sorry that we are having this dispute, as it makes me uncomfortable about working further on the middle class article. I do not wish to struggle to make edits, and in the short time I have worked on the article you have reverted me twice. I would be reassured that we would be able to work together if you did not revert me without a) having a discussion about it, and b) concluding that discussion. So far you have reverted me without discussion once, and then did a second revert without our discussion having reached a conclusion. If you look at things from my perspective you might accept that your actions have been a little hasty. You have noted that my first edit which you reverted has been restored and has enhanced the article. I am not a vandal. Nor am I ignorant. I do good work on Wikipedia. I value discussion and negotiation, as I feel that Wikipedia proceeds best by such collaboration. I am writing this out fully so that you have a full understanding of my position, which might enable us to be more co-operative. I also appreciate that most edits on Wikipedia are small edits, and that what I tend to do at times is make quite strong and big changes which can be unsettling for those who have worked on an article for a long time, so I am not upset by your actions - I understand the position you are coming from! Regards SilkTork *YES! 08:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Weston Road get-together.
In real life I invite the neighbours and their kids to let off their fireworks and drink their beer in the garden on November 5th, anytime after it goes dark till whenever. Kent Wikipedians are most welcome to come and join us at 65- though parking can be a challenge. As always it will be a multilingual event and there should be a bonfire too. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer Clem, though we can't make it on this occasion. Be good to meet up for a pint one day, if you fancy it. Regards 21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Harrison Birth Cert.jpg
File:Harrison Birth Cert.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Harrison Birth Cert.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Harrison Birth Cert.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The same author previously wrote a different biography of the subject - published in 1984. That is probably why the secondary source says his focus in this newer biography is more on the musician's career post 1984. If you still feel this is confusing, I would be agreeable to changing the wording as you suggested to just say it covers his musical career in general. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, I just tweaked it, to remove the specific year, as you suggested. Hope that is okay. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Unlicenced image
While patrolling new image uploads I noticed you forgot to add a copyright tag to File:Armed Forces Day 27.06.09 006.JPG. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
RfC on official links
- Apparently. We have two regular editors of that guideline that think that objected to requiring some sort of relevant content before we entirely exempted BLP's websites from all of the standard guidelines. Strenuous objections from two editors, given the number of people that usually follow that page, is enough for me to feel that we don't have a consensus.
- The previous discussion has established that their view is that all internet links controlled by notable people -- even if they don't contain the subjects' names, even if they're just snapshots from their vacations -- are automatically interesting to our readers and should receive absolutely no content review.
- This means that if Jaycee Lee Dugard ever opens a Flickr account, even if it's just to post a single snapshot of a non-descript place, then we need to advertise the link to the entire world as her "official" website. This may seem like a somewhat extreme example, but policy is not written for the purpose of covering the easy decisions: it exists to tell you what you should do when you don't already know the answer.
- Personally, I'm willing to interpret "related to notability" very broadly (and, importantly, non-official links are still permitted if they meet the standard rules), but the idea of degrading the encyclopedia to a web directory for voyeurists and stalkers disgusts me.
- Anyway, thanks for your comments. I hope that others will also respond (even if they disagree with me). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- O yes, without looking into the history, I assumed it would be something like that. My comment was a throwaway remark to emphasise that removing the statement related to relevance was so clearly inappropriate that a discussion shouldn't be needed. However, I recognise that there are times when all of us have blind spots, so I understand why you are having the discussion. My comment wasn't a criticism of you for starting the RFC, but of the other folks for having created the need to start one. SilkTork *YES! 14:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict
Sorry for the edit conflict just now. No risk of another one if you want to continue editing: I am now back to catching up with my day job. :) JN466 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problems. Took me a while to work out what to do, as we had edited very closely, but I think (I hope!) I got it right! I'm actually off to bed now. I sometimes stay up late fiddling on Wikipedia, but I've been working this evening on a slightly overdue article for What's Brewing, so I'm a bit knackered, and I have my house-husband duties to do tomorrow, so I need my sleep! Enjoy your day job! Regards SilkTork *YES! 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
|
The Surreal Barnstar | |
| Your assistance in guiding Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident through WP:NPOV is much appreciated. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for your work with Mattisse
I feel like several of Mattisse's mentors are really working hard, and trying to make the best of a difficult situation. You're one of these. I just wanted to drop you this note to let you know that your work is appreciated. I've never really given a barnstar before, but I'm going to try doing it now.
Well, it didn't work, so if you want to fix the format, it was going to simply be a generic barnstar for you hard work with Mattisse, if you know how to fix it to say that. UnitAnode 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- (I also note, with interest, that the move of the long discussions to the talkpage, which I was excoriated for by first Mattisse, then John Carter, and then Philcha, has now been done by someone else. UnitAnode 14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC))
- Thanks. I'm not sure how to make it work either - but I'll give it a go when I move it to my Barns page! SilkTork *YES! 14:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- A quick question for you. My recent experiences at Mattisse/monitoring have been less-than-optimal. I've basically decided that if I see problems from her at the pages I watch, I'll just report it to one of the arbitrators. However, I was wondering if -- in lieu of this -- I might be able to just approach you or perhaps Regents directly. There are a few of the mentors that I think are working really hard to try to make it work, and you're one of them. Would you mind terribly if I left a ping at your talk, with a diff and a short explanation if I see a potential troublespot edit from Mattisse pop up on my watchlist? I really do want her to be successful, as I think she has a lot to offer on the content side of the project, so if you're amenable to this, I'd like to do that instead of going to an arbitrator. One thing I will not do is stick my head back in the lion's mouth that is her mentoring pages. UnitAnode 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan
Request opened by Moni3 here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Please watchlist this page!
This is the new page for editors who are not my mentors/advisers to make editorial comments on: User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments. Please watch list this page. However, I would prefer that dissatisfied editors contact a mentor/adviser individual, to prevent a battleground or attack mentality from developing on that page. Please let me know if you object to this. Thanks! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm willing to respond to alerts about your behaviour, and to discuss with the other advisors the best course of action. And I will communicate with those who are impacted by your behaviour, and who wish to discuss the matter with me. And I will also respond to reasonable requests from people who might have an interest (members of ArbCom spring to mind) or who have a known history with you. But I'm not sure what benefit will be gained by my watching (and reading!) a side-discussion. Could you explain why I might need to watch that page? SilkTork *YES! 17:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse
Casting aspersions. Questioning Moni's motives and good-faith. From my perspective, Moni has been really helpful throughout the time since I stumbled upon the Monitoring pages. She's done this in several places now, but I'll let this diff suffice. UA 19:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for delay in responding. I have spoken to Mattisse and asked her to not make remarks about any Wikipedia editor for 48 hours. She has agreed. SilkTork *YES! 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Please advise
The article Persecution of Falun Gong has met with countless attempts to rename/delete. Now Ohconfucius renamed it again, hardly existent consensus on the talk page. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know that there is somewhere a process for renaming disputed pages, which is assessed and closed by an uninvolved administrator. As far as know it is not done on self claimed consensus. Would be kind enough to point out where it is and perhaps even enforce this process?--HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, the relevant discussion is at Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong#Move. Ohconfucius. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link Ohconfucius, that is really relevant here. Perhaps I need to take my time before editing, short bursts can lead to edit conflicts. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am most concerned about this, because I happened to read hundreds of reports of practitioners being tortured and killed and the methods used. I have also read the secondary sources on the Persecution of Falun Gong and the article clearly satisfies notability and verifiability, per the sources listed on page, even after the heavy trim it suffered. The aspect of WP:N and WP:V was not even challenged or answered in the move request. This is why I don't think that Ohconfucius, Colipon, Seb, John Carter etc... are NOT the right persons to decide if consensus has been reached on move or not. Don't get me wrong they are most welcome to comment, but I think they are way to involved to decide if consensus has been reached or not. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Same question different format: Regarding Talk:History_of_Falun_Gong#Move Quote: "The result of the move request was page moved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)", what makes Seb qualified to decide this? If he did not decide, who did? Where there any uninvolved assessments regarding this decision? Why is notability completely overlooked? As far as I know notability is the single criteria to decide if a page deserves to be on wikipedia--HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- And just for context, the persecution real. This is just one very telling source [1] but there are hundreds available: [2] And even though it is real the first thing on the agenda is to sanitize references to it. [3], [4], [5], [6]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Having observed the recent discussion and action, it appears to me that there are strong sentiments to rename the article Persecution of Falun Gong. However, I cannot see that there is a general agreement among the commentators that it should be called History of Falun Gong. I personally think that this title is inappropriate, if not deliberately misleading. It is playing fast and lose with the term history that implies the study of the human past. Not only is there no historiographical method deployed by most of the authors on the subject, but also because of the existing controversy whether events have happened like this and if so whether they have ceased now. Those who advocate such a name (i.e. History of Falun Gong) will have to ask themselves whether they are taking a specific position in that existing controversy rather than merely describing it. Mootros (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for delay in responding to this - I have been busy on and off Wikipedia. But I have been reading the thread(s), the history, the article, and the relevant guidelines and policies. There is a fair bit to read. The article has changed name various times, and was called Falun Gong, History and Timeline quite early on. There is nothing in the guidelines against the title Persecution of Falun Gong - we already have a number of such articles, see Category:Religious persecution and Category:Persecution. The questions are not if we can use such a title, it is if a) there is enough notability for such an article; b) if the title is appropriate for the current article; and c) if it helpful to have an article on the general history of Falun Gong.
My view would follow that of John Carter - the article under dispute works well as the one to be called History of Falun Gong, and that it would be appropriate to have a spin-off article - possibly using the material from the Media section onwards - to be called Persecution of Falun Gong, and there are enough reliable sources to support such an article. I will copy this over the appropriate talkpage. SilkTork *YES! 07:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time, it is much appreciated! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Imperial War Museum Duxford
Hello SilkTork. I'm sure you've plenty to keep you busy, but if you're interested then I've just nominated Imperial War Museum Duxford for Good Article review. Best regards, --IxK85 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ooooh. You knew I'd jump at that, didn't you? I loved your last article and really enjoyed working on it with you. And I could do with some light relief after some of the stuff that I've been involved in just recently! Great. I've bagged it, and I'll take a look at it over the next few days. Forgive me if I'm a bit slow, but I have a couple of other things I'm still dealing with at the moment. Ping me if I haven't done the initial sweep of the article by Monday. Regards SilkTork *YES! 17:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello again, just a note to say thanks for taking the time, appreciate your effort. Also thought I'd mention, if you're at all interested, that Imperial War Museum North might like looking at, but it can easily wait.
- Best regards, --IxK85 (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello again, just a note to say thanks for taking the time, appreciate your effort. Also thought I'd mention, if you're at all interested, that Imperial War Museum North might like looking at, but it can easily wait.
Your user page
Sorry to point out an error on your own user page, but:
- I’m Steve Pereira. I live in Rochester, Kent, UK. with my French wife Christelle. We had a baby daughter in March 2009, whom we named Phocea Salome Rhona Pereira.
- I'm a reluctant scooper[2] and part-time beer writer[3] - I write a column on brewing for CAMRA's What's Brewing magazine, and am a member of the British Guild of Beer Writers. I am a qualified teacher but gave up teaching a few years ago - I have just finished training to go back into teaching (TEFL, this time), but primarily at the moment I am a house-husband. I have taken up running as a hobby and completed the Paris Marathon, the Beachy Head Marathon and Prague International Marathon in just over 6 hours - and in October 2007 I did the Amsterdam Marathon in 5 hours 46 minutes![4] My last marathon was the Hastings 100 Anniversary in December 2008 - it was tough, it was cold, and my knee gave out on me. I may not do another marathon. I have five children from three marriages and I have seven grandchildren. My son, Piers, is an actor, scriptwriter and director of some talent who is starting to get some attention[5], while my youngest daughter, Zelie, has just graduated in stage management from RADA, and is kept busy in varied productions across the country; she has just been involved in the opera, Skellig at The Sage Gateshead.
Para 2 "my youngest daughter, Zelie" clearly contradicts para 1. I presume it pre-dates the birth of Phocea Salome Rhona.
Hope that helps - and greetings from Walderslade!
MarkyMarkD (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - yes, that does help! I'll update it now. And yes, the Skellig production did pre-date Phocea's birth. SilkTork *YES! 09:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- And I read your user page and noticed you also have a concern with WP:OVERLINKing. User:Lightmouse made a useful script for dealing with date-linking and overlinking. Cut and paste the following into your monobook:
- importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js')
- The tools will appear in your toolbox on the left of the screen - there are various choices. It's a useful scripot - I use it almost every week - here's an example from yesterday - [1]. While Lightmouse has been banned for one year for some of the mass delinking and rude behaviour he was involved in during the years leading up to the decision to delink dates, the ban had nothing to do with this script. It is unfortunate that someone who had the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and who was instrumental in getting delinking dates accepted at MOS, should be banned, but he did get over-involved emotionally in the issue. Regards SilkTork *YES! 09:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - very much! Once I cleared out the other rubbish in my monobook page it all worked. :) MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Test it on The La's (album). I'm looking at it now, and it has several date links. SilkTork *YES! 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nice one - excellent tool. MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reasons you moved the cite tag back into the article body instead of leaving it quite nicely in the {{Reflist}}? I find the old way to render the wikitext quite unreadable after a while. Just wondering. MLauba (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references. I was just doing a quick tidy up, and I hadn't seen that usage before. I'm reading the notes on it now, and I'm still unclear on its usage. When would it be used? Would it be when there are multiple cites of one book, but to different page numbers? SilkTork *YES! 13:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:VPR
Please note I replied to your comment (as the discussion is dying out, you might not notice it). Rd232 talk 20:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking after the Integration effort. Not sure what to do with it at this point: I find it hard to tell whats going on these days on here. Cwolfsheep (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's fine as an essay. Projects are really forums where people can discuss broad matters. If people wish to discuss aspects of the ideas related to Wikipedia:Integrate, they can use the related talkpage - Wikipedia talk:Integrate. Regards SilkTork *YES! 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)