User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 → Archive 50


Requesting assistance about the interpretation of WP:CBALL and consensus in WP:MMA

As one of the editors willing to provide assistance at WP:EA, I'm contacting you to request your expert opinion. There is been quite a lot of dispute regarding the guidelines of WP:MMA about future fights in fighters' records. You can see for yourself by checking the project's history. Essentially, BrendanFrye and some sockpuppet IPs have been reverting the latest change to the guidelines. This change was accepted on June 22 in accordance with a previous consensus reached two years ago which was against adding future fights (see here.) Once this new guideline started being enforced, some editors complained about it and argued that adding future bouts when they are officially announced is not against WP:CBALL and that in fact removing them is non-constructive. Editors that are against adding future bouts to a fighter's record before they happen, even if officially announced, argue that there is no legitimate reason to add future bouts to a fighter's record until the day of the fight since this is a future event that is not notable by itself and it is not sure that it will happen since several times fighters get injured or are removed for several other reasons, so WP:CBALL does apply. Several examples of withdrawals occurred quite recently. Also, a record, by definition is an evidence about the past, not the future, and reliable sources outside of Wikipedia, like Sherdog, do not add future bouts in a fighter's record. On top of that, future bouts, most of the time, are prey for vandalism, as vandals like to add the result of future fights, doing it against the fighter they dislike or just vandalizing the method altogether.

So, although a majority of MMA editors agree that adding future bouts in MMA records goes against WP:CBALL (see here, it was decided to open a RfC about it for editors not involved in the WikiProject (see here) since the project gets a lot of contributions from editors not involved with it. But the RfC did not give clear results (there is even an IP sockpuppet there) and certainly there doesn't seem to be a consensus to overturn the previous one. There was an agreement with editor Fayerman to avoid enforcing the new guideline until the RfC finished, but since there is no really clear cut consensus, there is also no clear cut consensus to either remove the new guideline or to enforce it.

Since this dispute has been going on for months already and an RfC did not work as expected, I would like to request your help to resolve this issue that has been going on for two months already. Jfgslo (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your assistance on this issue. There is a clear consensus now. Once again, thanks. Jfgslo (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

BrendanFrye (talk · contribs)

I appreciate anyone who has the patience to handle BrendanFrye (talk · contribs) as well as you have. If he persists with his actions, and I am sure he will, don't forget to look over his edit history and user talk page history. This is his MO, to complain that discussions are rigged and/or unfair and do so .... rudely. Thanks again for your assistance with the straw poll at the MMA Wikiproject and putting up with our more aggressive editors (which I'm surprises more of them haven't come out, but anyways). --TreyGeek (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes people start off poorly on Wikipedia, then become worthwhile contributors. A lot depends on how they are treated as well as how much they are allowed to make aggressive comments unchallenged. Sometimes people come here with bad habits picked up from internet forums. Hopefully BrendanFrye will come to realise that Wikipedia is not an internet forum, but an educational charity endeavouring to create a free encyclopedia. We need people to work together in a collegiate atmosphere. That is not to say we don't disagree with each other, but that we do so using neutral, moderate language. I have now looked at the talk page history and note that when his mistakes are politely pointed out to him he has been getting better at responding appropriately. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You really are

a huge fucking prick. BrendanFrye (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Not everyone is suited to work on Wikipedia. We use a collegiate, consensual system, and rely on fairly emotionally stable users. Not everyone can work within this system. There are some independent minded people, or people who are uncomfortable when their views/opinions/contributions are challenged, who have found Wikipedia to not be their thing. Either they decide, or we do, or it's mutually agreed that they are better off not working on Wikipedia. It may be that you are one of those people. I'm still hoping that you will reflect on what has happened, learn from the experience and contribute positively to Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination)

Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination) with a detailed rationale. Would a renomination in November 2011 be acceptable, in your opinion? Prior to this renomination, I will nominate Fraser Cain, the intended merge target, for deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be within policy, though I wouldn't be in favour of doing it. There is an argument that the matter of the notability of the article is not yet satisfactorily settled; though there is also the sense that the article is genuinely on the borderline of our inclusion criteria, and in those cases we tend to default to keep. Unless there is a significant change in our inclusion criteria, renominating at a random date in the future is no different from renominating now, and gives the feel of treating AfD as a lottery.
There were times during my assessment of the AfD when I was close to deleting the article because of a mix of the low quality mentions, and the low quality of the article itself. It seemed hardly worth keeping as it doesn't tell us much. And your arguments were certainly pertinent, and in line with policy and my own views on notability. However, the counter-arguments that while the mentions within independent reliable sources were few and short, they were significant, and that - combined with over 250 examples of the website being used as a reliable source on Wikipedia - is quite compelling. I was at some points close to closing as keep based on that, but felt that such a close could then be used as an example in favour of keeping some closely contested articles based on Wikipedia cites and/or strong statements within sources, and we don't actually have a consensus on that.
What I would be very much in favour of, would be a general discussion to establish if a) significant use within Wikipedia as a reliable source can in any way be taken account of when considering notability (personally I think not formally, though it may be a factor to take into account); and b) clarity on "significant" coverage - if a source has only one sentence, but the sentence says "this is the most notable Foo in the world", is that significant? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26#Site good enough to be a source, but not notable enough to have an article in July 2008 was very clear that a website's being cited on Wikipedia does not confer notability. I draw your attention to Protonk (talk · contribs)'s comment:

This happens all the time. 90% of the academic journals out there don't need articles, there wouldn't be any independent sources to cover them, but we still use them as sources. The reliable source guidelines don't really operate on the same wavelength as the notability guidelines. The source doesn't have to be "important" per se, just has to exercise editorial control and represent information in a reasonable way. For a website example, Economic Principals. I'll defend it to the death as RS, but I can't imagine writing an article on it. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Protonk (talk · contribs)'s comment. The defense of an article based on how many times it's cited on Wikipedia is weak and not grounded in policy. It is rebutted in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Arbitrary quantity. Regarding your second example, an RfC would likely conclude that it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If an article gave the subject the passing mention ("Foo won the prestigious X Web Award."), it would be presumed notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria #2:

The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

If a source said that "Foo want the Nobel Peace Prize" or "Foo received the Pulitzer Prize", and there was no significant coverage, the topic would still be considered notable because of the prestige of those prizes.

I can find no sources that give such prestige to Universe Today.

In other words, none of the sources say anything "significant".

SilkTork, please clarify what you mean by "significant" sources: Which sources did the AfD participants consider "significant"? Myself, I see neither "significant coverage" nor anything along the lines of "Universe Today is the most notable website in the world". Cunard (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I found this Go ahead and check around at some space news sites -- Universe Today, SPACE.com, MSNBC's Space section, or blogs like Bad Astronomy -- for the period from June 5 to 11 to see what topics they covered. You'll see a lot of these press-released stories covered on most of those sites. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that -- press-released stories are pre-selected for being interesting to the public, so it makes sense that multiple news outlets should choose to write about them. And these sites aren't churnalist ones; the writers do independent reporting. In fact I rely on Universe Today and Bad Astronomy to give me an independent look at big news stories. on The Planetary Society website to be more than a trivial mention. The page is a blog, though comes under WP:NEWSBLOG, and the writer says she is "working for the Planetary Society", and is quoted in other reliable sources in the context of someone who works for the Planetary Society. That quote, and some others, were mentioned in the AfD, and I felt they did carry some weight. Not quite enough to declare for keep, as the column itself is not about Universe Today, and it is a passing mention on a source which is only just reliable. But it was a factor.
Thanks for the links on Wikipedia mentions. As I said, it's not something I would formally support as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source; though, as we mention on WP:BEFORE, things like incoming links from other Wikipedia articles, etc, are a factor to consider in an overall assessment of notability. And I think you are probably right that a RfC on "significant" comments would probably end up with a vague conclusion. That's fine - I think that bright lines, while helpful in making decisions, can stifle development of Wikipedia, and the fewer bright lines we have the better.
As I say above, I don't think there's anything against you calling another AfD - it's just not something that I could personally support, and I don't see the rationale of waiting until November. I wouldn't oppose, but neither would I support. If you feel the close was not right, then perhaps take the matter to WP:DRV? SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that quote comes close to saying that "this is the most notable Foo in the world". That a The Planetary Society writer tangentially mentioned it twice does not establish notability. Her statement contributes not to the notability of Universe Today, but to vouching for its reliability (Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 26#Site good enough to be a source, but not notable enough to have an article).

I feel that DRV would find the closure of "no consensus" within your discretion as the closing admin. Was it the best close? I don't think so. Whereas the "delete" side effectively rebutted all the claims of "significant coverage" by the "keep" side, the "keep" side failed to find any coverage that would satisfy the notability guidelines. Second, false information (supported by misrepresentations of sources), trivia, and original research were inserted into the article. Just today, 98.164.98.44 (talk · contribs) found factual errors in the article: Talk:Universe Today#Factual errors in article. The trivia and the false information comprise the majority of the article. Removing that information would leave a skeleton of an article, with information sourced only to Universe Today's website.

Thank you again for your explanations. Closing the AfD was difficult and any close would have been contested. Your closing rationale is eloquent and defensible. I cannot fault you for closing this debate as "no consensus", so will not—and have never considered—bringing this closure to DRV.

By the way, would you be able to help close RfCs? There is a severe backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:

  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request for admin to close a merger discussion
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request to close a guideline proposal
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features
  4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom?
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC on the primary topic of China
If you don't have the time or inclination to close any of these RfCs, then no worries. Cunard (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done or dealing with those in which I was uninvolved or have not already been closed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for not only closing the merger discussion but also merging the article. Thank you also for creating a straw poll for the guideline proposal. Your hard work of doing the difficult tasks others don't want to do is appreciated. I have notified the participants at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header of the straw poll. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Web Sheriff

If my talk page comments made you feel unwelcome in anyway, then I apologize. I look forward to working together on any and all article topics. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 12:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Romanization

I am under a restriction as to what I may say on such matters. I did post, under the impression that Ezhiki had asked for my opinion on the procedural question, and would therefore value it; but I see that I was mistaken in that.

For what it is worth, I support closing as no consensus. There is no real consensus here; there is desolutory discussion. Where is the widely accepted answer to Mlm42's questions? "Is there a name which is normally transliterated in -yov, outside Wikipedia? If not, why adopt the convention?" Either a clear Yes, with a reason we could put in the guideline because it persuaded him and presumably others, or a clear No, and different guidance, would be reasonable. (Even expressly saying that the guideline only applies when there is no English source on the subject would be a change.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

{{Beer Welcome}}

Hello Silk, I hope you don't mind, I updated the Beer Welcome template to match the project page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that makes sense. I made that template a long time ago, and it needed updating. I had intended it to be a general welcome to Wikipedia, with some reference to beer. It was intended as a welcome to new users who had made one of their first edits to a beer page. But there's no harm in sending someone two welcomes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I need help with editing of Tamil Tigress.

  • I have discussed these issues excessively on the talk page. The edit I'd like to preserve is my reverted revision
  • One editor Roscelese is telling me that my ref name=MR>Michael Roberts, Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter is a self published source and therefore including it is in violation of BLP/WP:SPS. I have reminded this editor of the exception to the self publish rule that “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” This editor tells me this exception does not stretch to cover Biographies of living persons BLP#SPS
  • I pointed out that a critical review of a published work(claiming to be a Memoir) done with the purpose of examining its factual accuracy against the time period in which it is set does not fall under BLP
  • This editor wrongly claims that a) is a forum, in which anyone can publish. This misrepresentation of this particular source makes it hard for me to retain the required assumption of good faith about this editor. This raises in my mind a strong impression of lack of good faith
  • b) is a reference I have not yet included in any of my edits. I am reluctant to include b) and concede giving up a) and the self published source. I want to include all three because all three are in my opinion justified
  • Then in my edit I summarize the foundational error as described in a) and b)
  • I say in explanation that this foundational error consists of the Memoir author’s apparent ignorance (persisting to date) of the identity of her combat adversaries during the fighting tenure attributed to herself in her Memoir. I give inline citations to give where this apparent ignorance persisting to date is displayed.
  • Then I give some back ground infor. about the period in question to help determine who her combat adversaries actually were. All statements in this section are sourced with inline citations. This is an extensively, covered unique period characterized by a unique event.
  • My background infor concludes thus; When the LTTE was at war with the IPKF from early October, 1987 to end of 1989, not one of the three arms of the Sri Lankan forces participated in joint action with the IPKF or had any integrated command structure.[1]That the Sri Lankan forces stayed clear of direct combat with the LTTE during this period, apart from the limited operations undertaken at sea by the Sri Lankan Navy, [1]is a basic fact, that would have been known to contemporary Tiger fighters of all ranks.
  • Then I say that in contrast, Tamil Tigrss blurb (available online and given as an inline citation) says; (I quote the blurb within quotation marks) and Niromi says in her Throsby interview; (I quote excerpts from interview). Then I say, "Thus there is an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into Niromi's fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by the author in the interview," (I quote an excerpt). This is in effect a summarisation of the 'foundational error' as described in the sources a) and b).
  • I give these quotations (blurb, interview) on my edit because they are given in my secondary source like that and in order to summarize the argument given in the secondary source clearly, and concisely I need to do so.
  • I tell them no because X) they are referenced in my secondary source, and I am merely using them to summarize the foundational error argument given in the secondary source Y)even if hypothetically I did not have a secondary source, the statements I am making amount to straight forward, descriptive statements that any educated non specialist with access to the source, can verify are supported by these primary sources(blurb, interview excerpts).
  • The editor Roscelese even classifies 9), 10) as original research. I have said they are sourced verifiable statements and do no amount to original research. The editor does not listen and insists on deleting these citing BLP. This is another reason why I am finding it hard to sustain the good faith presumption about this editor.
  • Right now one editor Kevin has warned me about the 3R rule and reverted my edit using Twinkle.
  • What is the best thing to do. Should I post an editor assistance request too?
  • I feel that these editors are disregarding the Common Sense rule and trying to turn Wikipedia into a rigid legalistic forum where it is possible to suppress relevant information based on technicalities. And badly argued technicalities at that. Gettingthere (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I have responded on the talkpage, and made some edits to the article. My comments were: "It is appropriate to mention and give brief details of concerns raised in reputable sources about the truth and accuracy of the book. These concerns, however, do need to be of proportionate length. See WP:UNDUE for details. It is also important to give a neutral and sober account of any concerns raised. I have changed the title of the section from Controversy to Authenticity, in order to tone it down a little. However, there does appear to be a fair little wind being blown up about the accuracy of this book by Michael Roberts and Arun Ambalavanar so it might well end up being a controversy. The section needs careful development (and there does seem enough material to expand it a bit more) - always use reliable sources, remain neutral - do not get drawn into the debate and be careful not to present the concerns as a valid argument, keep quotes to a minimum - it is better to summarise neutrally than to use emotive statements, and engage in discussions on this talkpage when in doubt, or if anyone has questioned or challenged an edit." I hope that helps SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks SilkTork your assistance is much appreciated.Gettingthere (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have the time and the inclination take a further look at meeting my WP:BURDEN obligations re my sources Regards.Gettingthere (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look. There's a lot of text to read, and links to check out - you may find that you get more responses from people if you give a brief summary. It is also unclear exactly what you are asking people, so it might help to ask a direct question. Example - "Is X (link to source) a reliable source for the article Y (link to article)?" There is no need to argue your case, or to mention that there's a dispute. It is particularly important not to mention the names of editors who disagree with you. That is not relevant. You are simply asking if a particular source is reliable for a particular article. Allow the experienced users at that forum to check the source and the article and make up their own minds. If you get a response from someone on that forum which appears to misunderstand the situation or the source, that is the time to briefly and politely provide additional information; but only provide extra information as and when needed. I hope that helps. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tree Shaping

I wonder if we might have a civil discussion about the reference for the various proposed names for this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me start with something that I think we will agree on.
I think there is no serious disagreement on exactly what the subject of this article is. The scope of the article has remained stable throughout this disagreement and it is the art of making artistic or useful objects from trees by bending, pruning, and usually joining branches by inosculation whilst the tree grows. Would you agree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
That's where I think we slightly disagree. I see the article as being about the shaping of trees, which includes the modern focus on making artistic objects. I think you see it as being about making artistic objects, which will include some history of other forms of tree shaping. I think that is why there is a disagreement about the title - your preference for a term which accentuates the artistic ("sculpture"), my preference for a more neutral and embracing term ("shaping"). SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you give me some idea of what other ways of shaping trees the article covers, other than the making of useful or artistic objects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's about shaping trees, which includes useful, artistic, and quirky objects such as the living furniture. I think there is a judgement being made when determining that all the objects made are "artistic" or "useful". I am in favour of being more open and inclusive on this general article, and allowing for more detailed (and hence restrictive) articles to be split off per WP:Summary style, which could then focus on the useful, such as the living bridges, and the artistic, such as Reames' Arborsculpture. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree, the article does and should include both useful and artistic objects and indeed quirky objects including living furniture and living bridges, but the defining features of the subject of the article are the forming of the branches of living trees into the required shapes while the tree grows, very often, but not always, involving the joining of living branches by inosculation. Would you agree with that or would you describe the scope of the article in some other way and, if so, how? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes it is the roots that are shaped, and sometimes inosculation is not used. I think that the problem with the article is that it originally started out as being about what you are defining, and was called Arborsculture, and then an AfD occurred, and the article changed into being a more general article about shaping trees in general, and the name was changed to tree shaping. When I got involved it was a little after that, and I hadn't looked closely at the history, otherwise I might have suggested that the article be reverted to Arborsculpture, and a fresh article created on Tree shaping; however, that didn't happen, and the article developed into one quite clearly on Tree shaping. I did suggest during early discussions that an article could be created on Arborsculpture, though at that time I was still unaware of the early history. At this stage it seems to me that it would be far easier to keep this well developed and embracing article on the general shaping of trees, and to create sub-articles on more closely defined aspects of tree shaping. I would fully support you if you created an article on Arborsculpture. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again I agree with you. Sometimes the roots are involved and sometimes inosculation is not used and the article should cover both of these. The point is that we are still talking about a very specific subject and one that it is not easy to describe precisely. In many ways it is easier to say what the article does not cover. It is not Bonsai, Pruning, Topiary, or the training of fruit trees for example. Do we now both have in mind the same subject and scope? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have long felt that the article should include mention of Bonsai, Penjing, Topiary, and the training of fruit trees, and have noted that over the years that is the direction it has gone. I see those individual topics, as well as the living bridges and Arborsculpture as being sub-articles from Tree shaping. Tree shaping being the umbrella article (or trunk) out from which the detailed articles (or branches) grow. My view is that if the current Tree shaping article were moved to the title Arborsculpture, then a new article on Tree shaping would need to be made, and the Arborsculpture article would need to be altered to meet the more narrowly defined understanding of the term. In essence, I don't think that we two are essentially disagreeing, but that we have slightly different solutions. My feeling is that it would be easier to create a new Arborsculpture article than it would be to create a new Tree shaping article, as the Tree shaping article would essentially be a copy of the existing article, and the renamed Arborsculpture article would need to be re-written to narrow its focus. Much easier to simply create a new Arborsculpture article. But if people are willing to do it the other way round, then so be it. The end result would be the same. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We could change the whole article but it is now and always has been exclusively about, 'The forming of trees into useful, artistic, and quirky shapes by bending the branches and roots while it is growing and often (but not always) joining branches or roots by inosculation'. There never has been any mention of Bonsai, Penjing, Topiary because these are separate subjects with distinct names.
I would have no objection if somebody felt moved to start an article on all the different ways in which the shape of trees and other plants can be changed but that has never been what the current article has been about and I am not sure that such an article would get much support from the horticultural community.
I hope you would agree that what the article covers and historically has always covered is the quirky art that I have described above. What would you want to see removed before you would want to change the current title to 'arborsculpture'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Anything that predated arborsculpture, and any tree shaping that was useful and quirky rather than deliberately artistic, as well as techniques that were not within the remit of arborsculpture. Pretty much most of the article. The article is not, as I see it, about the practise of arborsculpture, but is about the various forms of tree shaping.
I have given my view in the discussion on the renaming of the article, and I have given my suggestion to you on how I feel the topic could be developed. I have no interest in writing the arborsculpture article myself, nor on developing the tree shaping article any further, and on a personal level it doesn't matter to me what the current article is called. I have provided to you my rationale for my position, and I hope that you can see that I have not approached that position lightly or flippantly. I don't have Tree shaping on my watchlist, so I don't know how the renaming is going, but I suspect that it will end up as no consensus and will remain as Tree shaping. However, if it does get moved to Arborsculpture, so be it. I don't think that my individual views matter, and while I am willing to engage with you in this matter if you feel it is helpful to you, I'm not convinced it is a productive use of our time. I am not seeing strong value in your arguments, and you are not seeing strong value in mine. It is like we are arguing for the relative merits of tea and coffee. Both are brown beverages containing caffeine that can be drunk hot or cold, with or without milk and sugar, and which both stimulate and refresh. But some people prefer tea, while others prefer coffee. It may be more appropriate at this stage to say that we agree to differ, and leave it at that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It is normal to use newly created words retrospectively. The name 'arborsculpture' was coined by Reames as a generic term to cover the whole of the subject of this article. We have evidence of its being used in reliable sources to refer examples the art from before Reames' time.
I am sorry that you do not wish to discus this matter further. I always prefer rational discussion to heated arguments. In this case it is clear to those (including the five newcomers to the discussion) that have taken more than a passing interest in the subject and have studied the sources and the origins and usage of the term 'arborsculpture' that this is the only term specifically used to refer to the subject of this artiocle.
You also seem to have overlooked the fact that 'tree shaping' is very widely used to means something completely different from anything mentioned in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Declined speedies

Hi SilkTork. Thank you for closing Wikipedia talk:Signatures of living persons#RfC on BLPSIGN as official policy. I've replaced the closing templates with {{subst:archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} for better visibility. Would you be able to close Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Declined speedies? My request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Declined speedies has received no response. Cunard (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cunard. I've put a link to those templates on my user page so hopefully I will remember to use them next time. I'll take a look at your request. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. By the way, the parameters for archive top consist of |result= which is for the summary and |status= which is for the header. Should the two parameters also be placed on your user page so you won't forget? Cunard (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I did consider that myself. Is it possible to include them in a template link? SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Although {{tl}} does not support parameters, I've looked at the other templates listed there and {{tlxb}} does. I've made the change to your user page. Cunard (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I've revised the link so the template won't be bolded. I used {{tlxs}}, so subst: will be included in the template. Wikipedia:Substitution#Templates that should always be substituted (the Wikipedia:Substitution#Misc. templates section) says that {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} should always be substituted. Cunard (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the closing the discussion. I hope the proponents for adding that wording heed your good advice about how to proceed. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features and other RfCs

Hi SilkTork. Would you close any of the following RfCs: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? If you don't have the time or inclination, then no worries. Save for MER-C (talk · contribs)'s closing of several discussions at the Main Page features RfC, they have not received attention after several weeks. Cunard (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi SilkTork, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser for the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign, we're interviewing as many of the very active and productive Wikipedians as we can to broaden the range of appeals we run come November. I wonder if you would want to tell me more about your experiences editing and writing here? If so, I'll ask you your personal story and I'll ask you some general questions about Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're interesting by emailing amuszalski@wikimedia.org. Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to help the Foundation raise money. You can email me your questions, or I'm quite happy to answer them here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Thanks I appreciate your note (and especially its subsequent addendum): it was respectful and instructive without being pedantic. I appreciate your perspective, but disagree with it. In case you really want to know what I have to say, there was a long AN/I discussion on this matter and I would be happy to post to your talk what I think. I am not inclined to fix these bare URLs, except in articles that matter to me and moving them to the talk page is not appropriate. As for moving them from the top of the page to the references section (note that I did start doing this), I would be willing to do this, but probably not tonight. Again, please understand that I appreciate your respectful tone and that I hope you detect no hint of sarcasm or bitterness in mine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Album chronologies

Recent change Per consensus, see Template:Infobox_album#Chronology. All albums (including EPs) are included in an artist's chronology in the infobox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The REM album chronology appears to be mixed up with films and dvds - was that part of the intention as far as you are aware? I was using the infobox as a handy way to get from one album to the other, but was misdirected a couple of times to films, which then resulted in a deviant route that didn't return to the albums. That wasn't helpful. I did note that some articles had a separate listing for compilation albums, and that seems useful. Is there one for dvds and videos as far as you are aware? SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I just checked, and there is a separate field for films and videos. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Blogs

Please read my comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Super_Mario_War_(2nd_nomination)#Super_Mario_War - I think you have misunderstood policy - There is no reason not to use Blogs as a reliable source - what is penalised is "self published sources" which are often presented in blog form.Imgaril (talk) 12:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I have - hopefully - clarified my position. We regard group blogs as sources to be used with care, and the sites in question are group blogs and use known bloggers. I am neither opposing nor supporting, simply passing a comment that the topic does not appear in unquestionable reliable sites, only in sites that need to be evaluated with care. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Beer Unity Party

Back in 2007, you proposed this article for deletion as non-notable. The prod was contested, but I agree that it is non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Unity Party. Robofish (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm surprised it's still here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft Beer Party

I have also nominated this article for deletion, which you also previously proposed for deletion. This one was previously kept at AFD, so the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft Beer Party (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartney

There is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. CuriousEric 23:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Grief! OK, left a comment. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Just curious, and maybe I'll regret asking, but can you point me to the nightmare that was "the Beatles" vs. "The Beatles?" CityOfSilver 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - just noticed this. Have a look at Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_25#the_or_The.3F. It spilled out all over the place, and there was an ArbCom request as well. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations are not acceptable links

Murmur is from 1983; there is no way it is going to be out of copyright, and there is no reason to believe that the "hosting" of it on some Romanian website is not going to be a copyright violation, and thus forbidden under WP:EL. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd believed that as it was a radio station owned by the Romanian government that they had bought the rights to broadcast the albums on their internet site. I'm shocked that you have information that a European country which is a member of NATO and the European Union should be guilty of such blatant copyright violations. Can you direct me to where you have read about this copyright violation? SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Indian intervention in Sri Lanka: The role of India's intelligence agencies. Gunaratna Rohan, 1993
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive_46&oldid=1068408302"