User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 6
 | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Re: A stunning moment
Thanks, SilkTork. Congratulations on your first userspace vandalism! :) Cheers, Sango123 (e) 21:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
"These islands"
Thanks for the thoughtful response on the UK/Britain/British Isles/B+I/whatever issue. As you have (re-)discovered, geography and politics can be a minefield, and (as often happens) Wikipedia has trashed through it already at least once. BrendanH 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you commented at the CfD debate for this category, I would like for you to also comment at the new CfD debate I started, because one important thing wasn't considered in the previous one. --cesarb 13:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Francs2000
What is going on here? Gordo 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I see you deleted a political link from the Roads article. I agree it's a political link, but it's a link to a Wikipedia article that is directly related to roads and their usage. As a result, I see no reason why it shouldn't be included in the roads article. I didn't put it there, and I looked for an excuse to AfD the article (I think anarchy is stupid), but in the end, it all looked legit. Please reconsider the deletion. Rklawton 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- ... excellent solution. Rklawton 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Im new here. I saw you deleted a load of links on the Downend, Bristol page. I live near Bristol so I noticed. Anyway, I also noticed there was a paragraph about Broad band access. Any way, Im really nervous about doing stuff that's wrong, and as you didnt delete it I thought maybe it was Ok. Anyway, I have deleted it butthought Id check with you wether you thought it was OK to delete it. I really dont want to make people angry when Ive only just started. Ciderbabe 17:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Hun! I'm going to try adding some information next as well as editing. Thanks for being my knight in shining armour! If you notice me getting stuff wrong, can you either tell me (gently!) on my talk page or email me, I'm suzanne (underscore) hocking at yahoo dot co dot uk. xx Ciderbabe 11:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've done some work on the Thatcher's Cider page. Do you mind having a look for me to make sure I haven't ruined the page? I won't keep pestering you, I promise! Ciderbabe 14:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks hun, yes that does look cool. I'll try and remember the codes for all the headings etc. Did you add the link to ratebeer.com? Is that OK for Wikipedia? I don't mind, but it does look a bit out of place, just a collection of people's marks on whether they like the cider or not... Anyway, thanks for holding my hand through my first couple of attempts. I'll have a bash on my own now, but you've got my email and my talk page if you need to set me straight on anything! (or just to say hello!). Thanks xxxx Ciderbabe 20:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Running categories
Hello! Several of the categories under Category:Running were changed around without edit summaries and/or discussion. Because no reason was provided for the change, I've reverted everything back as it was. However, I'm open discussing the matter (and have created a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Running so we can decide how to best categorize the articles here, and then rearrange appropriately based on consensus. -- MisterHand 04:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply...I hadn't thought about the wheelchair aspect of things...most of these races aren't 100% "foot" races. I'm going to revert myself on this one. -- MisterHand 10:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Image doubled
the image you placed in Necktie is a double; it's already in the article further down under the section "ties as a sign of membership." Would it not be better to find a new image for this article, rather than doubling up the one image? (respond here rather than on my talk page, my IP is dynamic so i probably wont end up getting it.) 82.82.175.70 12:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it would be better. Do you have an image? I don't have one. But the article needs an image up there. If you prefer not to have a double then delete the lower one. But having a double image is preferable to not having an image. It's the same as having text in the intro which is repeated in a more detailed section later on. Thanks for getting in touch. SilkTork 12:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SilkTork! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 17:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Beer pong good article nomination
Hi SilkTork,
There is now a different procedure for promoting articles to the status of good article.
Information on the new procedure can be found at the nominations page.
Please feel free to nominate beer pong if you feel it meets the criteria for a good article.
Cedars 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Beer Links
My bad, it looked like linkspam to me, sorry. Crazynas 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Nothing specific, it's just like normal RC, except the whole process is automated, I'd suggest you merge the global whitelist and admin list to cut down on the number of changes. :) Crazynas 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
White Space
Please stop making edits that only change whitespace like this Martin 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- An adjustment may be needed to the AutoWikiBrowser. If offered the correction - as it involved no textual abuse I accepted the change. There are many such incidents where the AWB tidies up unwanted white space. Hmmmmm. SilkTork 19:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Please add as much abuse, praise and puzzled comments as you wish. I am particularly fond of the praise. I am also very keen on Mr Kipling's Battenburg Treats.
Bristol
Hi Steve, a bit of advice if you get a moment. Like you I recently got the suggestbot to come up with some articles for me to play with. (Pub Names is one which requires me to sit down in a darkened room for several hours on end!). Anyway, first up was the stub Greater Bristol. I've looked at it and I'm not sure it should be an article at all. I've put something on the discussion page but thought I'd ask for your view on a couple of procedural issues.
1) Just out of interest, do you think Greater Bristol adds any value that Bristol doesn't?
2) If not, would this be a candidate for merger or deletion?
3) Depending upon (2) above, what is the procedure for formally proposing the article be deleted/merged?
Sorry to bother you with this, but I know you have studied and embraced both the procedures and the syntax far more than I. Feel free to refer this to another user/editor if you know of one who has particular expertise in this area.
Any thoughts on my talkpage or here gratefully accepted!
Cheers Duncshine 10:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. There is a Greater Manchester article and a Manchester article. There is also a Greater Birmingham article and a Birmingham article, though the Greater Birmingham article is very much a stub. It looks from the evidence of the Greater Manchester example that it is possible to produce a decent article, but that may not be the case for every region. You could propose a merger and see what other editors say. This page gives advice: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Essentially you put this tag {{merge|Greater Bristol}} on the Bristol page and {{merge|Bristol}} on the Greater Bristol page. And then you put your reasons for the suggested merge on the talk page. Good luck! SilkTork 11:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cheers Steve, I've added the tags and reasons, we'll see what people think. I think Greater Manchester and Greater London definitely deserve articles as they are legal entities in their own right. Bristol and Birmingham are slightly different. Anyway, we'll see what the concensus is. Thanks for the tips. Duncshine 11:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you very much for your support for my recent RfA, which I'm quite happy to announce has passed with a consensus of 67 supporting, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. I'm glad I meet your criteria. Most of all, I'm glad you took the time to evaluate my candidacy, as I believe that's what keeps RfA running smoothly, and I'll be working hard to justify the vote of confidence you've placed in me. Please let me know at my talk page if I can assist you with any admin-related tasks, or just if you have any comments on my performance as an admin. Thanks! TheProject 02:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
RFA thanks
- Awesome! Glad to have helped. SilkTork 22:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Coquitlam Station
Yes it should, the name "Coquitlam Station" now is an abbreviation of Coquitlam Central Station, though there is a future station on the same line that is going to be called Coquitlam Station....(confusing, but eh, it's the government) And yeah, you're right, a greater distinction should be made about those two stations in the article. _dk 23:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Encounter categorization
Are you certain a CIA publication run mostly by Americans should be in the category "Literary magazines of the United Kingdom?" I have no strong objections at all -- just asking. The categorization strikes me as a bit of a stretch (but only a bit). Best, Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-04 13:27 (UTC)
- No problem. I have returned it to the more embracing cat which is less contentious. SilkTork 13:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Rugby help
Hey, sorry for the late reply. The only way a move could be arranged would be to move all the subpages of the Portal as well. However, before you do that, please make sure you have a consensus on the talk page of the Portal. You may also need to use Wikipedia:Requested moves so that more people get to know about the proposed move. If you need any further help, please feel free to ask. Cheers, Tangotango 08:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm cool with the situation as is. The move created a redirect from Rugby football to Rugby so the Portal link now works. Your message, however, has reminded me to leave a note on the Portal talk page mentioning the situation. Cheers! SilkTork 08:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Blocking
Thanks. I appreciate your comments. I was very reluctant to block him. Normally admins who are party to disputes don't do so. There are sometimes exceptions: where, for example, a serious issue arises where immediate action is called for and no other admin can be found to act. That was what happened on that case. When he went to his fourth revert he was reported by 172 to the 3RR page. I did two things. I added a note explaining the background to his report, and left a note on Feline's page pointing out the fact that he had breached 3RR and advised him to revert his revert. Had he done so I would have left a note on the 3RR page asking that he not be blocked. At a very minimum having hit four he should have stopped.
The problem was that, not alone did he not stop and not revert, he did a fifth revert, with comments that indicated that he would go on to do more. In those circumstances in the past admins, even where they are a party to an edit war, have stepped in if no one else was available. I did so because there was a real danger that with 5 reverts to his name, and a likely 6th or more, others who had reached 3 would then decide that they would also break 3RR, if only to stop him. So we could have had two, three or more reverting each other over and over until some admin got to them. The whole edit war would have become much worse, with bad blood all over, and accusations as to who started what first, etc.
As I said, it is very very rarely that admins have to put on their admin hat during an edit war that they are involved in and we all are very very slow to do that. I was worried that if he wasn't stopped, and did a 6th and beyond, we'd have a stampede of others saying "hey, if he can get away with this, so can I". I judged the case to be one of those very rare exceptions where an admin had to intervene. I have only ever done that once before that I can remember of. In that case, as with last night, I imposed the standard block (not a higher one, even though having climbed to 5 reverts a higher one was deserved). I placed a note at three places: on the relevant talk page where the edit war had been taking place, at the 3RR page, and at WP:ANI, explaining what I had done, why I had done it, and asking for admins to review the decision. (Often the standard procedure there is for another admin to unblock the blocked user, then immediately reblock them but in their own name.) It didn't arise in last night's case, but had it I would also have done what I did on the other occasion, which was to withdraw completely from the debate until an independent review of the block had taken place. (I had already done 3RR so I wouldn't have been doing any edits anyhow, but if I not done the three, I would have backed out of the debate.) I was completely upfront about what I had done and why I had done it, stood back and left it to other admins, once they became available, to review it. Normally admins don't undo a block without discussing it with the blocking admin first. I had it clear in the messages I left that I was leaving it up to them to decide on the issue. If they decided the block was wrong, or too long, or too short, that would be OK by me.
I fully appreciate your concerns. I didn't want to be placed in that position. I acted in what I believed to be the best interests of Wikipedia to stop a whole host of others joining in to follow his breaking of 3RR. I did it publicly, and made sure it was fully public, not a secret block that no-one knew about. I asked for it to be reviewed, publicly. The response I received, both publicly on the pages and privately via email, was that I was right to block him. While 4 reverts can be explained away as an accident, a fifth, when someone has already been told they have breached 3RR, with edit summaries threatening more, in the views of other admins, required immediate actions and they viewed my actions are proportional, well judged, and upfront. I hated to be placed in that situation. With a bit of luck I won't be placed in that situation again for a long long time.
Thank you for letting me know. As I say, I understand fully your worries. It was something I normally would not dream of doing. But given the number of reverts and the threats to do more, I felt that, reluctantly, I had no choice but to put my proverbial admin had on and intervene. (BTW in the past, when he exceeded 3RR I have blocked my best friend. So even though I was in an edit war with Feline, when it comes to exercising blocks I instinctively adopt a neutral stance. Had it been someone who agreed with me on that page I would have blocked them also. I hope Feline realises that it was because he broke 3RR (and in fact climbed to 5) not because he had clashed with me, that he was blocked. I have in the past blocked people I admired and unblocked people I detested!)
FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 00:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
My point is that you were part of the revert war. He was guilty of three reverts and more because he had been pushed in that direction by yourself. As he pointed out, you were on the limit of three reverts yourself. Three reverts is not something that you are allowed to do because that's the limit - it's a guide to suggest that a war is happening. To be honest I think both of you at this point need a serious talking to. You are both out of order. By going up to the three limit revert, and then blocking, you are playing to the rules of the game, but not the spirit. Sometimes these things happen - such is the nature of wiki stress. But you should now stand back and take a look at the situation. The first stage in coming to a consensus on The British Isles and moving forward is for you to accept, even privately to yourself, that just perhap - just a tiny bit - you might have reacted out of passion rather than understanding. That just perhaps - just a tiny bit - you have a different point of view, but you are forcing your point of view through blocking another user rather than through debate or other appropriate strategies. As for comments of support - at the last count I saw three comments critical of your action. We all get into debates about content. My advice is that when you get into a heated debate it is better to explain yourself fully and revert just once a day. Don't push the other person into a revert war. As an admin you have a resonsibility to be behaving much better than the other guy. You should be leading by example. At the moment the example is of you engaging in a revert war and blocking when you run out of reverts. And then, when the questionable nature of your action is pointed out, you argue that you did the right thing! SilkTork 08:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is inaccurate on numerous fronts. I do not block people I am in edit wars with. I did not in this case. That user was in edit wars with a number of people. Unlike everyone else he chose to go beyond 3 reverts and was reported for blocking (not by me). I urged him to step back. He then continued edit warring with other people a fourth time, then a fifth time, and declared his intention to do a sixth and as many more as he could. In normal circumstances having done his fourth he would have been automatically banned by an admin. It was purely by chance that none was available. I would not have intervened even on his fifth reversion, though users who reach that number have been blocked by some users for anything from 3 days to one week. But when having done his fifth he declared his intention to do a sixth, a seventh and as many as he could get away with, while taunting the numerous people he had been in edit wars with that he could keep going while they in effect chickened out at three. In those circumstances a ban (usually quite a long one) is automatic. It was purely by chance that at that moment no admin was around. If he had been allowed to continue, many of those who had stopped at 3 could well have decided 'well fuck it. If he can get away with it, so can I' and started doing extra reverts. In those exceptional circumstances, where a user would normally have been blocked but hadn't been simply because at that moment no-one was around to do it, it is normal for an admin, even if they had been party to the edit war, to intervene and do the block. What do you suggest I do? Let him revert up to eight, nine, ten? Have other users then join in and have a three or four way revert war which could have seen five or more users having to be be blocked? Let the page descend into chaos? It is standard, and normal, in those extreme cases for someone in my position to intervene once it is done (i) openly, (ii) honestly, (iii) in a way that does not see the admin gain any form of advantage by the intervention.
- I advertised the block openly on 3 pages, gave an honest explanation for exactly what I did and the reasoning behind it, and withdrew from editing the page. As it so happened having done three reverts I could not have continued editing anyway, but even if I hadn't I would have withdrawn completely from editing the page until a totally independent admin became available and reviewed the block. The block was reviewed by independent admins and they judged by actions in the circumstances to have been right. They were right in that emergency situation. I hope a similar situation does not arise again for a long long time but if I does, like other admins, I will act in exactly the same manner: (1) urge the person breaking 3RR to stop; (2) wait in expectation that an admin will intervene; (3) if no admin is available and the situation is getting out of control block the user breaking WP rules; (4) advertise the fact openly and honestly, (5) withdraw from the editing of the page until the another admin can review the block.
- I am fed up having to explain what was a perfectly correct, perfectly open action, done under Wikipedia rules to deal with an emergency. It was Feline who was 100% at fault, not me. He acted dishonestly and broke the rules. I acted openly and honestly and enforced them. I have nothing to apologise for. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 00:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you are "fed up", and I will now leave you in peace. However, I strongly suggest you do not again use admin tools against another user with whom you are in dispute - if nothing else, just to save yourself from this sort of questioning! Calling differences of opinion on the wording of an article an "emergency" is perhaps a little strong, and it is not encouraging that you are unable to reflect on the implications of this situation. Be that as it may, happy editing! SilkTork 09:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Paul Geisert
I have reverted my own closing of the AfD in light of what you said, but please note: If you say in your nomination that what you already have in mind is anything other than deletion, others are likely to call for a speedy close. Don't mention redirecting in your nomination, if you want the discussion to proceed naturally. Kimchi.sg 03:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Points noted. Thanks for the revert. SilkTork 08:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the matter, SilkTork; now I understand the situation, I have retracted my call for a speedy close and replaced it with a vote for the outcome we both desire. My apologies for the inconvenience. — Haeleth Talk 12:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There has been a great deal of debate going on over the future of the World cup article, both on its page and the talk pages of its major contributors. Although it may ultimately become a redirect, I hope you would consider undoing the changes you have made until a consensus can be reached. Erath 11:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Clothing categories
You might want to join the discussion on recategorizing other clothing articles in Talk:History of Western fashion#Resolving_the_Edit_War and following. - PKM 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've had a quick look. Seems quite involved. I'll take a closer look when I have more time. SilkTork 20:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. - PKM 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Misleading edit summaries, in bulk
I notice you're making a large number of edits where you delete a category from an article, but you enter a misleading edit summary saying "clean up"[1], or "fixing double category"[2]. What's up here? —Michael Z. 2006-07-10 13:19 Z
Really, I'd like an explanation before you continue[3] what appears to be sneaking a massive number of changes. How was this a double category? —Michael Z. 2006-07-10 13:33 Z
- Hi Michael. I was removing the Microbrewery cat which has been replaced by the Beer and breweries cat. It was a formal consensus decision to recategorise the brewery cats. However, at the time the Beer and breweries cat replaced all the other brewery cats the Microbrewery cat was somehow left behind, creating a double brewery cat. I have closed down the Microbrewery cat and removed the Microbrewery cat tag from the thirty or so breweries affected. Thanks for your concern. SilkTork 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
[moving discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer#Removing category:Microbreweries —MZ]
Your opinion please.
Please see Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles#Request_for_comment_suggestion regarding your comments made in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Buell_Anderson. I hope that I correctly voiced your earlier concerns. Ste4k 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- That topic is very involved and will require considerable reading and research. I will give my opinion, but please bear with me because it may take some time. Cheers! SilkTork 22:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
{{clothingstub}} and Category:Clothing stubs
First of all, STOP. Secondly, your out-of-process creations have been discovered and listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, and may later be taken to WP:SFD. Just in general, in order to create a new stub type and category, one must propose it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals and get consensus, besides for which your creations do not conform to our naming conventions. OK - a discussion will now take place. Please don't change over any more stubs for now. Thanks. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 11:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. Those were my first attempts at creating a stub type. I haven't done any work on them since creating them. I'll be guided by your advice. SilkTork 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Crzrussian is right. If you'd taken the time to read the instructions you'd have known to go to WP:WSS/P, and would have been told that the naming guidelines for stub templates insist on a hyphen between the topic and the word stub. Grutness...wha? 11:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- There was one stub template {{fashion-stub}}. I copied that template and created two new templates: {{fashionstub}} and {{clothingstub}}, and created a new stub category - the clothing one. I then set about searching through the {{fashion-stub}} list, deleting that stub and replacing it with either {{fashionstub}} or {{clothingstub}} depending on whether the article was about fashion or about clothing. SilkTork 11:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC) PS. Nothing to get annoyed about. I made a mistake. You guys are fixing it. I'm glad you spotted the error. I'm slightly embarrassed is all! SilkTork 11:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Train stations: kicking the hornet's nest
Well, we've gotten everyone riled up on this one, haven't we? Mangoe 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Next kick: delete Amtrak station stops. Mangoe 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Not yet, but at some point after sufficient discussion, we should pull together all the comments and ideas and see what form of consensus we have for saying that the proposal has the agreement of enough editors for it to be a proposed policy. I've just found this, which may be of help: Wikipedia:How to create policy. SilkTork 08:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
There's also this: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines SilkTork 08:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated the portal approval page for deletion
Since you pinged me concerning the village pump discussion on this page, I thought it only courteous to return the favor concerning the page deletion nomination. You can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals.
--Transhumanist 03:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you did. I thought about it, but wondered if it might be considered disruptive. Anyway, whatever happens, the Portal guys might decide to alter their approach. They appear to be genuinely well-meaning, and hadn't considered the implications of what they were doing. SilkTork 12:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation template
Hello, SilkTork. I noticed that you put a copyright violation notice on Talk:Channel 4 - The 100 Greatest albums. The copyright violation template should go on the article page instead of the talk page. Also, the article should be blanked first. Thanks, Kjkolb 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for letting me know. I'll make the adjustment. SilkTork 09:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Freeway/motorway/whatever category
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The Round Table
So you didn't think much of The Round Table, then? Warning: avoid the place on the 2nd of September. Noisy | Talk 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Homelessness article -- part removed ?
Hi Steve. Anonymous contributor User:70.191.174.29 (User_talk:70.191.174.29) just removed your addition "The problem in developed countries" from 8th July 2006 to the article on Homelessness citing it as an "op-ed". I think it was meant to be balanced in your writing, so I will try to re-insert it. I don't know what will happen after that. Perhaps discussion. One avoids edit wars ! Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I do remember doing some work on that article when it lacked direction. I hope it has kept both a sense of direction, a worldview and a balance which I put into it. After that, well, it's up to others. The problem with Wiki is the people who mess up decent articles - possibly in good faith, but lacking in insight and knowledge. SilkTork 00:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
How's things?
Just lookin' in to say Hi, and that I've just copied your pic of Rochester bridge onto Wikimedia Commons, which is a central library for all the Wikimedia Foundation projects (eg other language Wikipedias). You can upload stuff directly there, rather than at Wikipedia, if you want to make it generally available.
D'you know, whenever I see your pic, I think, "But I know this guy." I left Medway in 1987, so I doubt it. On the other hand, I was at school (John Fisher) with a bunch of Pereiras, but I'm about 13 years younger than you, so that can't be it either...
People you surely do know (are one of?) however, are The Medway Poets - with their very own article! Wow. User:Tyrenius has been asking me for more material on them, but I'm not in a position to find much. Something you'd like to do, or are they The Enemy?
Congrats on wedding, btw - hope you it is/was a blast. JackyR | Talk 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
...And maybe I'll even put this on your Talk page, rather than in your archive... (*sigh*) JackyR | Talk 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I will get back to you shortly. You sound like an interesting person. Thanks for the congrats! SilkTork 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Faluche
I saw from history of Bitard that you had translated the article from French, so I suppose I can assume that you are a French speaker. I also found the related article Faluche, which looks like it had been machine-translated or translated by someone who is not a native English speaker. I did a lot of cleanup on it in an attempt to fix the English, but I am not a French speaker, so some of it was not clear to me as to how it should be translated. If you have the time and inclination, perhaps you might have a go at it. The article also exists in the French Wikipedia. The article is actually pretty interesting and needs to be cleaned up somewhat. •DanMS 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hackney
It's the title of a record [5], which tells the tale of a young man's first experience of a Squat party in Hackney, oddly enough! One Night In Hackney 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Sounds like the night in Kent was even worse. Guy can't even speak after THAT experience! SilkTork 02:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Reviving the dead
You're of course welcome to revive discussion about the beer page, but removing the "historical" tag doesn't really accomplish that. I'd advise you to advertise the page (e.g. at the village pump) to draw in more participants. >Radiant< 09:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Mmmm. So should I have left the "historical" tag on the page even when I am reviving the discussion and moving it to a wider audience? I'm not quite sure of the purpose or benefit of your historical tag. If you could explain the purpose of it I might see the value of putting it back. SilkTork 10:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, feel free to remove it, but when I made my statement here you hadn't moved the page to a wider audience. It's just that I sometimes get people who think that the historical tag stops people from discussing the matter, and that removing the tag will magically cause more people to weigh in. >Radiant< 10:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's cool. And the purpose of the tag? At the time the page was embedded in the Beer Project pages. There are other pages in the Project that haven't been edited for a while - should those pages also get "historical" tags? What does the "historical" tag actually do? SilkTork 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, just the proposals. The tag is simply an indication that "there is, at present, no ongoing debate on this, so you shouldn't expect an answer if you make a post on the talk page here". It's just there to indicate this to people, and doesn't really "do" anything. >Radiant< 10:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that makes sense. But without the tag the proposal is still open, and people can add to it. The tag itself discourages participation and involvement. Would you be good enough to point me to the discussion that took place when that tag was created? SilkTork 13:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Because the red cross and general tone of the tag might put editors off reviving the discussion, I have changed the image and reworded the tag to reflect what I hope is the intention of the tag while at the same time not discouraging further debate. What do you think? SilkTork 14:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point here :) there was no discussion to add that tag, that tag is added precisely because of the fact there was no discussion. It's explained somewhat at WP:POL, though. >Radiant< 23:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make myself clear. I meant what was the general intention of the tag, and where was the discussion to set up the tag in the first place so I could see what the intention was. But, with you help, I've worked it out, and I've made what I feel is the appropriate alterations to the tag to make it appear less hostile. The way it stood, with a red cross, it appeared as though the person placing the tag was making a decision that the discussion was over, even though the person placing the tag may not be fully informed of the issues. A slight shift in wording, and it should now look as though a person is suggesting that, to use your words, "you shouldn't expect an answer if you make a post on the talk page here", which is a friendly and helpful point to make. SilkTork 11:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)