![]() | 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. |
Happy New Year! SilkTork * SilkyTalk 08:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Saw your work done on Prague, quite nice if unforgiving. Please take a look at Budapest too if you feel like, I know you'll have plenty to criticize (lead, abundance of photos, history). Gregorik ( talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The
December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
SilkTork, I'm sure you're feeling a little beat up right now; Giano's work is held in high esteem by a lot of people, and your focus on articles he has been lead collaborator on has come at a very sensitive time. It does not appear you've done a lot of work with the Featured Article crew before, and they take things extremely seriously. If it is an area where you want to spend more focused wiki-time, you might want to start out following a few of the FACs to see what the entire process is from nomination, through critique, improvement and finally acceptance. Help out with copy editing. Open the window in edit mode to see how references are done at that level. Those sorts of things. Not everyone is cut out to be a feature article writer; I'm more a copy editor myself, my writing is certainly more pedestrian though I think I will be able to pull off some GAs in the near future.
Your stated goal is to improve referencing of articles. Ones that have already been through the mill once, and ones which are primarily sourced to off-line information, are probably the ones of lowest concern. You might want to try Special:Lonelypages, articles that need wikifying and (often) referencing; or ask SuggestBot to give you a list of articles that need work. This is a big place, and there are a lot of really awful articles that can use your attention. If you want to take up a new subject, I know that the professional wrestling articles desperately need help in cleaning up BLP violations and properly sourcing information. Best, Risker ( talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm mostly waiting until you've stopped editing the article to go through what is and isn't still there (!) as you don't appear to be using the preview button and it keeps on coming! Don't get me wrong, some of it is clearly good stuff, though I do have worries about some stuff getting dropped, hopefully by accident. As you are clearly 'going at it' maybe you might want to include something about the sheep that use to roam free until before the second World War (but weren't brought back afterwards as it was felt that they would get immediately stolen!) and the fact that much of it was dug over during WW2 to provide vegetable crops. -- AlisonW ( talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi - replied on my talkpage. -- Paularblaster ( talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
Awarded to SilkTork for patience, perseverance and focus in helping bring the Karyn Kupcinet article into shape. May you never be haunted by the name James Ellroy. Thanks so much!! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks! I've polished it and put it on my mantelpiece. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 08:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience | |
I present this Zen Award to SilkTork for somehow finding sanity in an insane situation and for being incredibly understanding even when I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Thanks so much for your help. Pinkadelica ( talk) 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
Cool! I hope that everything goes smoothly from now on. I'm always here if you need me again. Thanks. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been changing "Footnotes" to "References." Is footnotes inappropiate? Why? Is it worth the effort to change since both seem appropriate. Let me know as inquiring minds like mine want to know. Best and HAPPY NEW YEAR! ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
One additional thing: because PLOT denotes a work of FICTION, should not the PLOT section in documentary films be/remain synopsis? I think it should. Thanks. ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey have a safe trip to Brussels. If on business, do something for yourself as well (I see you like beer, visit a different beer hall, ha!). Best-- Luigibob ( talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious why you're adding "References" sections to articles that don't have any <ref>'s. Frankly, this doesn't make sense to me and I'm wondering if you've thought it through. You can answer here. RedSpruce ( talk) 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you "prose" tagged the "Cast" section for 12 Monkeys. Any particular reason? A cast section will always be a list due to its content ... or not? Greetings TINYMark ( Talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork,
I have updated the year of the release of Bad Day (film) to 2008, as this is when hopefully the film will be released.
Thank you
DJ Pomfret
Dear Silk Tork. I am unsure what kind of information you are seeking. Brussels is the capital of the Kingdom of Belgium. That state has three, not two, official languages. To me, it would appear sensible to include the name of the city in all official languages of the country run from it (as is the case, e.g., on French wikipedia). I don't think the number of German-speakers who live in the city or region is relevant here, as opposed to the official status of the language in question in the country in question. (edit conflict) That's why my edits summary stated German is one of the official languages of Belgium, of which Brussels is the capital. athinaios | Talk 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of London's transport system.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
— From the members of WikiProject London Transport
Unisouth ( talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{ Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. -- Russ (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all with you taking Willow Creek Pass (Montana) to deletion review, probably a good idea. I would certainly not be offended at all, and more discussion about it would be a good thing. Thanks for letting me know. -- Canley ( talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it was AWB or you who removed the 250px parameter in this edit], but it quadrupled the size of the image and probably resulted in a violation of fair use. If you did it by mistake, no problem; I fixed it. It it was done by AWB, you might want to see what the problem is. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for sorting that. It's a new version of AWB that updated when I opened it today, and I noticed it's been altering some images. I've gone back and corrected them - but I missed that one. I'm keeping an eye out on when and why it does it - I think it's when there is a forced size - AWB appears to be removing not only the size forcing, but also the thumb instruction which keeps images to max width of 250. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your question at WJBscribe's talkpage after I made a small grammar fix, and I thought you should know that Acalamari reverted your vote. [1] Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 04:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It was an unexpected find. I didn't even notice the shift when I first looked at the decline in editing over October 2006. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason you are closing an AFD that I relisted yesterday? The reason it was relisted was there had not been a notice on the article since the day it was posted so people involved in those type of articles may not have seen the listing. - Djsasso ( talk) 16:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the award. That's very kind of you. Cheers. ArthurWeasley ( talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) Working on the backlog at AfD, I noticed that the bots weren't properly cataloging this one as closed. I think on investigation that it may be because you put the closure template below the header, here. The template needs to go above the header, and I think now I know why. :) I've reformatted this one, and the bot seems to be handling it correctly now. I realize this could have been a one-off accident, but in case it was something you didn't know, I wanted to point it out to you. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologise for the language that i used when posting on two different discussion, i know that i offended you, and it will not happen again, that i can promise. -- Tom.mevlie ( talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User - or straight to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area. You have a choice of asking someone to adopt you by putting {{subst:dated adoptme}} on your user page, or select someone from this list. Good luck. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 12:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
User:David Fuchs is very good. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 12:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou, even though i offended you, you still seem to want to help, which i think is great, a great thing about the human race. I contacted a user who shares my passion in ancient histort, and once again, thankyou.-- Tom.mevlie ( talk) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You edited the Stafford entry stating that RAF Stafford was a non-flying station... I know it has no runway, but what about the helicopters that would frequently overfly my house on their way in to land? :)
Coob ( talk) 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you changed the Section headings I set up for this article from Notes and References to References and Bibliography. I am interested to know why you did this. I believe the style I have been using is one of the established ones in Wiki eg for the Vivien Leigh article. I find the use of Notes and References to be clean - with Notes standing for Footnotes and References for the list of works consulted. My experience is that the heading Bibliography is used ambiguously in Wiki - some use it the way you have here but others use it for the list of an author's work in articles about authors. To avoid this confusion, I use Works for the list of works in author articles. In other words, I don't use the Bibliography heading at all. I'd be interested in your comments on this. It's not something I'd die in a ditch over but I've written over 20 articles now using the Notes -- References approach and wonder if they are all going to be changed? If I should change? Cheers Sterry2607 ( talk) 06:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sterry. Thanks for drawing my attention to that - there were a couple of errors I made when doing the AWB sweep over that article. The References / Notes thing is down to personal choice - we have no hard and fast rules on it. Though when usage is scattered and inconsistent there can be confusions. This guide Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2FExternal_links is short though useful. I tend to use References for the section which lists the reference sources used in the article - and I prefer that to Notes, which can be used for a number of other things. Footnotes would be for comments on the article which are not references. External links would be to send people to a website which has information on the article, and a bibliography would be to send people to books on the article. Further reading would be when the websites and books are mixed together. That's my understanding and how I like to work. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 08:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks SilkTork for your prompt response. This whole area in Wikipedia is, as you say, quite inconsistent. I regularly look at the Wiki help articles such as the one you cite (and when I read that one it doesn't seem to me to indicate that the way I had done it was wrong), as well as actual Feature articles for guidance. It seems you and I see this aspect of Wiki articles a little differently: I see Notes as being used for citations and comments if any, References for the list of works actually used in the article (it can include works not cited but it should include all cited works), External Sites for links to additional sources of information that were not used in compiling the article, and Further Reading for a list of books and other printed material that contain additional information but that weren't used in compiling the article. I see these as all separate sections. I guess my question is that if this is all down to personal choice, does the way it was initially done in Back of Beyond need to be changed? Can you point me to some articles done your way so I can better understand what you mean? I do have a slightly alternative way of doing it which I've seen in Feature articles but I'm not sure that it is what you are thinking. Sterry2607 ( talk) 10:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. If I give you some background to what I am doing it may help your decision to change what I have done. I am going on a sweep through all the film articles with the intention of tidying up certain areas, one of which is the References section. I have chosen to use the approach I outlined above, so that at the end of the sweep the film articles should all have a reference section and should have a consistent feel to the reference section, following what appears to me to be the use I have encountered most often and which appears to have a the wider consensus for clarity - though other uses, including yours are encountered. I understand and expect that what I do can be changed in certain circumstances where someone closely working on an article may have a valid rationale for doing things in a different way.
SO there are two possible issues here, which you can help with. One is to do with having a consistent approach to the references section in the film articles. The approach can be different to the one I have started, and can either be the approach you use or another approach. If you feel there are particular benefits to an alternative approach to the one I am using then lets talk about that and if it would alter a significant amount of film articles, raise the issue on the FilmProject to get a wider consensus. If you feel that the approach I am using is acceptable, that is also fine, and - as it appears to be the approach already in widespread use - we wouldn't need to seek consensus to bring the non-standard approaches in line.
The other issue is that your approach to Referencing in The back of beyond is particularly suited to that article, and the particular use of it in that article is strong enough for it to be different to the the referencing approach used in other film articles. If that is the case - and you would know that - then you would be right to change it back.
Is that clear? I'm at work and keep getting distracted by real life so I have written this over a space of a few hours by snatching a moment here and there! SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 13:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks SilkTork. I think I will change it back (becaue I particularly like this style when the majority of sources are printed) but I might play with a variation on the theme that I've seen in several feature articles (including I think Casablanca (film). OK? Enjoy your real life - I retired last year so Wiki IS real life for me - sorta! Sterry2607 ( talk) 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Notes/Reference style used in Casablanca is one I have seen used in a few other articles as well. It stands well alone, and I like it. I used a similar approach myself in Beer for a while. There is no real objection to it, other than what is called Notes is called References in most other articles. It's what happens, and isn't a problem. We don't NEED to have a consistency across all of Wiki, though it makes it easier and more attractive for the majority of people. As Wiki develops so various Projects are drawing up style guidelines to ensure a consistency that people feel comfortable with. I'm not manic about it, as I'm not manic about anything on Wiki, but when my sweep gets to Casablanca I'm likely to change the reference section so it is consistent with the other film articles. If someone who is fond of that layout changes it back, I'm not going to be bothered. I'll have moved on by then anyway. Eventually, over time, all articles will have a consistent layout, and it will come to pass that someone else will make the change to Casablanca to using References instead of Notes, and Bibliography in place of References. Or, a different layout approach will be in place, and everything I have done will be changed! What will be will be!
I know what you mean about Wiki being real life. I was off work for a while and spent A LOT of time on here doing beer articles. It became quite an obsession. It's good to have a break now and get to get a sense of perspective and fresh air. Have you got involved in any back stage stuff? Writing guidelines and such? Man, that's intense at times. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 08:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would think you could make a strong case for fair use, since the subject has died. It would be impossible to create a free version, though you should search for a free version, though that would also be unlikely as she wasn't notable before hand (I think) and not likely to have any pictures of her other than from her family which might not release a free version, though you may wish to contact them and request one. Once you have searched and attempted a request for a free one (wait a few weeks at least), you could then upload it to Wikipedia under fair use and apply a rationale. I would take this one and crop it down some (it will help satisfy your requirement of reduced size). Use a rationale template and you'll be fine. I can help more when you get to that point. For requesting permission, see WP:COPYREQ. Good luck! MECU≈ talk 13:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing this situation. Kind of perplexing to wake up in the morning to a random attack from a stranger. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The
February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Me again. :) I just wanted to note that when you merge an article, as set out at Help:Merge, you need to include a wikilink to the destination article in the source article edit summary as well as in the destination article. This is important to make sure that future admins know not to delete the article, as for GFDL compliance we have to preserve the history of merged material. When I closed the AfD of Biblical Numerology, I did note your merger in the edit summary, so that's done. This is just for future reference. Happy editing. -- Moonriddengirl (talk)
I moved the article and it's history to User:SilkTork/Pushead. If you are able to salvage the article you will want to move it it back to Pushead. Even if you are not able to salvage it we will need to move it back so I can re-delete it there and save the history. Jeepday ( talk) 13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here for some suggestions about how to clean up the problem, and add your ideas. Thanks! Noroton ( talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I have asked that your recent MFD be closed because it is not the right venue for that type of discussion, you can see my comments here -- Fredrick day ( talk) 12:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have closed the debate on this matter as a Procedural Close. MfD is for the deletion of entire pages, not for specifc sections as you propose. Your concern is well taken, and I can't say I disagree - but the proper venue to discuss the matter is probably Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or, alternatively, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey it's me. I trust you are well. I just got pushed back by an editor who changed Rerences to Notes. I rev and said as per MOS:FILM it's References. See: Anatomy of a Murder. Whatchathink? Any news in this area? I mean there is difference when writing in Wiki? Most of the articles I do use Footnotes as is standard in scholarly work, but I've changed to References as per you suggestion. Let me know your thoughts? Best -- Luigibob ( talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Although we disagree about this BLP/BIO thing, I appreciate your notifying me. I think you've found the forum you were looking for at Village Pump:Policy, and you'll get plenty of vigorous discussion and plenty of participation. I think you've got a good chance of prevailing, too. It's good to get these discussions away from just a small number of editors. Again, thanks! Noroton ( talk) 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the prod you placed on a number of articles as they turned out to be notable per WP:BIO. Tabercil ( talk) 02:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I closed all three of your afd's, as it appears it was done for the shear notion as to make a point. I'd advise that you next time consider discussing a contested prod before directly going to articles for deletion. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned by the PROD on the Pavel Novotny article. This was how it appeared at the time of your prod notation, and not only does it pass WP:BIO, it names the award that leads to its inclusion. Looking at your contribs, you added a bunch of prod tags, many of which have been reversed, and I'm concerned that you aren't assessing these articles with sufficient care. Jay*Jay ( talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As I feel the porn star Lilli Xene is notable enough under WP:PORNBIO I've removed the PROD tag you added and instead "upgraded" it to AFD as I feel there should be discussion. 23skidoo ( talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you mean to do this? Or was it a TW bug? -- GRuban ( talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The appearance of all three of your AFD's made me think you had done it in bad faith. However, I do still believe that discussion over the talk or user talk pages would have been more effective. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Oxyman42. While looking into the situation at Inventions in the Islamic world I noticed User:Oxyman and User:79.68.135.210 also made edits on the article. Oxyman's name is very similar to yours and edits on similar articles. If this is indeed yourself then take a look at Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Alternative_account_notification and follow the instructions. It might be as well if the other account is not yourself, to inform a checkuser that the other account is not yourself in order to avoid potential future problems. The IP account made a revert edit which could be seen as your account avoiding the three revert rule. As you know, it's bad enough to edit war to the third degree, but it's considered even worse to mask that third degree revert by using a sock puppet account. Taking a quick look at your talk page I see you have previously used a sock puppet and then deleted the information. My inclination now is to report this situation in order to ensure transparency and trust. I'd be interested to hear what you say before I do that, however I may go ahead and report within the next hour if I don't get an immediate response. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 09:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your kind thought and award...it came at a necessary time in my Wiki-days........ Your amigo always, Luigibob ( talk) 13:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the major issues I see in WikiProject Films as well as in other groups is in dealing with a consistent referencing format and a clear example of that issue is the use of the "References" section. The use of "Notes" is now established as a part of the references section and when you use other sources, they are part of a "Bibliography" and not a "Further reading" section which implies that these are ancillary sources. This style guide is employed in WP:Aviation and as a format, see the use of Aviation:Films and the multiple uses within this category.
The use of this convention has been very carefully screened since a Swedish editor implemented it last year. It follows and fits MoS guides and has not been reverted even once (well, once- in the case of this article). Admins and other experienced editors use this format throughout the Aviation group. The reason for its implementation was the nonstandard use of references as a "catch-all section" when in fact they incorporated an endnotes or footnotes section and a bibliographical record. The "Further reading" section is just what it says, further to the article's research sources. My background is as a reference librarian and presently, author/editor for a number of publishing houses. See: 49th Parallel, It's A Wonderful Life, The Right Stuff (film) and countless other film articles for examples of this use of referencing.
As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available)< style guides> for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.
This is the reference guide that editors may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."
Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In The Rocketeer (film) article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.
I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "The Rocketeer (film)" citation/reference notes. The "true style" is primarily use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet.
As to the website citations, the simplest system is all that is required as per editor Jeff Finlayson's suggestion. [1] and [2] FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. The simpler form should predominate, not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system. You may have to read this background note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations.
Excuse the pedantic rambling, but I thought I might want to establish my thinking behind the use of references and a style guide that other editors such as Ed Fitzgerald are now using. FWIW, I would very happy to continue this discussion and further elaborate on protocols for referencing sources. Bzuk ( talk) 22:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
Just a friendly heads up on Jana Miartušová. I removed your prod tag because the article was already prodded (and the prod contested) in February 2007. Feel free to take it to AfD if you like, but it can't be prodded again. Cheers!-- Fabrictramp ( talk) 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The merge looks fine, thanks very much. Best regards, YuriLandman ( talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you have a pretty strong interest in notability, what do you think of the recent dicsussions at WP:PROF? -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you!
Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for those egs. That's an interesting approach to put them under a bigger section heading. I'll keep looking at new ones...I'd like to see a written policy/guideline on what they think they are doing here. I wonder why two of them have External Links under a bigger section heading, and the other doesn't. I think part of the confusion about how to handle all this reference stuff is due to the issue of online versus non-online references and whether to handle them all the same way or to handle the online refs differently to the non-online ones. Sterry2607 ( talk) 12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason I didn't close as delete (which I suppose I should have mentioned more explicitly) is that redundant information isn't really a reason to delete articles - it's a reason to merge them to the more relevant title, in this case "200x in music". All of the deletes (except your own) rotated around that point, with a couple "per aboves" thrown in. If you'd like, I can have another admin take a look at it (I'm in the IRC channel right now). I hope this helps clear things up. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, thak you very much for your message. I was just wondering how I would go about being adopted by a more experienced user. I am very interested in helping Wikipedia greatly in its development and integrity.
I'd be grateful for any response and/or advise.
Gamstatude ( talk) 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. If you go to
Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User there's information there. However - if you'd like me to give you some pointers, and to answer your questions, I would be willing to do that.
SilkTork *
YES!
19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think these lists are copyright violations. IANAL, but lists of facts are not copyrightable. Lists which are in some sort of subjective order can be copyrighted, but according to [3] these are based on statistics. Anyway, that's my take on this, FWIW. howcheng { chat} 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork - thanks for your comments on, useful additions to and encouragement to post it to Wiki Articles. I've never seen those before or done that - but might do as you suggest. I have one question though about one of your additions to my checklist and that relates to: adding the talkpage tag. I've never done this and don't quite know what it is? Can you explain more please? ta Sterry2607 ( talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Check. I notice that you undid the redirect of William L. Durkin with the comment "per discussion". I had a look, but couldn't find the discussion. Could you direct me to it? If you're talking about the Afd in 2006, the WP:BIO1E notability guideline has been written since that date. Consensus these days is that - in general - an individual who is known for just one event should be mentioned only in the context of that event, though there are exceptions where that person has attained a high level of interest. I don't see that high level of interest in William L. Durkin. SilkTork * YES! 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Check-Six ( talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to give you a heads up that Twinkle must have messed up your deletion nomination of William L. Durkin. You should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William L. Durkin (2nd nomination) and complete the nomination. Cheers! Redfarmer ( talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Over at the Mark Clarke AfD you said, Well argued and presented nom, and I just wanted to thank you for the compliment. I took my time preparing it and I am glad that someone noticed. Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. I'm slowly working my way through the article but still have more to go. I don't know if you have any comments, but you can see on the talk page that I'd like to change the scope and name of the article. Any input on that appreciated.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 06:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, itsssssssssss meeeeeeeeeeee. How are you. I'm well, other than my visits to the dentist that give me much pain...ouch...deep cleaning of teeth, underneath gums (TMI)....Oh no. Anyhow, I walked away from an article the other day because a certain Wikipedian thinks he owns the article. Seriously. Hey I've been editing a long time, and I think I know what I'm doing....but no, it has to be his way, or no way, and he will revert..."Screw it," I said to myself...I have enough articles that I work on, and continue to add to (film noir). The bad thing is that I enjoyed working with another Wikipedian on the article that knows a lot about the subject (a lot, and he is a new Wikepedian). More sad is that the new Wikipedian saw this stuff happening LIVE...if you will....I've learned a lot from you...so I said to myself...walk away...Another topic: I trust you are doing well. I have a great photo shot on Monday afternoon...so I'm doing fine. Be well my amigo -- ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 04:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork --- you know, I've just looked at today's feature article Ima Hogg and I have to say, apologetically, that it uses a referencing style closer to the one I prefer ie Footnotes/Notes and References. I still have misgivings about the term Bibliography and so, given the lack of consistency here in Wiki (I dislike for example the way someone has set up the Kate Grenville article re her list of works - they've used Bibliography), I think that at this stage I'll keep going the way I'm going (though I'll probably tinker my approach a little re online and hard copy refs/citations). Of course, if I work in an area that has specific set Project guidelines re referencing I'll be happy to comply. Don't quite know why I'm writing this except to let you know that I appreciate your interest in the matter and don't want you to think, if you see my work, that I'm wilfully ignoring your contributions/ideas. Rather, I'm still thinking and watching! Oh, and I will move my article checklist soon - it's in my TO DO list. Cheers Sterry2607 ( talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I like the way you think! I have been doing Wiki for about 10 months now...and most of my work has been in writing articles or in categorising articles (when I haven't got anything to write). But, I've decided, so far anyhow, to just aim for what I think is a good, as well-sourced as I can, article to a sort of Wiki B level. I'm not sure that I'm keen on getting involved in some of the to-ing and fro-ing I've seen that goes on with feature articles (at least as I've seen on those in areas of interest to me). Some of that to-ing and fro-ing is good I'm sure but I don't have the energy for a lot of that at present. A B-level article is useful I think for what Wikipedia is here for - a decent/broad intro to a subject with some good refs and/or external links that a user interested in more can follow up. Working for greater quality and getting involved in all that peer discussion seems like it could be a case of diminishing returns. But, who knows, someone may appear one day to convince me otherwise and my passions might change. It's all good. Sterry2607 ( talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
...for your kind support of me as a coordinator! If there's one thing that I've learned during the election process, it's that people remember certain collaborations in the past. :) I'm glad I've been a positive influence on you, and I hope to run into you again in an article of similar interest sometime! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to stop by my user talk page! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Gee, now I'm confused! Is your breakaway article going to be about Hartington to Ashbourne, Hartington to Ilam, Milldale to Ilam or what. Dovedale (to a simple person who was born and bred in Derby) means any of these. Bob aka Linuxlad ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! · AndonicO Hail! 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/ e 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
--
Avi (
talk)
07:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the current OR and unsourced crap being added to the article please? I'm not willing to get involved in an edit war, but the section has to go. One Night In Hackney 303 17:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
SilkTork I've become increasingly disquieted about the nature of the edits on the UDR page and the reasons for them. The latest comments on the discussion board give me greater cause for concern. I've been wary all along that some of the material being used is contrived. As one editor has now officially declared his opinion I think that is proof positive of a bias against the regiment and I seek clarifaction on how his input and edits can be taken as neutral. Also, there seems to be an amount of gloating by the other protagonist that he is able to "tear the edits to shreds". I had hoped for a meaningful and involved discussion which would lead to a balanced article with appropriate content but I can see that getting to be a more remote possibility without a page protection.
GDD1000 ( talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've placed comment on the discussion page at the UDR site but I want to thank you on your own page for the tremendous effort you've made to assist us in coming to agreement and in particular, helping me understand the Wikipedia rules. The article is most definitely vastly improved thanks to your input. I hope I can be of assistance to you in the future.
GDD1000 ( talk) 21:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am dreadfully sorry to have to request your intervention again however the edit war has been started again by ( talk). He disagrees with some of the information which you restored to the article and is not content to leave it there until further discussion has taken place. He disputes the verification of an item in the "Collusion" section. Would you be kind enough to look in again please?
GDD1000 ( talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, for the comment. The whole thing has kust been rather a disappointing blow to my ego. One one have thought that a user with over 30, 000 edits and no bad actions wouldn't have warranted the barrage I have recieved. I think after all this is over I will take a long wikibreak to lick my wounds and recover. Thanks again and no hard feelings. By the way cool thing how you got the star spinning around the Wikipedia globe, how'd you do that?-- Kumioko ( talk) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheeky you! Actually, I kept putting it off because I wanted to tweak but, knowing me, I'd keep putting it off never feeling it was quite right. Thanks for taking the initiative and forcing it out there! Cheers Sterry2607 ( talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you help with an edit war I'm embroiled with User:Nicolás10? I want to post this picture in the taxobox [6] in Placodermi in order to display diversity, whereas Nicolás10 says that it can't be used because I'm a lousy artist.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my actions in this edit war: I had just finished upgrading the picture, correcting anatomy errors, then Nicolás10 told me that it couldn't be used because it was low-quality.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I note your outside view. Two problems I have with it: 1) we have had very long discussions with Ed, and there has not been an inch of compromise, which is why it has now arrived at RFC and 2) it is a relatively small matter, but it has led to edit wars and by now a considerable amount of rancour and bad feeling - not least engendered by Ed on the one hand demanding his own way, and on the other hand - as you have - dismissing it as a small matter, about which further discussion would be - in his words - lame. If it is such a small matter, why is he unwilling to to do other than demand his right to do whatever the hell he thinks is best. He & you cannot have it both ways. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! That really means a lot to me. I had never before gotten a barnstar for the area of Wikipedia that I put the most effort into. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Tanglefoot bags ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. RichardΩ612 Ɣ | ɸ 14:04, April 26, 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion -- Kleinzach ( talk) 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
Hello. I have reverted your closure of this discussion and have explained why I did so in the AfD. Please be more careful to adhere to WP:DPR#NAC in the future. Thanks, Sandstein ( talk) 20:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I salute the excellent editing work you have done on trumpet - nice one! I am, however, unable to see why you removed the ITG link as "commercial or inappropriate" - could you please explain which of these it is, and how? It seems odder that you've left one personal/academic site linked, just some studies which as a genre are really quite widespread, plus a fingering chart from a yes-for-profit site who will be pleased with the extra traffic - it perhaps makes your decisions look a little arbitrary to the casual viewer. To be honest I would have thought that ITG should quite possibly be the last external site to be removed, preceded closely in 2nd-last place by the excellent dallasmusic, which I was delighted to see you'd left linked in. :) Cheers. 92.234.10.126 ( talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, how have you been? I appreciate you wanting to nominate me for adminship, but I must respectfully object to this. I don't think that the RfA would go badly, but I would rather take on some coaching and be more familiar with the tools so I can have clear knowledge about the available tasks. I've been primarily a mainspace editor, and I would continue that no matter what. I'm not in a hurry to look into adminship right now, though -- I have a lot going on IRL (my edit count's been down the past month or two). I do thank you for your consideration! I will let you know when I feel I am ready to plunge into the RfA. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
RfA: Many thanks | |
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. Wish I could send this via typewriter ;) TravellingCari the Busy Bee 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I readded and cleaned up the beer games section to keg, as it fits better there. Keg stand is about one particular game. I'm going to do some more work on keg. -- AW ( talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed you edited found poetry a while back. I was wondering if I could recruit you to expand/clarify/cite/at least watchlist it to help fight off the unfortunaly common vandalism that seem to take place to found poetry, due to the fact that there is no one taking care of it. -- Justpassin ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey! I work there and will be glad to send you an official company logo as that one is missing some details.
Regards
chenzoc
--Chenzoc 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that you removed wikilinks from the dates at the Robert Mugabe article. I think you may have misunderstood the manual of style on this point. Although it is true that dates like bare years such as 1990 should not be linked, a full date including a day, month, and year should be linked. The reason for this is that the MediaWiki software recognizes this combination as a date, and formats it according to the user's preferences. Please look again at the section of WP:MOSDATE on autoformatting and linking where it explains this. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 12:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the WP:CONTEXT guideline. In fact, the following is stated explicitly in the section on dates:
[[25 March]] [[2004]]
— or day and month — [[February 10]]
— should be linked for date preference formatting.Furthermore, the applicable section of WP:MOSDATE only asserts the following in connection with WP:CONTEXT:
Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully; see WP:CONTEXT.
This clearly doesn't apply to dates which are linked for autoformatting purposes. I don't feel terribly strongly about it, and it certainly isn't worth a war. My main intention was to make sure that you know what you are doing, and that you understand that the MoS is, in fact, against you on this. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 14:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
[[25 March]] [[2004]]
— or day and month — [[February 10]]
— should be linked for date preference formatting.My reading of that is that dates should be linked when they provide context is implied. Then for clarity, dates should not be linked when they do not provide context.
This issue has been going on for over two years so is one that needs careful editing. Further in the Bold guideline it does say: " If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.
....
Or, in the words of Edmund Spenser, "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold".
Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces."
I have explained my actions, and linked you to the guidelines that supported my actions. I have advised you several times that if you have an issue with this that you need to take it up on the MOS talkpage rather than with me as it not within my specific sphere of interest. I would again advise you that the MOS talkpage is where you should be, and I would again strongly advise you that you make yourself at least loosely familiar with the issues before making edits to MOS guidelines; however, I would concede that the wording on various Wikipedia guidelines can sometimes be ambigious and lead people into discussions - but that's not always a bad thing! Communication is at the heart of buidling the encyclopedia. Be well, and good editing. SilkTork * YES! 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking up for my on the Alan Cabal AfD. If you look at any of my previous interactions at AfD (especially he more recent), you'll see my bludgeoning and abuse at consensus' where my fairly inclusionist views are rejected. Oh well; my own damn fault, 'shouldn't be so stubborn. To tie this rant up, thanks for sharing the same views. NOTE: I recently changed my sig, so, in those AfDs, my sig is "Leonard^Bloom". Much appreciated, and happy editing, ♌β( uh oh. someone's mad) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
For your hard work in protecting Alan Cabal and freedom of speech Smith Jones ( talk) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks. It's always nice to get a barnstar! The debates around what to include or exclude oftens seems not so much about the information itself, but about the status of having a Wikipedia article on the information - by having an article it means that information pops up on Google searches, and gets mirrored on other sites. Some people feel strongly that certain bits of information, especialy regarding individuals, shouldn't get such a priority treatment. I can understand that view. My own personal inclination is toward the merging of information into parent articles where possible.
SilkTork *
YES!
10:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello SilkTork/Archives. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:SilkTork/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review. Gazimoff Write Read 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Happy New Year! SilkTork * SilkyTalk 08:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Saw your work done on Prague, quite nice if unforgiving. Please take a look at Budapest too if you feel like, I know you'll have plenty to criticize (lead, abundance of photos, history). Gregorik ( talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The
December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
SilkTork, I'm sure you're feeling a little beat up right now; Giano's work is held in high esteem by a lot of people, and your focus on articles he has been lead collaborator on has come at a very sensitive time. It does not appear you've done a lot of work with the Featured Article crew before, and they take things extremely seriously. If it is an area where you want to spend more focused wiki-time, you might want to start out following a few of the FACs to see what the entire process is from nomination, through critique, improvement and finally acceptance. Help out with copy editing. Open the window in edit mode to see how references are done at that level. Those sorts of things. Not everyone is cut out to be a feature article writer; I'm more a copy editor myself, my writing is certainly more pedestrian though I think I will be able to pull off some GAs in the near future.
Your stated goal is to improve referencing of articles. Ones that have already been through the mill once, and ones which are primarily sourced to off-line information, are probably the ones of lowest concern. You might want to try Special:Lonelypages, articles that need wikifying and (often) referencing; or ask SuggestBot to give you a list of articles that need work. This is a big place, and there are a lot of really awful articles that can use your attention. If you want to take up a new subject, I know that the professional wrestling articles desperately need help in cleaning up BLP violations and properly sourcing information. Best, Risker ( talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm mostly waiting until you've stopped editing the article to go through what is and isn't still there (!) as you don't appear to be using the preview button and it keeps on coming! Don't get me wrong, some of it is clearly good stuff, though I do have worries about some stuff getting dropped, hopefully by accident. As you are clearly 'going at it' maybe you might want to include something about the sheep that use to roam free until before the second World War (but weren't brought back afterwards as it was felt that they would get immediately stolen!) and the fact that much of it was dug over during WW2 to provide vegetable crops. -- AlisonW ( talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi - replied on my talkpage. -- Paularblaster ( talk) 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
Awarded to SilkTork for patience, perseverance and focus in helping bring the Karyn Kupcinet article into shape. May you never be haunted by the name James Ellroy. Thanks so much!! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 07:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks! I've polished it and put it on my mantelpiece. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 08:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience | |
I present this Zen Award to SilkTork for somehow finding sanity in an insane situation and for being incredibly understanding even when I couldn't see the forest for the trees. Thanks so much for your help. Pinkadelica ( talk) 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
Cool! I hope that everything goes smoothly from now on. I'm always here if you need me again. Thanks. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you've been changing "Footnotes" to "References." Is footnotes inappropiate? Why? Is it worth the effort to change since both seem appropriate. Let me know as inquiring minds like mine want to know. Best and HAPPY NEW YEAR! ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
One additional thing: because PLOT denotes a work of FICTION, should not the PLOT section in documentary films be/remain synopsis? I think it should. Thanks. ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 18:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey have a safe trip to Brussels. If on business, do something for yourself as well (I see you like beer, visit a different beer hall, ha!). Best-- Luigibob ( talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious why you're adding "References" sections to articles that don't have any <ref>'s. Frankly, this doesn't make sense to me and I'm wondering if you've thought it through. You can answer here. RedSpruce ( talk) 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you "prose" tagged the "Cast" section for 12 Monkeys. Any particular reason? A cast section will always be a list due to its content ... or not? Greetings TINYMark ( Talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork,
I have updated the year of the release of Bad Day (film) to 2008, as this is when hopefully the film will be released.
Thank you
DJ Pomfret
Dear Silk Tork. I am unsure what kind of information you are seeking. Brussels is the capital of the Kingdom of Belgium. That state has three, not two, official languages. To me, it would appear sensible to include the name of the city in all official languages of the country run from it (as is the case, e.g., on French wikipedia). I don't think the number of German-speakers who live in the city or region is relevant here, as opposed to the official status of the language in question in the country in question. (edit conflict) That's why my edits summary stated German is one of the official languages of Belgium, of which Brussels is the capital. athinaios | Talk 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of London's transport system.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
— From the members of WikiProject London Transport
Unisouth ( talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{ Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. -- Russ (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all with you taking Willow Creek Pass (Montana) to deletion review, probably a good idea. I would certainly not be offended at all, and more discussion about it would be a good thing. Thanks for letting me know. -- Canley ( talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it was AWB or you who removed the 250px parameter in this edit], but it quadrupled the size of the image and probably resulted in a violation of fair use. If you did it by mistake, no problem; I fixed it. It it was done by AWB, you might want to see what the problem is. Thanks. Ward3001 ( talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for sorting that. It's a new version of AWB that updated when I opened it today, and I noticed it's been altering some images. I've gone back and corrected them - but I missed that one. I'm keeping an eye out on when and why it does it - I think it's when there is a forced size - AWB appears to be removing not only the size forcing, but also the thumb instruction which keeps images to max width of 250. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your question at WJBscribe's talkpage after I made a small grammar fix, and I thought you should know that Acalamari reverted your vote. [1] Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 04:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It was an unexpected find. I didn't even notice the shift when I first looked at the decline in editing over October 2006. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason you are closing an AFD that I relisted yesterday? The reason it was relisted was there had not been a notice on the article since the day it was posted so people involved in those type of articles may not have seen the listing. - Djsasso ( talk) 16:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the award. That's very kind of you. Cheers. ArthurWeasley ( talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) Working on the backlog at AfD, I noticed that the bots weren't properly cataloging this one as closed. I think on investigation that it may be because you put the closure template below the header, here. The template needs to go above the header, and I think now I know why. :) I've reformatted this one, and the bot seems to be handling it correctly now. I realize this could have been a one-off accident, but in case it was something you didn't know, I wanted to point it out to you. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to apologise for the language that i used when posting on two different discussion, i know that i offended you, and it will not happen again, that i can promise. -- Tom.mevlie ( talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User - or straight to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area. You have a choice of asking someone to adopt you by putting {{subst:dated adoptme}} on your user page, or select someone from this list. Good luck. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 12:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
User:David Fuchs is very good. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 12:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou, even though i offended you, you still seem to want to help, which i think is great, a great thing about the human race. I contacted a user who shares my passion in ancient histort, and once again, thankyou.-- Tom.mevlie ( talk) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You edited the Stafford entry stating that RAF Stafford was a non-flying station... I know it has no runway, but what about the helicopters that would frequently overfly my house on their way in to land? :)
Coob ( talk) 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you changed the Section headings I set up for this article from Notes and References to References and Bibliography. I am interested to know why you did this. I believe the style I have been using is one of the established ones in Wiki eg for the Vivien Leigh article. I find the use of Notes and References to be clean - with Notes standing for Footnotes and References for the list of works consulted. My experience is that the heading Bibliography is used ambiguously in Wiki - some use it the way you have here but others use it for the list of an author's work in articles about authors. To avoid this confusion, I use Works for the list of works in author articles. In other words, I don't use the Bibliography heading at all. I'd be interested in your comments on this. It's not something I'd die in a ditch over but I've written over 20 articles now using the Notes -- References approach and wonder if they are all going to be changed? If I should change? Cheers Sterry2607 ( talk) 06:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sterry. Thanks for drawing my attention to that - there were a couple of errors I made when doing the AWB sweep over that article. The References / Notes thing is down to personal choice - we have no hard and fast rules on it. Though when usage is scattered and inconsistent there can be confusions. This guide Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Further_reading.2FExternal_links is short though useful. I tend to use References for the section which lists the reference sources used in the article - and I prefer that to Notes, which can be used for a number of other things. Footnotes would be for comments on the article which are not references. External links would be to send people to a website which has information on the article, and a bibliography would be to send people to books on the article. Further reading would be when the websites and books are mixed together. That's my understanding and how I like to work. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 08:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks SilkTork for your prompt response. This whole area in Wikipedia is, as you say, quite inconsistent. I regularly look at the Wiki help articles such as the one you cite (and when I read that one it doesn't seem to me to indicate that the way I had done it was wrong), as well as actual Feature articles for guidance. It seems you and I see this aspect of Wiki articles a little differently: I see Notes as being used for citations and comments if any, References for the list of works actually used in the article (it can include works not cited but it should include all cited works), External Sites for links to additional sources of information that were not used in compiling the article, and Further Reading for a list of books and other printed material that contain additional information but that weren't used in compiling the article. I see these as all separate sections. I guess my question is that if this is all down to personal choice, does the way it was initially done in Back of Beyond need to be changed? Can you point me to some articles done your way so I can better understand what you mean? I do have a slightly alternative way of doing it which I've seen in Feature articles but I'm not sure that it is what you are thinking. Sterry2607 ( talk) 10:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. If I give you some background to what I am doing it may help your decision to change what I have done. I am going on a sweep through all the film articles with the intention of tidying up certain areas, one of which is the References section. I have chosen to use the approach I outlined above, so that at the end of the sweep the film articles should all have a reference section and should have a consistent feel to the reference section, following what appears to me to be the use I have encountered most often and which appears to have a the wider consensus for clarity - though other uses, including yours are encountered. I understand and expect that what I do can be changed in certain circumstances where someone closely working on an article may have a valid rationale for doing things in a different way.
SO there are two possible issues here, which you can help with. One is to do with having a consistent approach to the references section in the film articles. The approach can be different to the one I have started, and can either be the approach you use or another approach. If you feel there are particular benefits to an alternative approach to the one I am using then lets talk about that and if it would alter a significant amount of film articles, raise the issue on the FilmProject to get a wider consensus. If you feel that the approach I am using is acceptable, that is also fine, and - as it appears to be the approach already in widespread use - we wouldn't need to seek consensus to bring the non-standard approaches in line.
The other issue is that your approach to Referencing in The back of beyond is particularly suited to that article, and the particular use of it in that article is strong enough for it to be different to the the referencing approach used in other film articles. If that is the case - and you would know that - then you would be right to change it back.
Is that clear? I'm at work and keep getting distracted by real life so I have written this over a space of a few hours by snatching a moment here and there! SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 13:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks SilkTork. I think I will change it back (becaue I particularly like this style when the majority of sources are printed) but I might play with a variation on the theme that I've seen in several feature articles (including I think Casablanca (film). OK? Enjoy your real life - I retired last year so Wiki IS real life for me - sorta! Sterry2607 ( talk) 05:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Notes/Reference style used in Casablanca is one I have seen used in a few other articles as well. It stands well alone, and I like it. I used a similar approach myself in Beer for a while. There is no real objection to it, other than what is called Notes is called References in most other articles. It's what happens, and isn't a problem. We don't NEED to have a consistency across all of Wiki, though it makes it easier and more attractive for the majority of people. As Wiki develops so various Projects are drawing up style guidelines to ensure a consistency that people feel comfortable with. I'm not manic about it, as I'm not manic about anything on Wiki, but when my sweep gets to Casablanca I'm likely to change the reference section so it is consistent with the other film articles. If someone who is fond of that layout changes it back, I'm not going to be bothered. I'll have moved on by then anyway. Eventually, over time, all articles will have a consistent layout, and it will come to pass that someone else will make the change to Casablanca to using References instead of Notes, and Bibliography in place of References. Or, a different layout approach will be in place, and everything I have done will be changed! What will be will be!
I know what you mean about Wiki being real life. I was off work for a while and spent A LOT of time on here doing beer articles. It became quite an obsession. It's good to have a break now and get to get a sense of perspective and fresh air. Have you got involved in any back stage stuff? Writing guidelines and such? Man, that's intense at times. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 08:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I would think you could make a strong case for fair use, since the subject has died. It would be impossible to create a free version, though you should search for a free version, though that would also be unlikely as she wasn't notable before hand (I think) and not likely to have any pictures of her other than from her family which might not release a free version, though you may wish to contact them and request one. Once you have searched and attempted a request for a free one (wait a few weeks at least), you could then upload it to Wikipedia under fair use and apply a rationale. I would take this one and crop it down some (it will help satisfy your requirement of reduced size). Use a rationale template and you'll be fine. I can help more when you get to that point. For requesting permission, see WP:COPYREQ. Good luck! MECU≈ talk 13:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing this situation. Kind of perplexing to wake up in the morning to a random attack from a stranger. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The
February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Me again. :) I just wanted to note that when you merge an article, as set out at Help:Merge, you need to include a wikilink to the destination article in the source article edit summary as well as in the destination article. This is important to make sure that future admins know not to delete the article, as for GFDL compliance we have to preserve the history of merged material. When I closed the AfD of Biblical Numerology, I did note your merger in the edit summary, so that's done. This is just for future reference. Happy editing. -- Moonriddengirl (talk)
I moved the article and it's history to User:SilkTork/Pushead. If you are able to salvage the article you will want to move it it back to Pushead. Even if you are not able to salvage it we will need to move it back so I can re-delete it there and save the history. Jeepday ( talk) 13:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here for some suggestions about how to clean up the problem, and add your ideas. Thanks! Noroton ( talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I have asked that your recent MFD be closed because it is not the right venue for that type of discussion, you can see my comments here -- Fredrick day ( talk) 12:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have closed the debate on this matter as a Procedural Close. MfD is for the deletion of entire pages, not for specifc sections as you propose. Your concern is well taken, and I can't say I disagree - but the proper venue to discuss the matter is probably Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or, alternatively, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey it's me. I trust you are well. I just got pushed back by an editor who changed Rerences to Notes. I rev and said as per MOS:FILM it's References. See: Anatomy of a Murder. Whatchathink? Any news in this area? I mean there is difference when writing in Wiki? Most of the articles I do use Footnotes as is standard in scholarly work, but I've changed to References as per you suggestion. Let me know your thoughts? Best -- Luigibob ( talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Although we disagree about this BLP/BIO thing, I appreciate your notifying me. I think you've found the forum you were looking for at Village Pump:Policy, and you'll get plenty of vigorous discussion and plenty of participation. I think you've got a good chance of prevailing, too. It's good to get these discussions away from just a small number of editors. Again, thanks! Noroton ( talk) 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the prod you placed on a number of articles as they turned out to be notable per WP:BIO. Tabercil ( talk) 02:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I closed all three of your afd's, as it appears it was done for the shear notion as to make a point. I'd advise that you next time consider discussing a contested prod before directly going to articles for deletion. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned by the PROD on the Pavel Novotny article. This was how it appeared at the time of your prod notation, and not only does it pass WP:BIO, it names the award that leads to its inclusion. Looking at your contribs, you added a bunch of prod tags, many of which have been reversed, and I'm concerned that you aren't assessing these articles with sufficient care. Jay*Jay ( talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As I feel the porn star Lilli Xene is notable enough under WP:PORNBIO I've removed the PROD tag you added and instead "upgraded" it to AFD as I feel there should be discussion. 23skidoo ( talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you mean to do this? Or was it a TW bug? -- GRuban ( talk) 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The appearance of all three of your AFD's made me think you had done it in bad faith. However, I do still believe that discussion over the talk or user talk pages would have been more effective. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Oxyman42. While looking into the situation at Inventions in the Islamic world I noticed User:Oxyman and User:79.68.135.210 also made edits on the article. Oxyman's name is very similar to yours and edits on similar articles. If this is indeed yourself then take a look at Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Alternative_account_notification and follow the instructions. It might be as well if the other account is not yourself, to inform a checkuser that the other account is not yourself in order to avoid potential future problems. The IP account made a revert edit which could be seen as your account avoiding the three revert rule. As you know, it's bad enough to edit war to the third degree, but it's considered even worse to mask that third degree revert by using a sock puppet account. Taking a quick look at your talk page I see you have previously used a sock puppet and then deleted the information. My inclination now is to report this situation in order to ensure transparency and trust. I'd be interested to hear what you say before I do that, however I may go ahead and report within the next hour if I don't get an immediate response. SilkTork * What's YOUR point? 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 09:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your kind thought and award...it came at a necessary time in my Wiki-days........ Your amigo always, Luigibob ( talk) 13:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the major issues I see in WikiProject Films as well as in other groups is in dealing with a consistent referencing format and a clear example of that issue is the use of the "References" section. The use of "Notes" is now established as a part of the references section and when you use other sources, they are part of a "Bibliography" and not a "Further reading" section which implies that these are ancillary sources. This style guide is employed in WP:Aviation and as a format, see the use of Aviation:Films and the multiple uses within this category.
The use of this convention has been very carefully screened since a Swedish editor implemented it last year. It follows and fits MoS guides and has not been reverted even once (well, once- in the case of this article). Admins and other experienced editors use this format throughout the Aviation group. The reason for its implementation was the nonstandard use of references as a "catch-all section" when in fact they incorporated an endnotes or footnotes section and a bibliographical record. The "Further reading" section is just what it says, further to the article's research sources. My background is as a reference librarian and presently, author/editor for a number of publishing houses. See: 49th Parallel, It's A Wonderful Life, The Right Stuff (film) and countless other film articles for examples of this use of referencing.
As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available)< style guides> for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.
This is the reference guide that editors may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."
Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In The Rocketeer (film) article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.
I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing the "The Rocketeer (film)" citation/reference notes. The "true style" is primarily use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet.
As to the website citations, the simplest system is all that is required as per editor Jeff Finlayson's suggestion. [1] and [2] FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. The simpler form should predominate, not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system. You may have to read this background note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations.
Excuse the pedantic rambling, but I thought I might want to establish my thinking behind the use of references and a style guide that other editors such as Ed Fitzgerald are now using. FWIW, I would very happy to continue this discussion and further elaborate on protocols for referencing sources. Bzuk ( talk) 22:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
Just a friendly heads up on Jana Miartušová. I removed your prod tag because the article was already prodded (and the prod contested) in February 2007. Feel free to take it to AfD if you like, but it can't be prodded again. Cheers!-- Fabrictramp ( talk) 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The merge looks fine, thanks very much. Best regards, YuriLandman ( talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you have a pretty strong interest in notability, what do you think of the recent dicsussions at WP:PROF? -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you!
Thank you for your support in my RFA. The passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for those egs. That's an interesting approach to put them under a bigger section heading. I'll keep looking at new ones...I'd like to see a written policy/guideline on what they think they are doing here. I wonder why two of them have External Links under a bigger section heading, and the other doesn't. I think part of the confusion about how to handle all this reference stuff is due to the issue of online versus non-online references and whether to handle them all the same way or to handle the online refs differently to the non-online ones. Sterry2607 ( talk) 12:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason I didn't close as delete (which I suppose I should have mentioned more explicitly) is that redundant information isn't really a reason to delete articles - it's a reason to merge them to the more relevant title, in this case "200x in music". All of the deletes (except your own) rotated around that point, with a couple "per aboves" thrown in. If you'd like, I can have another admin take a look at it (I'm in the IRC channel right now). I hope this helps clear things up. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, thak you very much for your message. I was just wondering how I would go about being adopted by a more experienced user. I am very interested in helping Wikipedia greatly in its development and integrity.
I'd be grateful for any response and/or advise.
Gamstatude ( talk) 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. If you go to
Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User there's information there. However - if you'd like me to give you some pointers, and to answer your questions, I would be willing to do that.
SilkTork *
YES!
19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think these lists are copyright violations. IANAL, but lists of facts are not copyrightable. Lists which are in some sort of subjective order can be copyrighted, but according to [3] these are based on statistics. Anyway, that's my take on this, FWIW. howcheng { chat} 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork - thanks for your comments on, useful additions to and encouragement to post it to Wiki Articles. I've never seen those before or done that - but might do as you suggest. I have one question though about one of your additions to my checklist and that relates to: adding the talkpage tag. I've never done this and don't quite know what it is? Can you explain more please? ta Sterry2607 ( talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Check. I notice that you undid the redirect of William L. Durkin with the comment "per discussion". I had a look, but couldn't find the discussion. Could you direct me to it? If you're talking about the Afd in 2006, the WP:BIO1E notability guideline has been written since that date. Consensus these days is that - in general - an individual who is known for just one event should be mentioned only in the context of that event, though there are exceptions where that person has attained a high level of interest. I don't see that high level of interest in William L. Durkin. SilkTork * YES! 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Check-Six ( talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to give you a heads up that Twinkle must have messed up your deletion nomination of William L. Durkin. You should go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William L. Durkin (2nd nomination) and complete the nomination. Cheers! Redfarmer ( talk) 22:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Over at the Mark Clarke AfD you said, Well argued and presented nom, and I just wanted to thank you for the compliment. I took my time preparing it and I am glad that someone noticed. Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. I'm slowly working my way through the article but still have more to go. I don't know if you have any comments, but you can see on the talk page that I'd like to change the scope and name of the article. Any input on that appreciated.-- Doug Weller ( talk) 06:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, itsssssssssss meeeeeeeeeeee. How are you. I'm well, other than my visits to the dentist that give me much pain...ouch...deep cleaning of teeth, underneath gums (TMI)....Oh no. Anyhow, I walked away from an article the other day because a certain Wikipedian thinks he owns the article. Seriously. Hey I've been editing a long time, and I think I know what I'm doing....but no, it has to be his way, or no way, and he will revert..."Screw it," I said to myself...I have enough articles that I work on, and continue to add to (film noir). The bad thing is that I enjoyed working with another Wikipedian on the article that knows a lot about the subject (a lot, and he is a new Wikepedian). More sad is that the new Wikipedian saw this stuff happening LIVE...if you will....I've learned a lot from you...so I said to myself...walk away...Another topic: I trust you are doing well. I have a great photo shot on Monday afternoon...so I'm doing fine. Be well my amigo -- ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 04:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork --- you know, I've just looked at today's feature article Ima Hogg and I have to say, apologetically, that it uses a referencing style closer to the one I prefer ie Footnotes/Notes and References. I still have misgivings about the term Bibliography and so, given the lack of consistency here in Wiki (I dislike for example the way someone has set up the Kate Grenville article re her list of works - they've used Bibliography), I think that at this stage I'll keep going the way I'm going (though I'll probably tinker my approach a little re online and hard copy refs/citations). Of course, if I work in an area that has specific set Project guidelines re referencing I'll be happy to comply. Don't quite know why I'm writing this except to let you know that I appreciate your interest in the matter and don't want you to think, if you see my work, that I'm wilfully ignoring your contributions/ideas. Rather, I'm still thinking and watching! Oh, and I will move my article checklist soon - it's in my TO DO list. Cheers Sterry2607 ( talk) 04:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I like the way you think! I have been doing Wiki for about 10 months now...and most of my work has been in writing articles or in categorising articles (when I haven't got anything to write). But, I've decided, so far anyhow, to just aim for what I think is a good, as well-sourced as I can, article to a sort of Wiki B level. I'm not sure that I'm keen on getting involved in some of the to-ing and fro-ing I've seen that goes on with feature articles (at least as I've seen on those in areas of interest to me). Some of that to-ing and fro-ing is good I'm sure but I don't have the energy for a lot of that at present. A B-level article is useful I think for what Wikipedia is here for - a decent/broad intro to a subject with some good refs and/or external links that a user interested in more can follow up. Working for greater quality and getting involved in all that peer discussion seems like it could be a case of diminishing returns. But, who knows, someone may appear one day to convince me otherwise and my passions might change. It's all good. Sterry2607 ( talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
...for your kind support of me as a coordinator! If there's one thing that I've learned during the election process, it's that people remember certain collaborations in the past. :) I'm glad I've been a positive influence on you, and I hope to run into you again in an article of similar interest sometime! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to stop by my user talk page! — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Gee, now I'm confused! Is your breakaway article going to be about Hartington to Ashbourne, Hartington to Ilam, Milldale to Ilam or what. Dovedale (to a simple person who was born and bred in Derby) means any of these. Bob aka Linuxlad ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! · AndonicO Hail! 23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/ e 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
--
Avi (
talk)
07:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the current OR and unsourced crap being added to the article please? I'm not willing to get involved in an edit war, but the section has to go. One Night In Hackney 303 17:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
SilkTork I've become increasingly disquieted about the nature of the edits on the UDR page and the reasons for them. The latest comments on the discussion board give me greater cause for concern. I've been wary all along that some of the material being used is contrived. As one editor has now officially declared his opinion I think that is proof positive of a bias against the regiment and I seek clarifaction on how his input and edits can be taken as neutral. Also, there seems to be an amount of gloating by the other protagonist that he is able to "tear the edits to shreds". I had hoped for a meaningful and involved discussion which would lead to a balanced article with appropriate content but I can see that getting to be a more remote possibility without a page protection.
GDD1000 ( talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've placed comment on the discussion page at the UDR site but I want to thank you on your own page for the tremendous effort you've made to assist us in coming to agreement and in particular, helping me understand the Wikipedia rules. The article is most definitely vastly improved thanks to your input. I hope I can be of assistance to you in the future.
GDD1000 ( talk) 21:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am dreadfully sorry to have to request your intervention again however the edit war has been started again by ( talk). He disagrees with some of the information which you restored to the article and is not content to leave it there until further discussion has taken place. He disputes the verification of an item in the "Collusion" section. Would you be kind enough to look in again please?
GDD1000 ( talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, for the comment. The whole thing has kust been rather a disappointing blow to my ego. One one have thought that a user with over 30, 000 edits and no bad actions wouldn't have warranted the barrage I have recieved. I think after all this is over I will take a long wikibreak to lick my wounds and recover. Thanks again and no hard feelings. By the way cool thing how you got the star spinning around the Wikipedia globe, how'd you do that?-- Kumioko ( talk) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheeky you! Actually, I kept putting it off because I wanted to tweak but, knowing me, I'd keep putting it off never feeling it was quite right. Thanks for taking the initiative and forcing it out there! Cheers Sterry2607 ( talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you help with an edit war I'm embroiled with User:Nicolás10? I want to post this picture in the taxobox [6] in Placodermi in order to display diversity, whereas Nicolás10 says that it can't be used because I'm a lousy artist.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my actions in this edit war: I had just finished upgrading the picture, correcting anatomy errors, then Nicolás10 told me that it couldn't be used because it was low-quality.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I note your outside view. Two problems I have with it: 1) we have had very long discussions with Ed, and there has not been an inch of compromise, which is why it has now arrived at RFC and 2) it is a relatively small matter, but it has led to edit wars and by now a considerable amount of rancour and bad feeling - not least engendered by Ed on the one hand demanding his own way, and on the other hand - as you have - dismissing it as a small matter, about which further discussion would be - in his words - lame. If it is such a small matter, why is he unwilling to to do other than demand his right to do whatever the hell he thinks is best. He & you cannot have it both ways. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! That really means a lot to me. I had never before gotten a barnstar for the area of Wikipedia that I put the most effort into. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Tanglefoot bags ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. RichardΩ612 Ɣ | ɸ 14:04, April 26, 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion -- Kleinzach ( talk) 11:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
Hello. I have reverted your closure of this discussion and have explained why I did so in the AfD. Please be more careful to adhere to WP:DPR#NAC in the future. Thanks, Sandstein ( talk) 20:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I salute the excellent editing work you have done on trumpet - nice one! I am, however, unable to see why you removed the ITG link as "commercial or inappropriate" - could you please explain which of these it is, and how? It seems odder that you've left one personal/academic site linked, just some studies which as a genre are really quite widespread, plus a fingering chart from a yes-for-profit site who will be pleased with the extra traffic - it perhaps makes your decisions look a little arbitrary to the casual viewer. To be honest I would have thought that ITG should quite possibly be the last external site to be removed, preceded closely in 2nd-last place by the excellent dallasmusic, which I was delighted to see you'd left linked in. :) Cheers. 92.234.10.126 ( talk) 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, how have you been? I appreciate you wanting to nominate me for adminship, but I must respectfully object to this. I don't think that the RfA would go badly, but I would rather take on some coaching and be more familiar with the tools so I can have clear knowledge about the available tasks. I've been primarily a mainspace editor, and I would continue that no matter what. I'm not in a hurry to look into adminship right now, though -- I have a lot going on IRL (my edit count's been down the past month or two). I do thank you for your consideration! I will let you know when I feel I am ready to plunge into the RfA. :) — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
RfA: Many thanks | |
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. Wish I could send this via typewriter ;) TravellingCari the Busy Bee 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I readded and cleaned up the beer games section to keg, as it fits better there. Keg stand is about one particular game. I'm going to do some more work on keg. -- AW ( talk) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I noticed you edited found poetry a while back. I was wondering if I could recruit you to expand/clarify/cite/at least watchlist it to help fight off the unfortunaly common vandalism that seem to take place to found poetry, due to the fact that there is no one taking care of it. -- Justpassin ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey! I work there and will be glad to send you an official company logo as that one is missing some details.
Regards
chenzoc
--Chenzoc 20:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that you removed wikilinks from the dates at the Robert Mugabe article. I think you may have misunderstood the manual of style on this point. Although it is true that dates like bare years such as 1990 should not be linked, a full date including a day, month, and year should be linked. The reason for this is that the MediaWiki software recognizes this combination as a date, and formats it according to the user's preferences. Please look again at the section of WP:MOSDATE on autoformatting and linking where it explains this. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 12:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the WP:CONTEXT guideline. In fact, the following is stated explicitly in the section on dates:
[[25 March]] [[2004]]
— or day and month — [[February 10]]
— should be linked for date preference formatting.Furthermore, the applicable section of WP:MOSDATE only asserts the following in connection with WP:CONTEXT:
Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links should not be used unless following the link would genuinely help the reader understand the topic more fully; see WP:CONTEXT.
This clearly doesn't apply to dates which are linked for autoformatting purposes. I don't feel terribly strongly about it, and it certainly isn't worth a war. My main intention was to make sure that you know what you are doing, and that you understand that the MoS is, in fact, against you on this. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 14:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
[[25 March]] [[2004]]
— or day and month — [[February 10]]
— should be linked for date preference formatting.My reading of that is that dates should be linked when they provide context is implied. Then for clarity, dates should not be linked when they do not provide context.
This issue has been going on for over two years so is one that needs careful editing. Further in the Bold guideline it does say: " If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.
....
Or, in the words of Edmund Spenser, "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold," but "Be not too bold".
Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, it is easier to cause problems in other namespaces by editing without due care. The admonition "but do not be reckless" is especially important in other namespaces."
I have explained my actions, and linked you to the guidelines that supported my actions. I have advised you several times that if you have an issue with this that you need to take it up on the MOS talkpage rather than with me as it not within my specific sphere of interest. I would again advise you that the MOS talkpage is where you should be, and I would again strongly advise you that you make yourself at least loosely familiar with the issues before making edits to MOS guidelines; however, I would concede that the wording on various Wikipedia guidelines can sometimes be ambigious and lead people into discussions - but that's not always a bad thing! Communication is at the heart of buidling the encyclopedia. Be well, and good editing. SilkTork * YES! 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking up for my on the Alan Cabal AfD. If you look at any of my previous interactions at AfD (especially he more recent), you'll see my bludgeoning and abuse at consensus' where my fairly inclusionist views are rejected. Oh well; my own damn fault, 'shouldn't be so stubborn. To tie this rant up, thanks for sharing the same views. NOTE: I recently changed my sig, so, in those AfDs, my sig is "Leonard^Bloom". Much appreciated, and happy editing, ♌β( uh oh. someone's mad) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
For your hard work in protecting Alan Cabal and freedom of speech Smith Jones ( talk) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks. It's always nice to get a barnstar! The debates around what to include or exclude oftens seems not so much about the information itself, but about the status of having a Wikipedia article on the information - by having an article it means that information pops up on Google searches, and gets mirrored on other sites. Some people feel strongly that certain bits of information, especialy regarding individuals, shouldn't get such a priority treatment. I can understand that view. My own personal inclination is toward the merging of information into parent articles where possible.
SilkTork *
YES!
10:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello SilkTork/Archives. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:SilkTork/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review. Gazimoff Write Read 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)