User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions with User:SilkTork. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Hi, I've (hopefully) addressed your concerns regarding the Rings... article if you'd like to have a look. Cheers, Cavie78 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review SilkTork and for passing the article as GA! I might take this forwrd for my first FA nom after going through a peer review so I appreciate your help and suggestions. For the record some of the FA album articles I looked at regarding session musicians in the personnel section were Intimacy, Californication, Odyssey Number Five and Year Zero. Cavie78 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Your points are very well made. I was taking a break from the article, Beefheart's influence on punk rock being too incalculable, but I've put it back on my list. Rothorpe (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiya Steve, and happy New Year!

would you mind having a look at Akmal Shaikh‎, which I have nominated for WP:GAN? There are some WP:NPOV issues which may need sorting out. Any input would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing a quick copy-edit of the article in preparation for your GA review; I'll be done shortly. Just fixing minor style things. --JN466 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Done. --JN466 19:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I have done quite a bit of work on the Shaikh article, copyedited it and addressed some of the points you listed as problematic. In addition, I have actually sourced a few other opinions from Britain and around the word, which I think enhances the reporting. However, a number of points are not clear.

• on revisiting the articles cited, I have so far not found the one relevant to the {{cn}} tag. If it becomes a barrier to promotion, I will comment it out for the time being as non-critical to the development of the storyline.
• what MOS issues are there - you do not list any, yet that is marked negative in the grid
• you suggested moving the last part of the bio into the trafficking section - trying to read through it with the suggested sectioning in mind, I cannot see the point of the exercise.

Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Akmal Shaikh next. I'm looking at Captain Scarlet at the moment. SilkTork *^YES! 09:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, and thanks for the GA review on Akmal Shaikh. I was on a wikibreak to have the Chinese New Year holiday last week, so I did not see your message on my talk. Please kindly allow me a bit more time to fix the POV problem. Regards, Blodance the Seeker 05:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I've extended the hold for another seven days. I'll probably get involved a bit, but that depends on other commitments. SilkTork *^YES! 09:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You said it was only a minor concern at my RfA, but I took a look at the text on my site referencing "Wikipedia research" and can see where you're coming from. I expanded and modified it some to give a clearer understanding of what it is I do. Since I think you can find it easily enough should you wish to, I see no need to use this as an opportunity to add another "nofollow" link that points to it here.  ;) --otherlleft 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I really like the Obama quote you've got at the top there. Should be the official talk page motto! --otherlleft 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look, and the relevant part now talks about additional services include monitoring company persona via monitoring of Wikipedia entries. I'm still not entirely sure what that entails. Does this mean that you offer a professional service ensuring that company information on Wikipedia is not derogatory? SilkTork *^YES! 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi would be nice, thanks! RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 05:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork *^YES! 08:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Milford Haven/GA1: I've done all I can for this article and there have only been four further edits by others in the last week, two of which have been reverted. What's the next step to concluding this GA nomination?--Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look and let you know. Has the issue regarding the boundary of Milford Haven been sorted out? SilkTork *^YES! 19:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Although I have given some advice on this, it's not been taken up, and it's not my remit to WP:BOLD and make major changes to 'their' article. However, they wanted it GA reviewed, they refused my initial offer to review it, you've done your bit, and I've helped out as much as I could. Theoretically, there is a time limit for getting articles up to snuff once a review has started. Maybe they need reminding - it's been over a week now without any action.--Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make a real effort to take a look and make a final decision today. But I know it's going to take at least half-an-hour, and possibly longer, so I'll be looking at quick wins first, and may also be distracted by some items that are more urgent, or have been waiting longer. Added to which my internet access is very patchy at the moment - it depends on the demands of my real life! SilkTork *^YES! 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to have ground to a halt from those attempting to ready the page for GA status. Not so much from the fact that people have given up, just that no one appears to have anything major to add anymore. If you could pop back to the page and drop the axe one way or another, I think the contributors would appreciate it. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I keep meaning to, but I have an idea in my head that it's not going to be an easy decision so I allow myself to be distracted! SilkTork *^YES! 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. We await your decision when you are 'in the zone', as I think some people state. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm there now! So stop pinging me ;-) SilkTork *^YES! 19:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I had nothing really to do with this article except for a few bothersome but necessary edits, I'm glad it got its GA, and I would like to thank you for all the work you put into it that went well beyond the remit of a reviewer :) --Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For all your hard work getting Milford Haven to GA status. Pondle (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I always appreciate a star! SilkTork *^YES! 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At tree shaping An editor with COI has a long term war going with the word Arborsculpture. [[1]] Has uploaded photos of mine to wikipdia, invited 500 of there newsletter members to the talk page.[[2]]But thats not so bad for a new editor. The behavior that most disturbs me is internet wide [spam], that claims wikipedia consensus and links to the article as if it were evidence. The editor in question is currently fighting with a new editor, but going to extremes with rules and charges and whatnot. I'm trying to staying out of it, with good reason, as you may know. Could you take another look please ?208.91.143.250 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look, and I recall being involved in settling a dispute on that topic. There was some disagreement about the use of the word arborsculpture, which appears to be Richard Reames term for tree shaping. My feeling then, and it would be the same today, is that tree shaping would be about all types of tree shaping, including arborsculpture, bonsai, topiary, espalier, and pleaching. And that an editor could create an article on arborsculpture which would be about Richard Reames. It would be acceptable to mention arborsculpture within the article on tree shaping, and if there is significant material on arborsculpture in the article, then arborsculpture would need to be mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead. Does that help? SilkTork *^YES! 16:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

@ 208.91.143.205 Hi Richard Reames Blackash (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SilkTork 208.59.93.238 / 96.233.40.199 has accused me of trying to manipulating wikipedia policies. I don't want to make accusations without due cause, but I have some concerns about the way several accounts appear to be linked.

• 208.91.143.250 is talking about blackash (me) in the above edit. The only photos that I have uploaded without permission were Richard Reames photos for Arborsculputre. So 208.91.143.250 is Richard Reames hence why I said Hi Richard Reames.
• Griseum (talk) responded by going tomy talk page linking themselfs with 208.91.143.250. Then removed that edit on my talk page.
• Griseum (talk) has link themselfs to 208.59.93.238 10:06, 8 February 2010 208.59.93.238 (talk) (71,377 bytes) (I will start using User:Griseum as a user name) (undo)
• 208.59.93.238 had previously linked themselfs to 96.233.40.199. quote "Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 sign by -208.59.93.238 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)" section Recap

Blackash (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm never used 208.91.143.250 and my note on User talk:Blackash was an error that was removed 4 seconds later. I do make errors, and I'm a little stupid dyslexic with numeric sequences sometimes, but I don't have any motivation for subterfuge.Blackash already made a ludicrous (no, really, you should see it!) formal WP:SOCK accusation against me that was dismissed. I would rather be reading Blackash's rebuttal to evidence of arborsculpture as a generic term than wasting time dodging accusations that seem more like distraction tactics than attempts to resolve content issues. --Griseum (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

While a person's motivations, personal interests and occupations will have some impact on their world view and may creep into their editing despite their best efforts to be neutral, I am always much more concerned with the actual editing rather than trying to second guess motives behind the editing. If an edit is biased then it is biased, regardless of who did the edit, and if the edit is neutral then it is neutral, regardless of who did it. So, both of you, I am only interested in the edits to the article, not who made them or why.

And, as a point of interest, the edits by 208.91.143.250 were made in a different geographic location and from a different ISP than the edits by 208.59.93.238.

I am pleased that Griseum has an account. It makes things easier to identify and trace. I find it hard to remember number strings. SilkTork *^YES! 09:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Silk, looks like progress is once more taking place on the article, what more could we ask for ? Peace and love ?Slowart (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sites like "arborsculpture.org" are evidence that term "arborsculpture" isn't instrinsically linked to the work of Reames. He just coined it. Of course we don't use Google as an important indicator of notability, but a search of the word "arborsculpture" without the word Reames has very interesting results. Blackash, a professional rival of Reames, has been all over Wikipedia looking for people to ignore her WP:COI, listen to her fractured arguements, and make an error in her favor. She has VERY specifically stated that he doesn't want Reame's word used for her work and everything she does on Wikipedia, including formally accusing me of WP:Sock because I pointed out I used two IP addresses, is for this single end. Unlike Blackash, you seem to actually be a Wikipedian interested in this project rather a Single-purpose account with an ugly real-life agenda. As such, I hope you'll take another look what I've said on the talk page. My comments are buried beneath Blackash's contribution to that discussion but I hope you'll look at them and see what's actually happening. Thanks and respect! --208.59.93.238 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• The COI tag on the article was because Blackash has stated that she is half the Pooktre team. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

arborsculpture.org doesn't exist. Do you have any other sources which show general use of the term? SilkTork *^YES! 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do you feel that Blackash has been manipulating the article to favour Pooktre? SilkTork *^YES! 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for response. I wouldn't characterize the current situation as "favoring Pooktre" so much as as disfavoring a word entering general usage because it was coined by a Pooktre competitor. Arborsculpture.org was very recently "NEAG Northeast Arborsculpture Group" site, it was a live just days ago. I'll find some more specific examples of how arborsculpture is being used by people without connection to Reames to support my claim. They are numerous. The fact that "tree shaping" came close to being the article's title seems good justification for including it unless we find people overwhealming evidence that the world at large thinks it is specifically associated with Reames work. I'm sure they don't; I had heard of arborsculpture and I never heard of Reames until reading this article. I also think the inclusion of word in the intro would be a non-controversal edit if only the people named in this article took a hands off approach. While we are still thinking about this, I'd MUCH prefer not to see either Pooktre or Arborsculpture in the intro if it means including both, but I'll refrain from making edits for a while. TTYS (Within 48 hrs) --208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Evidence of arborsculpture as a generic term as I've listed some proof along the lines you requested. Could we please immediately loose the sentence "There are a number of tree shapers and methods, including Richard Reames' arborsculpture and Pooktre by artists Peter Cook and Becky Northey"? That sentence definitively marries the term "arborscuplture" to Reames' techniques. At best/worst, it's a matter still being discussed. --Griseum (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (same person as was just communicating with IP address)

I have made some adjustments to the article to ensure more consistency. SilkTork *^YES! 09:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I answered a question you had posed the on Tree shaping talk page about how does the word Arboursculpture impact on Pooktre. Blackash (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We can if the user requests it, and there is precedence for using the {{courtesy blanked}} template. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Only case I'm aware of is YechielMan in 2007, and the blanking was done by a crat not by the user themselves. There may be others. However, if Cool three wishes to have the RfA blanked because he feels there was private information revealed he could make a request for a courtesy blanking. Bear in mind this is not Cool three's own userpage we are talking about, but a project page. SilkTork *^YES! 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this shows 8 instances (including Cool3 I assume). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering how strongly worded the candidate's opinions about your oppose were, perhaps it's best to accept that you're too close to the situation to make an unbiased judgment and let it go.--otherlleft 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any comments about me. Why am I too involved? And how does that answer my question? SilkTork *^YES! 18:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I thought I was responding to Julian. Strike last comment. SilkTork *^YES! 18:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see my name on the user's talkpage. I haven't read it all, but that is the user being upset that I opposed his RfA. That's not something that interests me or that I wish to get into. By the looks of that page the user is upset that the RfA didn't succeed, and is letting people know about it. It's understandable, though it would probably be better for Cool three if he blanked that page and took a break for a few days. It's each to their own though, and that is his own user page. SilkTork *^YES! 18:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the user page was an unfortunate (albeit understandable) way to react to the RfA. Didn't realize you hadn't seen it.--otherlleft 19:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read his comments more fully now, as it has been brought to my attention there is ANI discussion on his talkpage - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cool_three. I can see how my comments could have caused offense, and I have left an apology on his talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy, wathcha mean be removing it from CENT, etc? GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The {{cent}} template, which is used to notify the community about centralized discussions. It is designed to inform people of new discussions so only active discussions appear on {{cent}}. People interested in proposals and discussions which have concerns for the wider community will keep an eye on discussions listed on {{cent}} and join in. We maintain it by removing inactive discussions, or discussions which have only a specialised interest. Content discussions or discussions where nobody new has joined in for several days, for example, are removed from {{cent}}. When CDA becomes an active proposal it can again be listed on {{cent}} - but bearing it mind it has been listed on and off since November last year, it will attract fewer editors than if it was a brand new discussion. Does that help? SilkTork *^YES! 00:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, gotcha. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask you to explain your close here in more detail? I think it would be helpful if you could clarify why the opposition arguments outweighed the numerical support, which arguments were particularly persuasive, whether the number of participants was representative, and so forth. It would be more helpful for everyone going forward. Cheers, Happy‑melon 13:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That there wasn't consensus doesn't mean that oppose comments outweighed the support, it means that there wasn't enough support. Of the 94 people who iVoted - ah. Hang on.... 13:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for nudging me. I had made an error. There is support for the proposal, and I have amended my closing comments. SilkTork *^YES! 14:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can possibly determine that there is consensus for this large change when the level of support was less than what we require administrators to gain in their RfA's - for this proposal to have support to carry on, it should probably have been in the nineties, not 70%. In my opinion, the close was completely wrong, and that's from someone who couldn't care less about whether bureaucrats have the ability or not. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your uncertainty. However, we generally accept that 70%+ is in the region of consensus. (Indeed, you don't need me to tell you, that for ArbCom decisions 60% is accepted as consensus). And in this case there were two discussions. Taking them together, and the points they raised, it appeared to me that the proposal had gained enough community support and justification to move it forward for discussion. The areas of concern raised by those objecting, I singled out as needing to be discussed as part of the moving forward. I am comfortable with that close, but will be happy to examine again any particular points of concern you have. SilkTork *^YES! 15:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I categorically reject your close because the level of support is nowhere near what it should be for such a major change (i.e. in the nineties ( In fact, I'm sure the devs have said somewhere that they would be unwilling to accept a figure below a certain number (and I can tell you straight that it was far above 70%))^{[citation needed]}) then I'm not sure what you could be expected to look again at except the obvious that it falls completely short of the required level of support and swiftly overturn your decision. I find it someone unbelievable that bureaucrats can't be appointed generally unless they get 85-90%, but here were are able to completely change their remit with a level of support of 70% - crazy. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You will need to provide a source for that assertion, because I do not believe it exists. I can immediately point to a senior developer referring to "a very large majority" as being 66%; 90% would by this definition contain a significantly larger number of superlatives. Cf also this note that "As far as sysadmins are concerned, if a community decides that a three-day majority vote is enough, they'll change it on that basis". The onus is on each community to decide how it defines consensus, then to apply that model to its configuration requests. I think your tone is unnecessarily aggressive, as well as being loaded with FUD. Happy‑melon 16:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left my comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bureaucrat_Unchecking#General_discussion. SilkTork *^YES! 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As suggested, I've drafted a proposal for the Oversight talk page. It's on a sub-page of my user page. All comments very gratefully received.Jimi 66 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now added this proposal to the Wikipedia talk:Oversight page, but haven't done anything else to bring people's attention to it. Is there anywhere else you'd recommend I mention it? ThanksJimi 66 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put it on CENT, and I've left a notice on the Village Pump. You may leave a neutral message on the talkpage of people you feel might be interested in such a discussion. Oversighters themselves would have an interest in such a discussion, and some insight into the process that would be valuable. Wording such as A proposal to add a new "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause is neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest message - we live and learn!Jimi 66 (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I considered taking FT2's new wording and creating a subsection, and linking to that so people are responding to the proposal itself not their own prejudice regarding motives or orchids or previous proposals which though related, are not quite the same thing, but felt it wouldn't be worth the effort of recontacting everyone as some of the steam has gone out of the proposal, and now there would be an uphill struggle against people who need to change their mind. In my experience, people are reluctant to change their minds! SilkTork *^YES! 10:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey SilkTork. That article was submitted for GA Review as part of a university assignment that has since ended. The nominator has not edited since December. While it's possible that someone else will "take over" the nomination, you're probably going to end up failing it due to inactivity on your points. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is not uncommon for articles to be nominated by people who are unable or willing to do the work necessary to get the article listed as a GA, which is why I get in touch with significant contributors and related WikiProjects when putting a GA review on hold. The GA process encourages a collaborative approach to editing, and I fully support that. In cases where nobody is interested (or able) I have sometimes done the work myself. In this case I don't have the sufficient interest or knowledge to bring the article up to standard myself, so if nobody steps forward in the next seven days I will close it as a fail as you predict. SilkTork *^YES! 14:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your notifications. Most of the significant contributors were students in that class (it was a group project), with two exceptions: Piotrus (currently unable to assist due to ArbCom ban), and Harej (the previous GA reviewer). You might have some luck with those WikiProjects though, so hopefully that'll work out. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your solution to the problems I noted in my prod of White Owl Winery was rather elegant. Problem solved. It didn't occur to me to merge it with a geography article. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It sometimes works with local companies, especially pubs and breweries and restaurants, etc, to merge them with their location. A merge is not always possible or appropriate (especially with people), however it is something worth considering; though is unfortunately not a well used option. With the proposal to bring merges under AfD, that might change. Keep well. SilkTork *^YES! 09:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again,

As it now stands, the article is shorter and better summarised in some areas. The subsections in the "Series synopsis" section have been condensed into one paragraph and other more in-universe descriptions (e.g. the "Titles and credits" section) have been trimmed. Some information in the characters section duplicated what is already stated in the synopsis, and has been cut. There are fewer subsections than before - for example, within the "Production" section I merged "Direction" into "Filming". Although this wasn't raised on the GA assessment page, I've converted the information in "Home media releases" and "Characters and casting" mainly to prose, which I've come to feel looks better. Do you have any further suggestions to make on content to be shortened, or any more general comments? On the racism cites, only the Bentley reference remains in the article as the other two were, as you said, either not completely reliable or not completely relevant - I've written out the passage in full on the assessment page. SuperMarioMan 23:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your assistance in rewriting, rearranging and trimming, and ultimately passing the article as Good! It has been a splendid collaboration. What you say about associated media makes a lot of sense - a separate article would be justified and able to carry itself. I'll see about adding information on other merchandise, such as kids' playsets (there are a lot of them) to such an article. Once again, sincerest thanks! SuperMarioMan 18:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork. Thanks for the time you've spent on reviewing this article -- I can understand your frustration. It was a pleasant surprise to see that it had been GA-nominated, and (like you) I was waiting for the flurry of editing activity to commence as is usual in these cases. In the previous GA/FA reviews I have been involved with, the article was nominated by the lead editor, who thus had a vested interest in making it pass. I suspect that the other editors involved here are less familiar with the needs of the GA process, and the nominator has not edited it at all. At least we have your edit points to work with.

The thing is, although I'm shown as a major contributor, this is through copious wikignoming. (Actually, 19 edits is nothing -- you should see the level of my wikignoming on the Tower Bridge and GWR articles!) Other editors have done the bulk of the work and have the reference sources. I just clear up after them...! I did spend an hour or so working out a possible rewording of the Background section, but I wasn't happy with it, and I couldn't address most of your other concerns myself -- also, it's not the only article I'm working on -- just ran out of time. I'll make a note in my ToDo list...

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I sometimes get involved myself to improve articles, but, like you, at the moment I have other stuff I am working on, and while I like the article and Top Gear, this article is not top importance (I can't see any other encyclopedia having an entry on this particular topic!) so I don't see it as a priority. However, where is your reworked background? I don't think the article is far from GA status, and if we can motivate each other we might have the energy to get the work done... SilkTork *^YES! 17:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh. My reworking didn't get as far as the keyboard, I'm afraid. I was mainly juggling the paragraphs in my head.

I shall amend my ToDo note to remind myself of your suggestion and try to revisit this article in the next few weeks. I would caution you, however, that my interest is mainly from the railway side, so don't be surprised if some of my suggestions appear biased or defensive! (But I do generally agree with losing the first few paragraphs of that section...)

EdJogg (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is in the proper format, or if you're the right person to ask, but I've managed to get myself on the bad side of someone who apparently has the power to issue warnings. I admit to starting the conflict and to committing some faux pas, but I don't feel the other editor handled the matter appropriately, and I would appreciate some input from a neutral third party on how to best resolve this conflict before it escalates further. If there's someone else I should ask, please let me know. I've been a member for a while but I've only edited one article and I'm still learning the ropes. Any advice or assistance you can provide would be most appreciated. Thank you! Rapunzel676 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for bothering you about this again, but rather than try to resolve the issue the other user has merely escalated the conflict, even to the point of bringing offsite content to the discussion. As I said in my response to you, I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, but it appears that he is not. I don't intend to answer any of his charges, but I would appreciate it if you'd take another look and, if you deem it necessary, comment further or simply advise me on how to proceed in this matter. Thank you again for your help. Rapunzel676 (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I said much the same thing about letting bygones be bygones. I shouldn't have mentioned your conduct on an off-wiki site and apologise and have deleted it. I am not intentionally trying to escalate, on the contrary I would like to see resolution to this to. :) I was irritated and acted impulsively.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Both parties have agreed to move forward without hostility. It is possible to sometimes start off on the wrong foot, and still be able to form a positive working relationship, even friendship. You two are probably more alike than you think. You are both interested in the same topic, and you are both inclined to be a little hot headed. I think you are also both prepared to forget the past and move on. I will keep you both on my watchlist for a little while to see how you get on, though I have a feeling you both have something to offer the other, and it would be good if you would discuss together the issue of including different views on benzodiazepines as I feel that would strengthen the related articles. SilkTork *^YES! 12:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you again for your help. Rapunzel676 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Many thanks for your reply at Talk:Cypripedium_calceolus - I felt sure that how you came across earlier was different to how you meant to come across, and you've confirmed that - your apology is, of course, accepted. I still feel we have an issue to resolve regarding the Twist book - I regard it as an reliable source, and you don't - this sorts of differences of interpretation are common, and I'm sure we can have a good crack at working out what it is that's causing us to disagree about this at a later date (particularly as I've used it in several other articles elsewhere). Thanks for clarification why you felt I was ignoring consensus - it still doesn't sound like the sort of thing I'd do, and I can't help but feel that there must be some more innocent explanation, but I'm going to have to wade through old edit histories to do that, and that feels like I'd be pursuing a point for the sake of it, so I'll let it drop. Given the current uncertainty over this and the wider issue, I've got no issue at all with your selective deletion - as you say, playing it safe. Hopefully we can communicate again on this but for now, that's all I wanted to say. Good to meet you. SP-KP (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

O yes - communications are all too often misunderstood! We spend so much time on Wikipedia dealing with people who feel offended by remarks. Or rather, as it is all too human to feel offended, I should say: we spend so much time on Wikipedia dealing with people who react to what they feel is an offensive remark. I am not entirely free of that sin myself, having twice made inappropriate comments in response to something I read. The main focus, I feel, should be on edits to mainspace rather than the commentary surrounding such edits. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message re lady's-slipper and for your removal of various mentions of the site. Yes, I was aware that by mentioning the location I was paradoxically creating more publicity, which was exactly what I didn't want to see, but it seemed a gambit worth playing. I';d be extremely grateful for any updates about the decision the oversight team comes up with.Jimi 66 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The current oversight criteria do not cover incidents such as this. There would need to be a discussion and a consensus decision to allow the oversight team to add such "public interest" criteria. I think there would be some support for adding "public interest" to the criteria, so it would be worth starting such a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Oversight. It would be worth wording it carefully before starting such a discussion. There would be no need to go into real locations. And there would need to be a convincing argument why we should remove information that is not actually illegal. It could only work if no reliable source had published the information.

The argument would be along the lines that:

• information which if published may be harmful to a person, property, endangered wildlife or plantlife
• and/or is not in the public interest
• which is not adequately cited to a reliable source
• so if harm is done, it could be seen to be Wikipedia's responsibility
• should be removed completely from Wikipedia.

I suggest you draw something up in your own userspace before starting the discussion. I'd be quite happy to look at what you have written and give advice. And I would support your proposal. SilkTork *^YES! 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your further message. I would be happy to begin such a discussion, but, seeing as you have already put a fair bit of thought into it, and are also far better informed about current and past discussions about selective deletion, do you not want to do it yourself? Or do you feel that your role as someone who can mae these deletions makes it inappropriate for you to suggest changes to the policy? I don't know WP etiquette here.Jimi 66 (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I believe I've now found a reliable source for the occurrence of Lady's Slipper Orchid at Grass Wood - but, before adding the information, I wanted to check with you whether you agreed. The source is Ratcliffe, Derek (1977) A Nature Conservation Review ISBN 0521-21403-3 published by Cambridge University Press, and the reference is on pages 90-91, in the entry for Conistone Old Pasture and Bastow Wood. This is a somewhat larger area than Grass Wood, but it does state that the orchid is found in the wooded areas of the site, which are basically Grass and Bastow Woods (looking at an OS map, the two seem to merge into each other anyway). Looking at the Natural England website, the reason the two are regarded as distinct sites is that one is grazed and the other ungrazed, so they have different ground floras. I guess that an alternative solution would be to create an article for Conistone Old Pasture and Bastow Wood as per Ratcliffe's definition, although I'd prefer to keep separate articles for separate SSSIs, as that seems to be the convention we've adopted elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. I've sent the same message to Jimi 66. SP-KP (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be a reliable source, though you would need to stay within what it says in the source. Is it short enough for you to copy out for me to look at, so I can give you more precise advice? SilkTork *^YES! 10:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The section which mentions the orchid says "The main feature of interest is the herbaceous flora which is outstandingly rich. The woods of the area are known as a locality for the very rare Cypripedium calceolus, which has been reduced almost to extinction by plant collectors". SP-KP (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And how is "the area" under discussion described? Is this a section headed "Conistone Old Pasture and Bastow Wood"? SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that's correct. SP-KP (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you would be limited to putting the information in the Cypripedium calceolus and using the same terms as Ratcliffe. Something like: "Cypripedium calceolus was known in the late 1970s to be present in the woods of the Conistone Old Pasture and Bastow Wood area. [cite]" You would not be able to put the information in the other article. We do not appear to have an article on Bastow Wood or Conistone Old Pasture. SilkTork *^YES! 11:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That seems like a good solution. Anyone coming here to look for information about the location of the species is going to visit the species page, rather than the page describing the site, anyway. I may create an article for the wider site as per Ratcliffe's definition at some point, but that's a lower priority. I'm not sure about the phrase "Known in the late 1970s" as readers might conclude that the plant is no longer there; it should be possible to come up with a wording that avoids this problem - I'll give it some thought. Do you feel it's necessary for me to take up Jimi's suggestion of placing the sourced content on the talk page before adding it to the article, or are you OK with me just adding it in to the article? SP-KP (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)