User talk:SilkTork: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:27, 22 August 2012 editOne Night In Hackney (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,879 edits Forgetting something?← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:33, 22 August 2012 edit undoSilkTork (talk \| contribs)Administrators104,125 edits →Forgetting something?: commentingNext edit →
Line 28:		Line 28:
	==Forgetting something?==		==Forgetting something?==
	] and that's before we even get to your prior involvement in Troubles disputes at ] (and the talk page) and in particular ]. By the latter alone you've been in a previous dispute with me, therefore your recusal is required. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)		] and that's before we even get to your prior involvement in Troubles disputes at ] (and the talk page) and in particular ]. By the latter alone you've been in a previous dispute with me, therefore your recusal is required. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
			:I don't recall those incidents. But I'll pass them by the rest of the Committee to see what they think. ''']''' ''']''' 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:33, 22 August 2012

Welcome!!! Pull up a chair, let's have a nice chat. I'm glad you called. I'll put the kettle on.
SilkTork

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.
— Barack Obama

To do

Reminders
WP:SAL No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I guess the real question is whether to declare consensus and WP:BOLD it, or do merge tags and open a merge discussion at WT:MOSLIST. I'm all for going with the bold direction, since it seems unlikely to be controversial that the MOS page on lists should actually contain the MOS advice about lists. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 23:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC) There's been a deal of activity on the page recently. I've not had a chance to absorb that yet. I may just potter around this evening doing light stuff, then take a closer look over the weekend. SilkTork 00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC) No hurry! I meant "bold" not "reckless". :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 11:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I still have this in mind - on hold, but not forgotten. SilkTork 13:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminders

WP:SAL

No one has actually objected to the idea that it's really pointless for WP:SAL to contain any style information at all, other than in summary form and citing MOS:LIST, which is where all of WP:SAL's style advice should go, and SAL page should move back to WP:Stand-alone lists with a content guideline tag. Everyone who's commented for 7 months or so has been in favor of it. I'd say we have consensus to start doing it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the page shortly. Thanks for the nudge. SilkTork 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the real question is whether to declare consensus and WP:BOLD it, or do merge tags and open a merge discussion at WT:MOSLIST. I'm all for going with the bold direction, since it seems unlikely to be controversial that the MOS page on lists should actually contain the MOS advice about lists. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 23:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There's been a deal of activity on the page recently. I've not had a chance to absorb that yet. I may just potter around this evening doing light stuff, then take a closer look over the weekend. SilkTork 00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No hurry! I meant "bold" not "reckless". :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 11:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I still have this in mind - on hold, but not forgotten. SilkTork 13:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Voice recording

SilkTork, I'm back. And I've uploaded a file of Thomas reading "and death shall have no dominion" from the sample you found. Will you have a listen and tell me what you think. I've never uploaded a file recording before, and although he sounds like he's reading from a bath tub, it may be better than nothing. Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm reading through the books I've got from the library. I've glanced now and then at the article and it's developing well. I think that it should pass criteria without too much extra editing. I'm having a thought about the balance between comprehensive (which is a FA criteria) and broad coverage (a GA criteria). I should be ready soon to make a decision regarding referencing and coverage in a day or two. I may do a bit of tidying to bring it into line, but as I say I think not much - if anything - may be needed. SilkTork 14:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgetting something?

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Harry Roberts (murderer) and that's before we even get to your prior involvement in Troubles disputes at Ulster Defence Regiment (and the talk page) and in particular Talk:Downing Street mortar attack/GA1. By the latter alone you've been in a previous dispute with me, therefore your recusal is required. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall those incidents. But I'll pass them by the rest of the Committee to see what they think. SilkTork 19:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)