User talk:SilkTork - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SilkTork (talk | contribs) at 09:35, 23 August 2012 (→Forgetting something?: commenting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:35, 23 August 2012 by SilkTork (talk | contribs) (→Forgetting something?: commenting)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

Thanks for the update. I think we have most of his life history covered, to one extent or another. Not sure if we should mention Skin Trade or not? FruitMonkey (talk) 20:04, 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)

I've looked at the AfD. You were one of several who disagreed with me. I withdrew the nomination. That is very minor. I sometimes disagree with myself! SilkTork 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not clear how I have been in dispute with you in regards to this? I was acting as mediator between you and GDD1000, and from reading through the talkpage I don't see any dispute, bad feeling, or major disagreements between us. SilkTork 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see from Talk:Downing_Street_mortar_attack/GA1 that you might feel I was upset by your comments. I don't recall that I was upset, though I wouldn't have been pleased to have someone say those things about me. I will certainly bring the matter to the attention of the Committee. SilkTork 19:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is that there is no reason to recuse. I have given it some additional thought, and I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them. SilkTork 09:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)