User talk:SilkTork - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 23 August 2012 (→Forgetting something?: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:20, 23 August 2012 by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) (→Forgetting something?: r)(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)

My comments of to you of "I have zero faith in your competence as an editor. As such I consider you totally unfit to review this article, and I will ignore everything you say from now on" mean we have a clear and indisputable previous history, and therefore you are unfit to take part in any decision relating to me, due to the inherent bias you may have as a result of that. It's that straightforward. There are more than enough arbs to vote on a decision without you whose judgement and neutrality has been called into question, and I don't object to any of them for the record. There is no precedent that "a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them", there is the basic fact that we have been involved in major disagreements before therefore your ability to deal with the current matter in a neutral manner has to be called into question and I request that you recuse, since "it wouldn't do any personal harm". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)