User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 23

← Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24 →

Old Sergeant, Wandsworth

I have undone your edit on 'Old Sergeant' as it is a seperate item and should not be deleted by redirecting it to 'Garratt Lane'.which should link it, as a mother article DonJay (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Neiher of the two Wiki suggestions (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:A7.) refer to places or buildings, so your criterion for inclusion is not relevant.. As a coaching house and its over two century age is sufficient for warrant its inclusion. It has also won the award for best community pub (2012) (Now added to Wiki Page). DonJay (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your very prompt reply. You will find there are many hits if you Google "Old Sergeant", indicating its notability. I could add many snippets about it, as I lived there as a child from 1932 to 1937, but unfortunately Wiki does not accept "eyewitness" data without written support. If you are interested chapter 1 (page 3 on) of my social biography (www.don-joseph.com) gives some flavour of my stay there. The clubroom was used for meeting of the local Order of Buffalos, and other local societies. I understand that there is a chapter on the Old Sergeant in the book "BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN WANDSWORTH" but as I now live in Canada, I have not been able to see a copy. My phylosophy on inclusion in Wiki is that if an item has survived a period measured in decades with notability it should be included. Please let me know if you are able to find other data - Thanks DonJay (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think many of us have our own feelings regarding what should be included. Over time we have created Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria, which gives some advice - while there are subject specific criteria, the inclusion criteria essentially boils down to what is said in WP:GNG, which is given in the single sentence: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, I have the original edition of "Inn and around London". I think That your considering pubs as businesses is much too narrow,. they are like theatres or restaurants and are basically entertainment centres. You did not comment on my thoughts. that the criteria you used for inclusion in Wiki. does not apply to such as places and buildings. I emphasise that a item that has an award for being the best of a category in its country is worthy of inclusion, as are the many film awards. There are over 57000 pubs in the UK, so a best award has notability. When one considers that computer games, which have a very limited time of popularity or notability; and actors with only a couple of credits, are included without comment, I believe the raising of an AfD is not warranted. I think that too many items are deleted without thought of the normal use of an encyclopedia (personal enquiry), because of one individual’s dislike is another's need, If it adds to the knowledge base, it is usually of interest to someone. I have tried to be objective and fair, but of course, I do have bias! DonJay (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. It's not a personal thing. I think we all have our own views on what is notable, and that will vary from person to person. By consensus we have agreed a Wikipedia:Notability guideline, with various subject specific guidelines - though even those are open to interpretation, which is why we have WP:AfD, where we can discus the matter. In this situation, I was browsing Category:Public houses in London, as I'm starting to work on the Mayfair article, and want to create a section as I did for Covent Garden - Pubs in Covent Garden. I was looking to see if we had any articles on pubs in Mayfair, and while I was looking I did some tidying up - renaming or merging as appropriate. When I came upon the Old Sergeant article, I first renamed it, and then felt it might be better off in context in the nearest parent article, per WP:Local, as there was no assertion of notability. We have now both discussed it, and looked further, and the only notability we can find is that it got an award which is not in itself significant enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Even the pub owners, Youngs, have little to say about it in regards to its notability. We don't list everything that exists - when there is a stand alone article on Wikipedia there is an assumption of encyclopaedic value - that the topic is of interest in itself to the general reader. The difficulty, of course, is judging that encyclopaedic value! Anyway, as you and I don't agree on this pub's notability, I think it's time we asked the community. Each time an article is taken to AfD, we get a clearer view of what the consensus is regarding notability. It helps us define it. The AfD process is not intended to be thoughtless - quite the reverse! I suspect what might happen here is that few people will comment - I will say delete, you will say keep, and no consensus will emerge. Don't worry - in such a situation the default is to keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blur (band): problems of neutrality

You helped this article to get GA last year where as there is a important problem of WP:NPOV concerning facts that are easy to check via the site Billboard.com. I explained the problem and proposed a solution on the talk of the article. This needs to be fixed quickly. Woovee (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just looked, and it appears you wish to make an edit. Just go and do it. If there's a problem with it, someone will make an adjustment, or enter a discussion with you. Be bold! Please be bold - that's how we make progress. If we entered into a discussion and got agreement for every minor edit, then Wikipedia wouldn't be the success it is. It was because of the slowness of getting agreement for content on Nupedia that Wikipedia was created. "Wiki" means quick - its essence is that multiple users can directly edit text collaboratively and directly, rather than having long discussions to get agreement first. Do it the wiki way - WP:Be bold! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I did several edits the last two weeks; the problem is they were quickly reverted and rejected by the same person who has been presenting as "a hit" in the USA, where as 1) it was just a "a radio hit on alternative modern rock radios" !! and 2) not a hit at all in terms of commercial success as "Song2" never cracked the Hot 100 that is the only Billboard chart that includes "units sold" and "singles sales". " Billboard modern rock tracks" indeed is a list that mentions only the 40 most-played songs on alternative rock radios which is a very special sub-format. More important, this billboard isn't based from "units sold and single sales" at all. Clearly, this article should have never been rated GA because it mis-interpreted sources, and presents facts in a fallacious way. It's clearly original research that presenting "Song2" as "a hit". As an adminisrator who passed this GA and who didn't see this problem because you assumed, sources had been used following the wiki guidelines of neutrality, sticktosource and nooriginalresearch, you were abused in a certain way too. As a reader who knew Blur's history, and their cult status in the USA, they just had a album certified gold in 1997, I was baffled by the presentation of "song2" as a hit. It is also perverse because european people don't know exactly what is the Billboard alternative songs, and what is the Hot 100 (which is the equivalent of the uk singles chart if you prefer). Thank you for replying so quickly. - Woovee (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you help me to help you by stating the situation in one or two sentences. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's OK. I've just looked at the article history, and can see what's happened. This is a dispute over the term "hit"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, could you revisit this on the talk? My argument: if "Song 2" charted at no. 6 on Billboard Modern Tracks, no. 25 on Mainstream, is described by critics as "their biggest hit in America" and was used everywhere soon after release, it is definitely a hit in the US. Defining a "hit" based on Hot 100 numbers alone is excessively strict.—indopug (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Indopug keeps on making a confusion between what is the popularity of the song and the use of the word "hit". The Billboard "Modern Rock Tracks" and Billboard Mainstream Rock only reproduce the playlists of these specific type of radios and nothing more. A single is considered as a US hit when it reached the top 40 of the Hot 100. Gabe's very first comment in the talk of Blur mentions this too. By the way, the allmusic biography doesn't say that it was a hit. One journalist can interpret things his own way, you can mention his work, but wp:NPOV has to be respected. This means putting nuances and bring precisions like, "Yet, that single didn't chart in the Hot 100" (which is the one and only billboard chart that is based from the singles sales). Woovee (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what the sources say. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Shoreditch

Having had a look at the bar's page prior to it being merged I would have been happy to speedy delete it as per Wikipedia:G11, regardless of the fact that it has been mentioned in a newspaper review once. SheffGruff (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well, don't mention that if you ever try for RfA! ;-) If you'll note, four different admins have edited the article, and none of us have either deleted it, or tagged it for deletion. That's because there is a credible claim of notability, and the article has had that since inception. I would have prodded it, but merging is a viable option, and is encouraged per WP:PROD and WP:LOCAL. What I suggest is that I will restore the Pubs section of Shoreditch as a viable section, per Covent_Garden#Pubs_and_bars, and look to build on it. Would that be acceptable to you? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Small technical error

Hello I was wondering If you could give me some help. I created an article for an album, Lost Forever // Lost Together, and it doesn't come up in the wikipedia search bar and has strange page view statistics. I'm just wondering if the album's title doesn't work in wikipedia, I've seen some articles have to put a disclaimer that their titles are different for technical reasons. Thanks in advance. Jonjonjohny (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this when you first posted it. I've just taken a look, and it seems fine now. Are you still having problems? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blur (band)

Please put a reasonable time-limit on the full protection of Blur (band). With limited exceptions such as Office- or Arbcom-imposed or -sanctioned situations, "indefinite full protection" is a bad thing, frequently worse than the problem it solves.

Please reduce the terms of the full protection to something like 1-2 years, or less if possible. Consider putting and "update after" or similar template that will expire shortly before the full protection to remind the community to re-add at least semi-protection when the full protections expires.

If a "PC2-protection" proposal that would allow this article to be put under PC2 protection passes, consider immediately downgrading the protection to PC2 as soon as such a proposal passes.

Also, put a pp- type template at the top so everyone knows that it is protected and for how long. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Indefinite does not mean infinite. The block is in place until the conflict is resolved. That could be hours, days or weeks. Once it is resolved the block is lifted. It is standard procedure. The conflict would not last a year. If the editors were that intransigent they would be topic or site banned, and the article unlocked. A bot usually deals with templates - if there's not one there, I'll look into it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

More tea

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

davidwr has given you a cup of tea as a thank-you for your promoting civility in the dispute at Blur (band). Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

as a thank-you for your promoting civility in the dispute at Blur (band). Nice editnotice by the way. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Kefziel Arbcom Case

The issue you are describing has been previously coined as The Super Mario Problem. Where conduct that would get a normal user banned only gets an admin defrocked, essentially giving them an extra life. The apparent unfairness of the situation can be demoralizing to users because it undermines the concept of being an admin as being no big deal.

As a suggestion for a 'fair' solution. Admonish both players and topic ban both from AFC. No evidence shows disruption from either side outside of AFC and there is no evidence of abuse of tools. Removing both from the area should be sufficient to prevent further disruption. Arbcom is best when it does the least to achieve its goals. I mean, is it really required to remove K's tools because he had one temper tantrum? Removing the tools without proof of abuse quite the precedence.

Anyway, just an option to ponder. I would have said this on the case talk page but according to AGK I'm evading scrutiny. Such is the pitfalls of choosing to remain an ip. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comments make sense regardless of who you are. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your message on my talk page. It somewhat perplexes me that you appear to consider my comments have inflamed matters as I do try to refrain from personal remarks. Recognising some of the words, yes I do consider some aspects of the case have been "vengeful, spiteful and downright vindictive behaviour". The remarks were not intended to be personal but were rather intended to allow the editor concerned to perceive how their behaviour was perceived. I am always receptive to feedback if they've been interpreted differently and I hope you recognise after discussing matters with the IP editor known as 74 I have been moderated my comments.

I hope you would also be receptive to feedback. Arbcom has in this case inflamed matters by accepting a case it should never have. Arbcom and yourself have also given mixed messages. On the one hand you and arbcom opine that projects such as WPAfC do not decide policy or consensus for the greater project. On the other that drama created by that projects perception it does create a wider consensus, merits desyopping an experienced admin for acting within policy. There is a certain Kafkaesque quality there and I hope you would appreciate where I am coming from.

In truth I have to offer an honest opinion that arbcom should have declined this case and insisted that the two should explore WP:DR whether by RFC/U or another route. I would hope the WP:CLUE stick could have been deployed. Unfortunately the adversarial nature of arbcom makes such outcomes unlikely. Arbcom rightly should be the last stage in DR, but in this case it was almost the first resort.

Finally, as a Glaswegian, I would comment that I have suffered from misconceptions on wikipedia due to the fact I have a direct mode of speech. Text is a deeply impersonal means of communicating, further complicated by variations in English usage that convey mixed messages, and this means that nuance and emotion are poorly conveyed. You interpret this [1] very differently from how I would. In a discussion with an Australian admin, he told me to take my head out of my arse, I would imagine you perceive this to be offensive; please note I didnae!

I do hope you consider my reply in the spirit it was intended, there are too many confusions on wikipedia that are down to the poor medium in which we communicate. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we sometimes communicate poorly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no escape!

Your vote would be appreciated on the Conduct unbecoming FOF to enable us to close the case.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The 'Conduct unbecoming' FOF has already been decided, but your vote is still needed on 'Kafziel: Multiple accounts'. Thanks, AGK [•] 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks lads. Just checked, and it appears all is well so I'll resume running naked through Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)