User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 49

← Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50 →

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda!

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. I didn't know Raymond Arritt until you drew him to my attention. Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

And I didn't know his real name until he died, only that he wrote the ultimate guide to arbitration ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I made a minor copy edit to that essay back in 2013. SilkTork (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, - I am surprised how little changed from 2009 to 2013 when I should have known ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the opinions expressed in that essay do not reflect my own experiences on the Committee, but I'm perfectly aware that people see different things in ArbCom, and because some discussion takes place via email, there is going to be speculation on what the Committee talks about. Cases themselves form a small part of the email discussions, and even then it's usually organisational matters, such as who is going to do what and when. With some exceptions, such as private matters, or internal arguing, what case discussions there are can usually easily be held in public - they are mostly uninteresting, and certainly less contentious or dramatic than what the arbs say on the case pages. Pretty much 99% of what any arb says on the case pages will be the first time that the rest of the Committee themselves have seen it. SilkTork (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Football bios

Sure makes one think that the notability threshhold to get a football bio is much too low. So many of these bios have skeleton details and only links to soccerway. Just playing professionally for a couple games does not mean reliable sources notice you. Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's probably a discussion to have on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. There has always been some degree of debate on how much we can rely on subject specific notability guidelines v GNG, though the general consensus is that they give an indication that a topic is likely to be notable, rather than that they are the final authority. So, if a player has been in two games they are likely to have media coverage beyond a trivial mention. But if they don't have sufficient coverage they wouldn't pass GNG. If there are articles on football players which meet WP:NSOCCER but not WP:GNG that's probably not a fault of WP:NSOCCER but of editors not checking hard enough. SilkTork (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

List of consorts of Bar

I'm curious about this (rather old) edit of yours. The article seems well sourced to me (and did so at the time you tagged it). Was there something specifically you were looking for in the way of sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I see now. All the "references" are really just links to other wikipedia articles. Ugh. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

New articles

As far as civil parishes go, they probably fall under WP:GEOLAND as "Populated, legally recognized places", even if as you point out they are likely to remain as stubs (as least for a while). However I am less sure about the notability of islands. IMO if and island has a stated population and area, that's likely to be a good sign of notability, but may not be conclusive. As a note, my frustration is mainly about the time frame of the change in restrictions, rather than the proposed reductions. If we were reducing the restrictions step by step each month of 6 weeks for example, I would regard that as reasonable and practical, however only removing part of it ever 6 months is way too long and very discouraging to me. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The community has long had an aversion to editors who are hasty. The reasons being that speed in itself creates errors, but mainly that if an editor who is making a lot of edits is making errors, then there are a lot more edits to check and undo. This is a particular concern when an editor is working in a low profile area where mistakes may go unnoticed for a long period, thus increasing the possibility of the community being faced with a daunting amount of edits to check and amend. While we understand your frustration, our role is to protect the community and the project. The project comes first always. We like to run the project in an atmosphere of good will, respect and consideration, and we like to encourage and support each other, but always, the project comes first. A user who displays frustration is going to be regarded with caution. Editing here is a privilege not a right. If every editor edited with the fear of being blocked if they made mistakes, we would have fewer errors and a more reliable encyclopedia. But we don't want to introduce that fear. So we are supportive and forgiving and understanding. But, always, the project comes first. If you talk about what you can bring to the project, how you can enhance it, we will listen very carefully, and be much more inclined to be lenient. If you talk about wanting to move faster, and being frustrated, we are more inclined to be cautious. Does that make sense to you? SilkTork (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your signature has the talk link in red. It makes it appear as if you have no talkpage, which is misleading. Probably best to change that. SilkTork (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense, I do agree that having no article (or content) is better than having incorrect or problematic content. However I also think that having a short, but well written article is better than having no article.

Changed to blue for the talk page link, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool. SilkTork (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Since you have been involved with disambiguation of administrative diversions, you might want to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Disambiguation of council areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

And with regard to the comment about the speed, its perfectly practical to create 10 articles a day that are well referenced, formatted and have some basic facts, although I probably wouldn't expect to create that many a day, it would mean that completing User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes could easily be done in 2-3 months (since some listed there don't require separate articles). If I think of "mass creating" with lots of problems, I'd think of someone who creates 30+ articles a day that either contain errors or are only 1 or 2 sentences long, I wasn't proposing to do anything like as quick as that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I hear what you're saying. But the community has an unease about speed, and an unease about you because of what happened in the past, so we are moving slowly. SilkTork (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

South Huish and Fulford, Staffordshire have been created, User:Crouch, Swale/Risga will be next (unfortunately my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Islands#New articles hasn't got any activity), then Draft:North Clifton. As far as mass errors go, I can't see that as likely (since we have NPP) and even if that did happen, bots or Special:Nuke could be used to fix that. With regard to the page moves I have made more requests at WP:RMT and while a few have been contested, none (yet) of then have failed at a full RM. Do you have anything that you would like to see from my work in either areas that would make you happy with having both restrictions removed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the moves yet. It looks like you're doing OK with the articles, though if you want to impress further, then fleshing them out would be very useful. For example: "There are nine listed buildings in Fulford" is very stark, and put like that is more of a note rather than helpful information. What would be the natural thought of any reader on encountering that sentence? Yes, they'd want more information about those buildings. To be fair, the next sentence does give us: "Fulford has a church dedicated to St Nicholas which is Grade II Listed...", but that appears unconnected to the previous sentence, especially as both say "Fulford" and "listed" so duplicating what has already just been said, and that the sentence goes on to mention other buildings which are not listed. So we have stark information placed as separate notes with no flow or readability. Essentially, you have put bare information into the article, but you haven't presented the information in a readable or helpful manner. So, my suggestion is to increase flow and readability in what you write, and fill out the details. Use your source: [1], as a starting point to bring in some detail and help flesh out the bare bones. As an example of increasing flow, readability and information: "There are nine listed buildings in Fulford, including the Grade II church of St Nicholas which was built in the Gothic style in 1825 by C. H. Winks. To serve the local community there is a primary school and village hall on Fulford Road,[10][11] and a pub, the Shoulder of Mutton, on Meadow Lane.[12]" SilkTork (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

With the moves if I was making them myself I would obviously be more careful about what I move myself than what I list at RMT. I have moved the listed building number to the end so that it doesn't suggest that all the features are listed. I would probably avoid the test "To serve the local community" since it looks more like first person text/advertising. As you can see from Listed buildings in Hethersgill we do sometimes have articles on listed building in a given parish or similar so I didn't add a significant amount of text, although the bit about the church seems sensible. Something I have noted in response to this is that BUASD tend to change quite a lot so that's probably why they are of questionable notability (which I hadn't realized) so it seems I should probably forget the idea of creating articles for all of them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Grade II is very common, and includes post boxes, lamp posts and drinking troughs which it would be difficult to get enough information on to meet our inclusion criteria. Being Grade II by itself is not notable as such, but is a piece of information worth mentioning in an article. SilkTork (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the individual buildings themselves are notable, indeed most Grade II and Grade II* and even Grade I aren't notable but are normally covered at a list such as Listed buildings in Dalston, Cumbria and Listed buildings in Willaston, Cheshire West so most content for them doesn't belong on the parish article its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made some requests at RMT over the last few weeks as you suggested, I have 59 edits there. Out of those only these 4 of these have been contested (I think). A batch here were questioned so I started a RM even though the page mover said "I will leave this open for another Pagemover to see and decide accordingly". They were closed here as all moved. St Ishmaels but the base name has redirected to the qualified title so there was de facto consensus it was primary/only topic (closed as moved). Whitburn, Tyne and Wear the contester didn't seem to note that "South Tyneside" isn't a settlement, closed as moved. Cardross, Argyll evidence provided for primary topic and base name already redirects to disambiguated title thus implied consensus it is primary. Not closed yet but 2 editors support it. Those seem well within you're expectation of 5% failed RMs you wanted at ARCA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Stanford student

Hi SilkTork - I'm a Stanford student working on a project on how to improve Wikipedia edit abuse filtering. Would you be willing to talk for 20-30 minutes about your experience working with Wikipedia over the years? Anything you can share would be incredibly helpful! You can contact me at dlevine2@stanford.edu. Thank you! 2601:681:4d00:8ba0:d871:9d55:1510:36f 23:16, 20 January 2019‎

I would need more details of your project before wishing to get involved. SilkTork (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Page move

I was following the comments in Talk:2011 Iran assassination plot and saw that there was a consensus to move to 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot. Further discussions were, as far as I saw, not leading to a new agreement, while the page was moved to "2011 Iran assassination plot" without having built consensus. I tried to move it back to the agreed title, but I created a mess by leaving a " in the title. Can you move it back to the last consensus? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Louis Armstrong

"Armstrong was largely accepted into white society, both on stage and off, a rarity for an African-American person at the time." This is an extremely dubious claim. You need more than one person's opinion. Also, "tidy" as an edit summary does not explain what you did. You added material. If the material was sourced with a citation, then you have to say you added sourced material. If the material is not sourced, don't add it. Please be specific about any changes you make in Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• (just dropping by) SilkTork's only edit to the article before these recent ones was this, and at that time that phrase was already in the article, so I don't know why you're placing responsibility here. As for the other part of your comment, "you need more than one person's opinion", it's not about "opinions". If reliable sources say it, they say it, and there seem to be plenty of sources making claims along those lines ([2], [3], [4]), so to rack up a set of references wouldn't be hard--but then again, it's not clear what you're pointing at: that this was a rarity? Finally, these seem like very helpful and well-explained edits to me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Why are intruding? Again. What's it to you?
Vmavanti (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed "a privilege reserved for very few African-American public figures at the time" to "a rarity for an African-American person at the time" as I felt that was more neutral than using the word "privilege" [5]. If you disagree, please amend it to something you feel is more appropriate, though I wouldn't advise returning it to the word privilege. SilkTork (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Gillingham Fc lover

Many thanks for your kind words. As I've been trying to do/show over the past two months (something which I feel has been completely ignored by some ArbCom members, by the way) is to show that I have reflected on all the comments and that I have truly changed for the better - trying to verify the additions of other editors (though, as Isaacl has pointed out, this is onerous and not an ideal way of editing) rather than simply reverting, and slowing down and taking time when interacting with others. GiantSnowman 10:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Fodbold-fan

If he'd have continued to not understand what I was trying to say then my next step would be to raise this at a wider forum - but I seem to have got through to him, as I've found no problems with any of his recent edits that have popped up on my watchlist. GiantSnowman 10:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes it feels like there are more important things for the community to be dealing with than good-faith editors who show repeated issues in certain areas (such as adding sources etc.). But, again, you're completely right - when it reaches a point when we might say something we would regret, that's when it's time to stop and let others have a say. This is something I'm trying to get better at, as I hope you are starting to see. GiantSnowman 10:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Categories and templates

As far as they go I would probably create some for missing towns (many "people from subcategories such as Category:People from Halesworth already exist) and some DAB categories (for example Category:Bury should be a DAB which I got renamed and Category:Austin should also be a DAB). Note that I have created thousands of categories at Commons and none have ended up at CFD (although a few of my first ones were later deleted as empty) however I'd note that a Commons category is more like a WP article and a category for a hamlet or tiny island is likely to be acceptable there (as long as there is at least 1 file in it) while categories here should only usually be created if they have a reasonable prospect of having a reasonable number of pages, which is why most villages don't have categories here. I don't I will be creating many new templates at the moment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a cat for Halesworth makes sense as there are a number of articles that could go in that cat, such as the railway station and arts centre. SilkTork (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

GS

I like the idea of the review, which seems similar to the probabtion idea I've been floating, with perhaps more tolerable language.

If it really must be indefinite, I think you need language that opens the possibility of GS requesting the whole review to be, erm, reviewed, not just the individual restrictions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Pronoun

Hi, could you please respect my preferred pronoun? You are failing mistaken to do so here though I have previously politely highlighted that I am being referenced incorrectly in this case by others here, and it is unnecessary to see a case where I am alternately referenced as "her" and "him". Wikipedia discussions can get this right, and Arbcom cases are probably a place where gender should be seen to be handled respectfully. --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't realized you had changed gender as I hadn't read the notice on your user page. It was not a malicious error, and no hurt was intended. By the by, I also choose to be gender neutral on Wikipedia's software, and tend to avoid using gender pronouns, unless someone has previously identified their preferred gender. Last time we communicated you identified as male. I feel, seeing as we are correcting each other here, that your message is a tad aggressive and you appear to have forgotten to WP:AGF; you might find that being more understanding and collegiate will serve you well on this project. Respect works both ways. SilkTork (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

To avoid any misunderstanding, and to avoid the possibility of someone making future assertions of being misleading, I stick to having no gender on Wikimedia projects. I encourage people to use a singular they on these projects, but this is unrelated to my legal identity or how people would refer to me at personal events or in personal correspondence. It is not done frivolously but I see no need for there to be a public explanation. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning this here, as I think it is unhelpful to repeat this a second time in the case itself. Apologies if it is not the done thing to mention minor tangential matters in relation to a case on user talk pages. --Fæ (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If you find that people are deliberately misassigning your gender you can raise that as an issue and it would be looked into as a personal attack, but if people make genuine mistakes, such as I and others have have done, and you would prefer them to address you as a neutral gender, then you can say so in a friendly and polite manner without telling them they are failing. And please do not assume that every thing you write somewhere is going to be read immediately (or at all). It takes people a little time to catch up. Be more understanding and less combative. SilkTork (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It was politely pointed out in the case and my preferred pronoun has been at the top of my Wikipedia user talk page for several months, since I copied it over from Commons where it has been stated for a couple of years. If there is a way of making it more visible that I do prefer to not be repeatedly misgendered, I will happily change it. I am presuming that making the sentence highlighted in bold, or any similar action, would be taken as being aggressive, or confrontational, or extremist, rather than simply ensuring it gets read. For the time being, it is not possible to add a specific pronoun to user account settings. Happy to apologise for the word "failing" here, when you prefer "mistake" and I have struck the word which hopefully is sufficient.

I read your question to me in the case, after my 12:43 response to Sitush's additional text. In the light of word limits, I am thinking that a specific reply is not necessary as I did mention more about why I changed my privacy settings, and that is was not to "conceal the tweet", especially considering the fact that a links to a non-twitter archive of the tweet were posted in the AfD, which persist indefinitely regardless of anything I do on Twitter.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Beverage

...is a perfectly fine word. Please stop changing every usage to the word "drink". It is a needless change. Frankly, I think it's a bit of an ENGVAR thing, as American English seems to use the word more frequently. REGARDLESS, if the word "beverage" is already in a sentence, there is no reason to change it to "drink". It is not an incorrect word, nor is it jargon. Anyone who told you that is wrong. oknazevad (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

We've had several discussions about this. Funny enough, I was the one who advocated a change from drink to beverage in the first place (so am largely the one responsible for it being so prevalent on Wikipedia!), but then agreed that it was more appropriate to change it back to drink, as being the clearest term for a global audience. And it's not a British English v American English thing, it's a clarity thing. Drink is the globally understood term. Beverage is a commercial term, turning drink into a product. It's noteworthy that most uses of beverage are to do with commercial use (see OxfordDictionaries, while drink is the more general use. We wish to be clear and neutral and noncommercial on Wikipedia, which is why we have preferred to use drink, and have changed article and template titles from beverage to drink over the years. SilkTork (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing non-neutral about "beverage". Any greater use of it is an effect of aiming for formality that commercialism. Yeah, it's not a word for the simple English Wikipedia, but this isn't the simple English Wikipedia. In short, both are fine words, and the argument that we need to change from one to the other was pushed largely on the outright stated desires of one editor to purge the English language of Latinisms, which is ridiculous. Really, use "drink" if it is more comfortable for you, but don't bother changing all uses to the word "beverage", which is indeed a common English word, and not unclear. Indeed, since "drink" is both the noun and the verb, while "beverage" is only a noun, it is possibly more clear. "I drink a drink." is a sentence that sounds childish, sing-songy, and simplistic. "I drink a beverage." is clear and mature. There's no need to make edits solely to change the word. oknazevad (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

My lord,
Go then; and with a countenance as clear
As friendship wears at feasts, keep with Bohemia
And with your queen. I am his cupbearer:
If from me he have wholesome beverage,
Account me not your servant.

EEng 23:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)