User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 58

← Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59 →

User:Lobsterthermidor

Hi. My last post at Talk:Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire#Tottenham House section (or wherever the page is now...) refers. I'm not going to say much - User:Lobsterthermidor's (Lt) continual complaints that I'm harassing him make me unwilling to go into too much detail here. I hope I won't have to defend myself against his unwarranted accusations (I'm very aware of WP:HA etc). For transparency you'll want to see this, which was posted in response to this (which, incidentally, ended up at WT:MOS with a clear consensus against Lt).

The main area of concern I see in Lt's edits is the persistent addition of original research. It's a difficult area to make much of since each individual infraction seems so unimportant, yet to my mind they are highly significant because of WP's vast influence. Yesterday I discovered one in his recent edit to Kings Langley; explained on his talk page here, just above your post. It's hard to see how this change can have been anything other than intentional: I really cannot understand his motivation for doing it. Original research like this is common in his work and I often discover it when I browse through his edits, as I admit I do on occasion. However with thousands of edits and over 630 articles created, mostly on subjects that get little attention, there must be a large quantity of OR still lying undetected. User:Agricolae first alerted him to the problem ten years ago, here. He has been advised/told/warned many times since - a recent one from Ealdgyth is at Talk:Charles II of England/Archive 2#No original research.

There are other problems too, but in fairness, I must mention that he has also contributed much of value, especially the thousands of photos and images on Commons It really is a difficult case, but something needs to be done.  —SMALLJIM  00:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have found many of Lt's pages on manors to include family history built on a combination of WP:SYNTH and some seriously dubious sources, or by cobbling together various passing mentions, and frankly, it is always too much family history. There have been instances where a family that acquired a manor in the 1500s is traced all the way back to Domesday, highlighting remote family connections that had nothing to do with the manor in question. That and a tendency to include heraldry used by other members of the families that never held the property in question. Basically doing exactly what was done on the Tottenham manor page, using it as a pretext to present detailed family histories well beyond what is relevant to the actual topic. And they produce way too much of the material of this type to keep up and clean up. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the information. I'd like to hear from Lt before deciding what action to take, though I have to admit I am a little concerned. Not that I think Lt is a trouble-maker - far from it; but that Lt is, in good faith, inserting insecure material into articles which diverts those articles and makes them rather problematic, and that despite explanations, Lt does not understand how problematic this is, and rather than clean up articles, has continued to insert problematic material onto other articles. I was somewhat disturbed when I came upon what Lt had done to Tottenham House, but these things happen sometimes. To find that Lt has recreated the same situation at Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire causes me concern. And reading the history of Lt's editing - that concerns have been raised several times, yet Lt continues to make the some problematic edits, makes me feel that some sanctions may be needed. However, I am hopeful that with some discussion, that Lt will understand the issues, and will voluntarily refrain from inserting lengthy and dense Decent of the manor material into articles. I note in a 2013 discussion it was agreed that Lt could create Descent of the manor sub articles. I'm not entirely convinced this is the right solution as I'm not sure that Descent of the manor material is notable enough for a standalone article. If such material is, as you suggest, original research, then such material is certainly not going to meet our inclusion criteria. I feel that more in keeping with our editing guidelines would be a short summary of the important details of the Descent of the manor, which mentions only the notable people (generally those who have a Wikipedia article). SilkTork (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Further to that 2013 discussion, I raised the issue of manorial descents again at WP:NOR/N this May. Opinion tended towards not including them unless they were already published in some form. I didn't follow up on this discussion though.  —SMALLJIM  16:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My thinking at the moment is that we (or I, if Lt is not comfortable discussing matters with you) discuss the situation with Lt. Absent an adequate explanation, I would suggest that Lt desist from adding dense Descent material onto Wikipedia in any form (standalone or inset), though may add brief Descent details of prominent members of the manor. In addition, that Lt cleans up the existing Descent material they have introduced onto Wikipedia. If Lt is unwilling to do the clean up, that we do it instead. If any significant problems occur during this process, that I take the matter to AN/I to seek consensus for imposing appropriate sanctions on Lt. SilkTork (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

He certainly won't engage with me in any discussions: I've tried various ways of re-engaging with him, e.g. here, here. If it might help I could commit to not commenting during any discussions about his behaviour, unless asked. Clean-up would be a huge job if the offending articles were not to be just deleted and there's plenty of evidence that suggests that he wouldn't help.  —SMALLJIM  19:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Smalljim has been MUTED from posting to my talk page. Due to long-standing and ongoing (entirely) uni-lateral harassment, chronic (entirely) uni-lateral edit-warring (10 years duration), giving of master-classes, didactic tweaks, notifying me of trivial errors (full-stop in wrong place). I interpret his behaviour as severe stalking designed to make me wish to stop editing on wikipedia. Examine his obsession with posting to my page - and look at his own contributions log, much of which shows his obsession with editing articles created by me or with major input by me. I have not communicated with this user since 2013 (Wikipedia:Don't feed the troll) and that's how it's going to remain. As advised by a very wise admin (User:Kim Dent-Brown) in 2013, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818, section 41(31 October 2013 - 9 November 2013): The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing. I have followed that advice to the letter. He's crafty, tries to draw me into new rows incessantly, as here. Doesn't matter what the issue, he wants to argue and make my time on wikipedia very unpleasant in the hope I'll go away. I took a mini break earlier in the year, and just like the classic creepy stalker, he "welcomed me back" on my talk page. He watches every edit I make, and notifies my talk page with every single error, debateable point, incorrect grammar, typos. It's tiresome beyond belief. And he uses and manipulates other people as surrogates in his long-term war. Just a heads up and background info as to why I don't respond to the big rows he brews up.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

In the circumstances it would be best if Lobsterthermidor and Smalljim refrain from talking "about" each other, insinuating motives etc, and simply commented neutrally on article edits and solutions moving forward - as in Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. I have noted that engagement between you two can swiftly descend into a slagging match which helps neither of you achieve your ends, and puts off other people from helping out. As Smalljim has knowledge of this situation going back some years, it will be useful to me for Smalljim to remain involved, though you two need not talk directly to each other, and certainly should restrict your comments to the edits rather than anything personal. If I notice personal attacks from either of you after this, I will issue a final warning, and if it continues after that, I will give escalating blocks. I really hope that will not be necessary. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree readily and I greatly appreciate your efforts to resolve this.  —SMALLJIM  13:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Can this progress if Lobsterthermidor doesn't respond?  —SMALLJIM  09:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but adequate time must be given, especially when progress is being made. There would be no support for sanctions while discussions were in place and making progress. If Lobsterthermidor were to edit Wikipedia for, say, one or two weeks with no attempt to continue discussing the issues and/or were to introduce lengthy Descent of the manor material inappropriately into articles, then I would alert Lobsterthermidor that the matter would be taken to AN/I unless they re-engaged positively with the discussion and/or refrained from insert Descent material until the discussions were complete.

I note that Lobsterthermidor has not re-engaged since you made a comment on his talkpage. I also see that he has made a comment on his user page that he has "Muted" you from his user page. I think Lt has misunderstood the purpose of WP:MUTE, which is to silence notifications (apart from talkpage notifications); though I think it is clear that Lt wishes you not to edit their talkpage. Per WP:NOBAN, you may leave important notices on their talkpage, however it is expected that you would refrain from leaving notices there that could be easily left elsewhere, and that continuing to needlessly edit someone's talkpage after they have requested you not to could be seen as harassment. In the circumstances it would be more appropriate and helpful if you left comments regarding this matter on my talkpage, and if you wish to ask Lt a question, that you go via me. I think this would more likely ensure we achieve the most appropriate result. Does that sound reasonable? SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for the clarification. There are a few items that I want to tidy up, e.g. Fowelscombe, and I'm seeking evidence for the Kings Langley query. Otherwise I'll stay away from WP for the time being. Ping or email me if I'm needed!  —SMALLJIM  11:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll let Lobsterthermidor know that you have agreed to refrain from posting on their talkpage. I hope the discussion can then resume. SilkTork (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: This is the closure report to an Administrators' noticeboard incident (Kim Dent-Brown 09:26, 9 November 2013[1]):

The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing. If I can add a personal opinion - you both Smalljim and Lobsterthermidor behaved poorly, each mirroring the other in haughty disdain of the other. You are each to blame for the other's attitude to you, which you have stoked by your own actions. The solution is in your own hands. I predict that in fact you are each so convinced of the other's wrongness that you will each wait for the other to change, nothing will happen and we'll end up here gain some time sooner or later. Please prove me wrong. Kim Dent-Brown.

I'm sticking to that advice, as I have done scrupulously since 2013.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork. Thought it was time to update myself on this. In case you haven't gone back that far, some of the points that Lt has raised in his recent posts were discussed in our very first interactions back in 2012, at User talk:Lobsterthermidor/Archive 2#Tristram Risdon.  —SMALLJIM  18:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I am hopeful that discussions with Lt will prove fruitful, and a way will be found that ensures that Lt's edits will be less contentious moving forward. However, if that hope does not become a reality, then having a set of diffs going back eight years which show not only that Lt's edits have been problematic, but that reasonable, polite, and expansive attempts have been made to advise Lt that their editing is problematic, will be useful - particularly if several people have attempted to advise Lt to edit closer to guidelines and to follow consensus, but that the problematic editing has continued. My aim here is to guide what appears to me to be a very enthusiastic and productive editor who seems capable of doing valuable work into editing within existing guidelines so Wikipedia can benefit. If problematic editing resumes after our discussion, then we make the next step and take the matter to AN/I, but at least I can feel that we have done the right thing. SilkTork (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Manor of Knightshayes

Hi. Hope you're keeping well. If/when you deem it appropriate could you direct Lt's attention toward Talk:Manor of Knightshayes where I've added some relevant comments. His remarks of 18 October on his own talk page (his second post here) are relevant too. Cheers,  —SMALLJIM  14:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Smalljim. Yes, I'm well. Just been a little busy. I'll take a look at those links shortly. SilkTork (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have looked at Manor of Knightshayes and see no reason for the existence of that article. It should be taken to AfD. Redirecting it to Knightshayes Court would not be appropriate as the term "Manor of Knightshayes" only exists here on Wikipedia, and then there would need to be a redirects discussion in order to delete it, and deleting a redirect is more problematic than deleting an article. I have suspended my discussions with Lobsterthermidor for the moment, as I'm not sure I'm getting anywhere. I need their commitment and understanding in order to continue. So, on the one hand I want to suggest holding off taking Manor of Knightshayes to AfD until Lobsterthermidor has decided if they wish to continue the discussions in a more positive vein, but on the other we have an article already being copied and mirrored onto the internet which gives the misleading impression that there is a "Manor of Knightshayes", and the sooner the article is removed the better. However, on balance, I would prefer to wait to see what decision Lobsterthermidor makes. SilkTork (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Waiting should be OK, I think. I could add the {{Original research}} template (or another? - I don't know what else would fit) to the article to alert any readers.  —SMALLJIM  09:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding an {{Original research}} template would be appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Your issue here seems to be primarily that no "manor" exists, so why not rename the article "Estate of Knightshayes" (or anything else you suggest), that does certainly exist, and is a notable estate. As I pointed out before, the format "Manor of XYX" was something reached by community agreement many years ago. It's not ideal, but it seemed to have achieved consensus until very recently. I would be happy to see it taken to AfD with that new name. Please be assured I am fully engaged and committed in our previous discussion elsewhere (on my talkpage) and am being as positive as I can be - that surely does not mean I have to agree with all of your comments and suggestions? That's not being negative, it's just expression of a disagreement. I thought the discussion was proceeding in a very constructive direction. Please let's continue. The sooner we can resolve this issue of naming articles on the histories of notable estates the better.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Hi SilkTork, in relation to your comment "I see no reason for the existence of that article", it is a WP:SPLIT article created by me at the direct request of User:KJP1 on 9 August 2020 on Talk:Knightshayes Court (under heading "Dickinson family"), which I duly complied with. He is a "William Burges enthusiast" (per his userpage) and did not want the history of the previous house on the site to detract from his principal area of interest, namely the present house on the site built by William Burges. The name "Manor of XYX" is exactly the format I agreed many years ago with User:Smalljim. Now it appears from the latest comments by that user on Talk:Manor of Knightshayes that "I think all could be comfortably accommodated within a "History" section of the main article Knightshayes Court", that the WP:SPLIT should be reversed. He continues "or if enough relevant history could be found that it would unbalance that article (seems unlikely), split out into History of Knightshayes". So we are either back to square one - or back to the (very simple) problem of what to title these split-off articles. That is surely the question we need to solve.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I will look into it shortly. I can see above that you've pinged me. No need to ping folks on their own talkpages as they will be notified anyway by the software. There's no harm in it, it's just that you don't need to bother. SilkTork (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Some useful examples for how to summarise manorial histories

Hi, I have this page watchlisted because you once carried out a GA review for me (or something like that). I noticed this discussion and, as someone involved in some of these instances (including the discussion about The Grange), I thought I'd offer some constructive examples of how a manorial descent might best be incorporated into Wikipedia from a stylistic perspective.

Firstly, This is how Lt imagined The Grange article should have looked. This was my suggestion put forward on the talk page during the discussion(s) you have mentioned below. Unfortunately, it was never implemented; I think that discussion was fairly heated and a number of participants withdrew, although I think my suggestion garnered support. At the time, I retained some detail to help come to a compromise with Lt (which was not forthcoming in the event); that level of detail is probably the most one could reasonably include in an article specifically on a manor/estate/property. I would probably prefer this condensed version which I've put together today. Note how no key detail is missing -- every know owner is there, but the use of the note moves the convoluted Drewe descent from the main prose body; it's there for specialists in the footnote, but summarised for everyone else. In an otherwise balanced article, this is probably the most amount of prose I'd expect to see about a manorial descent in an article on a settlement, for instance; [User:Noswall59/The Grange, Broadhembury|the longer draft]] could work for an article specifically about a manor in my opinion.

The second example is at Holnicote Estate. Lt expanded it so that it looked like this. I worked with other editors (it was primarily me, but others were involved I think) to put together the current section on it's history; the article is now a GA. I notice now that Lt has forked the old content to Descent of Holnicote which is, I believe, redundant to Holnicote Estate.

I believe that both of these examples illustrate how a summary of a manorial descent ought to look on WP, from a prose and stylistic perspective; they also demonstrate how to keep a manorial history focused on the topic at hand, rather than becoming bogged down in out-of-scope, coat-rack-y detail. And they indicate what to do when dealing with occasionally conflicting sources. In both cases Lt has been hostile to the changes, but perhaps it is worth re-engaging with them? Of course, this does not resolve the issues about notability, naming, unreliable/outdated sources, OR, poor citations (or lack of citations). Nevertheless, I hope this is helpful. Cheers, --Noswall59 (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Noswall59. Any and all advice and background is useful in resolving this situation. I'll take a closer look at your links and get back to you. Regarding the GA, I just looked back, and it was Westholme House, one of the easiest GA reviews I've done as you had presented a clean and appropriate article for review. It's rare for me not to have quibbles! SilkTork (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at the links, I'm unsure if any of them are appropriate. There's a lot of information of debatable relevance and interest to the general reader. We can discuss it in more detail if you like. SilkTork (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As in, the current Holnicote Estate article and my draft for The Grange's history section? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

I have trimmed the condensed version further. As I said before, it was a quick adaption based on an earlier attempt to strike a compromise. I can't see how it now is significantly different from your excellent work at Covent Garden. Similarly, the early history sections of the Holnicote Estate article strike me as focused and appropriate for an article about what is essentially a large landed property. Obviously, these things are subjective, but I won't get precious about anything if you think it needs to be trimmed... Oh, and thanks for jogging my memory re Westholme House -- over five years ago! I still think of myself as a newbie here, but that's a sharp reminder that I should revise that self-impression. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC).

The Grange, Broadhembury

Just thought, after the event, I should disclose (to show good faith) a minor edit kind of on this topic I made to The Grange, Broadhembury today. I hope it will not be interpreted in a negative or disruptive way. Just needed some context and linking re Northmoor. Resulted from a somewhat careless former "trimming" in a splitting process. I was just consulting that talk section to refresh my memory because there was a big row there which somewhat resolved the issue we are discussing.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Lobsterthermidor. I assume this is the edit you mean. That's not a minor edit. The history of that article shows you reverting five different users to reinsert dubious material into the article: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; and the talkpage, Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury, has three threads started by three different users showing concern for for your edits. And then there is a lengthy RfC where eight additional users (those who have not previously commented or been involved in the edit war) appear to support the view that lengthy descent of manor material is inappropriate (I've not read it closely). Given the history of that article, and given that we are talking about the concerns that people have with you inserting inappropriate (off-topic or out of scope) material into articles, do you think it was wise to make that edit? SilkTork (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev

Hello SilkTork

Cast your mind back... On 16 July 2010, you closed a move discussion on the Talk page for Saint Sophia's Cathedral, Kiev and moved the article to Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev.

Without further discussion or consensus, the article has moved about a bit since. Kiev has become Kyiv, which is consistent with the article on the city and with current usage (so that's okay), and the comma has reappeared, which is inconsistent with your decision. Unfortunately the 's has reappeared too, making Sophia's again. Sophia isn't a person in this context. Sophia is wisdom, as in Hagia Sophia, Holy Wisdom. Sophia's is just wrong.

I don't suppose I'd be able to move the page myself because the way will be blocked by redirects, and anyway I don't know if further consensus is needed. I believe it should go to Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. Will you move it, or could you advise, please? Thanks. --Frans Fowler (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This would benefit from another discussion to gain consensus. I note that the Kyiv - Kiev naming is contentious, and there are several pages of discussion going back 17 years: Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 1. My advice is to open a move request - Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv (or Kiev) seems appropriate, though a quick glance at other articles in Category:Cathedrals in Ukraine shows that Saint Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv (or Kiev) would be more in line with current naming. I suspect that the consensus would settle on Saint Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv. Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your wisdom. I have put a move request on the Talk page. --- Frans Fowler (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have supported your proposal. SilkTork (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, SilkTork. It has been moved now, as has the similar but less redirected Talk:Saint Sophia Cathedral, London ++ Frans Fowler (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

October

Today's DYK is a song, Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf), a call to see and praise wonders daily and let nobody deny that, written in World War II, - a good recipe for peace, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I find your monthly updates very refreshing. SilkTork (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the idea ;) - Did you notice that the controversy about infobox opera vs. sidebar seems at peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a banned user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC

I don't really understand you're comment, at my previous appeal it was noted that I should obtain consensus for creating large numbers of articles and with the other point I expect that adding the data to the other ~10,000 existing article would likely be expected to have some kind of consensus. While the RFC may be poorly worded I don't think its a bad idea to have it and it should be the last. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Good will and patience can stretch only so far. If you had pinged us to some well thought out and well presented RfC we'd have responded more positively. Asking you to go away and try again would only be worthwhile if there was some hope that you would be able to cobble together a decent presentation. This latest presentation indicates that such a hope is not realistic. Asking you to try again would not be fair on you or on the rest of us. I think what would work better for you would be for you to create a blog on English parishes. You could have the freedom to manage and organise the parishes in your own way, and it would likely be a very useful thing for others to consult. SilkTork (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have no intention to create a blog, the point is that England and Wales appear to be the only countries that are missing such articles (a problem here), every other country that has similar units does appear to have articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. But continue to work steadily and carefully then, and don't push for articles to be created in a rush with possible errors. SilkTork (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

November

In case you are interested in an article related to my question to the arbcom candidates (that you probably saw: L'ange de Nisida, a FA, and mentioned under #Donizetti on my talk, - just when I mentioned peace ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Peace is back for that one. What do you think about Hippolyte et Aricie? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The opera or the article? My music taste is more George Harrison, The Kinks, Chuck Berry, etc. ;-) SilkTork (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Not the opera (which I saw in a spectacular production at the Staatsoper Berlin, Simon Rattle conducting, - memories vivid, opera house closed), not the article, but where peace still is not. The present upper right corner is occupied by something which I assume is meant to be a good compromise. Is it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The information in that corner is not about the subject of the article, though it bears a relationship, in the same way that a list of Tragédie en musique operas in that corner would bear a relationship. Such "series" templates are quite popular and common as they allow readers to readily access related articles. My personal preference is for such linking templates to be placed at the bottom of articles, where other links (to articles and sources) can be found, but I accept that my preference is not that of the majority. SilkTork (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It is at the bottom of the article. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

At the bottom AND at the top? Is that necessary? SilkTork (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. But be very careful. I was restricted by the arbitration committee for that particular question ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am proud of yesterday's Main page: two women pictured, and the article of one rescued from deletion in great collaboration, - see all these names in article history and deletion discussion, + the DYK management. THAT is what I am here for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Henry Green (English judge)

Hi SilkTork, I want to expand the article Henry Green (English judge), which at present gives no information on his parentage or origins. I'm terrified that if I do so you will block me, per your warning on my talk page 21 November "Formal warning for inserting genealogical (or "manorial") history into articles If you insert genealogical (or "manorial") history into an article you will be temporarily blocked". My source would be Lora Sarah Nichols La Mance, The Greene Family and its Branches from A.D. 861 to A.D. 1904, New York, 1904, pp.18-19 et seq.[7]. I also want to explain more clearly how his "descendants include Queen Catherine Parr", as the article now states. Sorry to bother you with this, but you have left me in quite a limbo-land with a Sword of Damocles dangling over my head. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have copied the article to a subpage of your user page: User:Lobsterthermidor/Henry Green (English judge). You can make your expansion there, and when you are ready ping me and I'll take a look. SilkTork (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven 250 years

Beethoven in 1803

The birthday display! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to:
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and - especially -
that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 04:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

"List of Poptropica islands" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of Poptropica islands. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 18#List of Poptropica islands until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jontesta (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Your advice on Damiel Echols draft

Hi. Can you please take a look at Draft:Damien Echols. It is a properly stated WP:COI contribution. I saw that you were one of the top contributors for West Memphis Three page and decided to ask for you advice. What do you think about the page? What can be improved or removed? Thanks. Peter. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bbarmadillo. I see the draft is waiting for review at AFC - that's not an area I get involved in. Someone will get around to it at some point and give you appropriate feedback. Good luck! SilkTork (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, well, thanks. I didn't ask you to review or anything. Just check if everything is correct or needs to be changed (since you worked on the parent article). --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Article looks OK. It has sourced information arranged in sections. I haven't looked closely at the information or sources, but at a glance it looks OK. SilkTork (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas SilkTork/Archive2
	Hi SilkTork/Archive2, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,    –Davey2010Talk 20:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings of the season

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Dear SilkTork, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello SilkTork: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RV (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Manor of Cobham, Kent

Now all the important info on the manor and house appear in articles on the families. No attempt seems to have been made to keep info relating to house and estate on this page, whilst moving what you call "genealogical" info elsewhere. It seems very careless. Do you hate aristocracy and country houses? Some people are interested in these subjects, and in the details. You may well disapprove. I have no interest in beer or the Beatles, let alone in all the minutiae about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds which you seem to find so fascinating. I'm happy to live and let live. Why does it matter so much to you? We should perhaps not let our own personal prejudices get in the way of expanding Wikipedia. Anyone interested in Cobham has been let down by wikipedia, but anyone wanting to know about the Beatles and obscure breweries will be in endless clover. Have a great 2021, Comrade.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Part of the reason for your dislocate here is that you don't yet quite understand how to organise material. It would have been good to have continued our talk, but you made that difficult by wandering off topic, arguing about minor points, and not responding at all for long periods. And I could see it was very difficult to get you focused on the main issues, let alone to agree that your approach was problematic, and then to look at remedies. I don't think you are a bad person, and I still think you could be an asset to Wikipedia, but you have a belligerence about you, and an unwillingness to accept you are wrong that makes me think that you will continue to be an irritant, and may again be problematic. Your focus on the noble families of England is a legitimate interest, but we already have accepted ways of dealing with families, as in Spencer family, and titles, as in Duke of Marlborough (title), and country houses, as in Blenheim Palace. The manor is the land on which the country house sits, where noble families may live, and which may be associated with various titles. But there may be other notable features in the manor, such as communities, a village or more, a church or two, a castle possibly, rivers, bridges, etc. Reducing a manor to being just about the descent of the various noble families who were granted that piece of land is not helpful to an understanding of the manor and its relevance to the history, geography and communities of the surrounding area. It's like looking at a building, such as Brixton Academy, and instead of dealing with the building and its various notable uses over the years, we went to that article and found a list of the people and companies who owned that building along with their children and distant relatives. Essentially in an article about a manor we deal with the manor; in an article about a building we deal with a building; in an article about a family we deal with the family. Everything in its neat little place so people know how to find the information they want, and are not WP:Surprised when they arrive at an article about a house (say Tottenham House), to find a lot of material irrelevant to the topic, impenetrable in its detail, and profoundly boring to the average reader. The day you realise you were wrong to insert that material into that article and then set about willingly to undue to harm you have done will be the day you become a true asset to Wikipedia, and I'll give you a barnstar and my personal thanks. SilkTork (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, SilkTork/Archive2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)