User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 55

← Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56 →

Thank you

Really thank you from my whole heart. You really help me to make such good contant article. I couldn't make such article without you. Thank you so much. Shall we also proceed for submitting as well?Kashish pall (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As this is a talkpage, you sign. See Wikipedia:Signatures for advice on when to sign and when not to sign.

No, not yet, we are not there yet. While I have translated the Bengali article, we haven't yet looked at the sourcing carefully, nor started to rewrite the body to drop the inappropriate information and replace it with informative encyclopedic information (WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT). I think notability is looking more assured, but is still borderline. When the article is ready I will move it into mainspace, and at the same time submit it to WP:AfD to get community WP:Consensus on the WP:Notability. SilkTork (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I am really confused about progress and what to do next. Kashish pall (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I will hopefully be able to finish it off in the next few days. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I complete it almost please check it.Kashish pall (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for delay Kashish pall. I am somewhat distracted at the moment, and have little time for Wikipedia. I've tidied the article up a little. We are almost there, but not quite. There isn't much more to do, and it will be done, but I can't make any promises at the moment as to when exactly. I'm not comfortable with the lead image. I was looking at it the other day, and I don't think it's an image we can use. There are several versions of that image available on the internet - some with the existing wording, some without, some with other wording. As the image we have does not have camera data, only adobe photoshop data, I'm not convinced that the uploader is the owner of the image. I suspect they simply took it from the internet without permission and uploaded it onto Commons. Can you see if you can track down the first usage on the internet of that image? It was loaded onto Commons in 2016. SilkTork (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I found it. May be it is photoshopped by his facebook profile. [1] [2] Kashish pall (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I salt the issue and I think it needs to be submit. Kashish pall (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I am really confused by reading deletion log. Kashish pall (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? SilkTork (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

They says that article is promotional and dubious sites are used. So I think any time it get delete.Kashish pall (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I have said all along that the notability is borderline. My own thinking is that because there are several sites which are fairly reliable that notability criteria is met, but it is a debatable point. The main factors going against Maheshwari are that with or without reliable sources, he hasn't actually done anything particularly notable or unique. He is a minor businessman. The other factors are that most sources I could find are not top quality, and tend to simply repeat what Maheshwari ‎says in his own promotional material. He is clearly sending out press releases which the newspapers are mostly repeating word for word. And the third factor is the promotional nature of the man himself. That seems to be his main claim to fame - that he spends a lot of time promoting himself. All that being said, because he is a well known figure in India I think he should meet the notability criteria, but as this is eng.wiki - the Wikipedia of the Western world, there tends to be a systemic bias toward Western world topics, and Indian topics find it much more difficult to get accepted. I haven't looked at the AfD - it is up to the community to decide what happens. If it has started badly, then it is unlikely to turn positive - most people tend to follow what the majority say in borderline cases. SilkTork (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I still need your little help because I am not sure that weather I am using good source or not. Kashish pall (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a really good place to get advice on which sources are reliable. SilkTork (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting closure of RFC

Hello SilkTork,

In a previous discussion in your user talk, you said that if requested, you would be willing to close the RFC that's currently underway at the fringe theories noticeboard, and to bear in mind whatever evidence I presented there. The RFC hasn't yet been open the full 30 days, but I think it is time for the RFC to be closed, for a few reasons:

• The discussion there has received comments or votes from around 50 members of Wikipedia, and is starting to go in circles, so it's unlikely that any further consensus will emerge beyond what's emerged already.
• It has been around two days since the last time anyone commented there, so there is a risk that the RFC might be moved into the noticeboard archives without a formal closure.
• If the discussion there does eventually resume, there's also a risk that the discussion will become too long for the closing admin to read all of it, if that point hasn't already been reached. I'm concerned about this outcome because I suspect that not taking the time to read the entire discussion was the reason for Spartaz's initial "delete" close in the AFD.
• Finally, I'm concerned about the recent behavior of some individuals in that discussion, such as an argument from one user that certain living people do not deserve protection under BLP policy. To whatever extent this argument is going to affect the RFC's outcome (and some users clearly do find this type of argument persuasive), I think it should not be allowed for the outcome of an RFC to be partially based upon an argument that's explicitly contrary to Wikipedia policy.

There are 22 "yes" votes and 24 "no" votes, in addition to a few votes saying things like "yes and no", so the outcome of this RFC can't be determined based on numbers of votes alone, and it's necessary for the closing admin to examine the strength of arguments and sources presented there. When I presented evidence on this matter in the discussion in your user talk, you said that I need to present this information in the discussion itself, so I've done that in my own vote there. The outcome of this RFC has the potential to affect a large number of articles, so please appreciate the importance of making the correct decision. 2600:1004:B111:4360:9D3A:C5BF:68BC:4D2C (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have left a note there that unless meaningful discussion resumes I will close the RfC tomorrow (Sunday). SilkTork (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For reasons I discussed with the 2600 IP [on my talk page] I think the RfC is a recipe for mischief, and the OP and several other participants abuse the forum, but it should nevertheless be kept open the ordinary 30 day duration. Partly for editing, partly to clarify seemingly critical issues (e.g., what would be the result even if everyone agreed that YES it is all fringe --- does this become a WP-wide policy, or only apply to R&I? what sorts of statements exactly are included?), partly because some people including myself want to comment but may need more time if that is to be possible.

One edit that is badly needed is to migrate several topics (such as SPA-or-not analyses, accusations of racism, discussions of some of the science-as-such distinct from discussion of sources on what-is-fringe) that are taking up a lot of space and energy, to their own sections. Having it in the middle of the discussion with walls of text and 10 levels of indentation makes things impossible to follow. I am not sure of the WP etiquette here: is there any objection if I simply create such sections and cut-and-paste the material into the new locations? 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my offer to close the RfC, and I'm also recusing myself from race and intelligence discussions. If there are doubts, however slight, about the impartially of an admin in such a contentious and emotionally charged area, then it is difficult for that admin to bring about closure. As regards 30 days for RfCs, that's the time period when bots archive an RfC - it is not a formal time period for keeping RfCs open. RfCs can close at any point when it is felt they should close. Most RfCs are not formally closed - usually people simply stop taking part and so the bot archives them after 30 days. And some RfCs carry on after 30 days. SilkTork (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see no reason you should feel any pressure to recuse yourself from any discussions, though admittedly I did not read every last brick of the walls of text at the RfC. The objections to a closing, whether due to solicitation or prior involvement in the DRV, are understandable but some of those RfCers are far too involved themselves and the browbeating and control-freakery going on there is ridiculous.

Re: the etiquette question, is there any problem with migrating the off-topic or subtopic material such as the subjects mentioned above, into new sections? I hesitate to do it in the sense that it affects many user comments and would not be easily undo-able once newer comments are added to the FTN page. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It is generally acceptable to introduce section headers, even arbitrary ones (often marked as such) as that aids navigation. Moving or organising users comments is not generally accepted, other than on your own talkpage. It has been done, and will be done again, but the person doing it would have to have a clearly obvious and acceptable reason for doing so, and would need to be a user in good standing. And even then, if doing so in an emotional discussion (anything to do with politics and/or nationalism/race) they might face objections/abuse/threats/life-long enmity. SilkTork (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The contemplated edits in this case would take dormant sections that are complete subtrees of the thread, i.e., one comment and all its replies and sub-replies (etc) are on a single topic X, cut and paste that to a section on X where any further comments can be added, and leave a note at the location of the original tree to "see section on X". The obvious-and-acceptable idea would have been that the RfC thread is almost unreadable for lack of such organization, were anyone to try to go through it in its entirety (e.g. a closing admin, or someone wishing to comment). But if the acceptability is not so obvious I can simply propose this on the RfC page, or perhaps state the intent to do it, invite comment and wait before acting. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposing and waiting is a good idea. See Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. SilkTork (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Belated congratulations

Just wanted to stop by, say hi, and congrats on passing RFB! bibliomaniac15 19:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

VPP

Great close. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be Dom Perignon '59! ——SN54129 14:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would be pricey. SilkTork (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The cynic in me thinks that your money's probably safe where it is, unfortunately; that lightbulb was probably as good as it gets. ——SN54129 14:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

closes of AFDs on lists of churches

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic churches in Leicester and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglican churches in Leicester, both of which I opened. I don't think your "Keep" decisions were the right outcome, based on quality of arguments, but whatever I guess.

In the RC close you commented: "The delete comments focus on the non-notable content of the list, but do not deal with the concept of the list, which is valid within our criteria. There are no policy based reasons to delete. However, the list does need cleaning up and sourcing. We do not know the accuracy of the list for example, so the list cannot be relied upon."

Could you comment more: do you really think every geographic grouping that makes a subset of a list is a valid separate article. Does your close suggest that (you just state flatly that the Leicester list is valid within our criteria. Because I dunno about Wikipedia having to allow a list for just any geographic area, no matter how small. For every list of N items, there are many many lists which could be constructed as sub-lists. I think that N factorial subsets are possible, right? Certainly, when we have one list (e.g. a list of 100 RC churches in England) we don't have to allow a separate list for every subset, even if we restrict the subsets to only accept ones that make a coherent area (e.g. the two RCs in one village; the 3 in an adjacent town; the 5 grouping those together; the 2 in another town; etc.).

Also you did not comment on the recent three similar AFDs (other denominations of churches in Leicester, linked in the AFD) which closed delete or userfy; could you comment?

You could have said that organization / subdivision / mergers / rationalization of geographic list-articles are matters for Talk page discussions or merger proposals or an RFC or discussion in other forum, not AFD. That would be arguable, but you didn't say that. And I thought it was necessary to have AFDs given the contention apparent in the recent related AFDs.

Maybe you don't want a big discussion here, if so that's okay, but I thought I would ask. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

List are problematic on Wikipedia. I'm not impressed with those lists of churches and feel they are unsourced and unhelpful, but the concept of having such a list of churches is acceptable. That the lists need work is not in itself a rationale for deletion, and the argument that they fail because of WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't work because there is nothing in NOTDIR that applies to a discrete and selected list of items, as evidenced by the very existence of such lists on Wikipedia. The appropriate thing to do with the lists is to try to make them work - I started to look for some of the churches and failed. Having failed, my next step was going to be to remove each church that couldn't be verified, and if that left only a small number of churches I would merge them into an appropriate article. That's the most appropriate way of dealing with these things. I've just looked and I see someone has already removed some churches (I assume after making an appropriate attempt to WP:PRESERVE by doing a basic search). I think as long as we are all following both the spirit and policy of Wikipedia then we are doing the right thing. Try to make an article or list work - if it doesn't work on its own, can it be merged? If it can't be merged, then seek deletion. Going straight for deletion is jumping two stages. Just bear in mind that pretty much every article on Wikipedia was crap at one point. If nobody made any attempt to work on a crap article and simply deleted it instead, there wouldn't be much for people to read. I suspect though, that those lists are not going to remain as standalone lists for long, because most of the churches are not notable enough. I think I only had time to research three of them, then had to do other stuff, but I did note that one of them is now a Hindu temple. My thinking is rather than several standalone lists of churches, a brief summary of places of worship in Leicester would be useful - something like this: Leicester#Religion. And if there is enough detail on any particular church then it could develop into its own article. And if there were enough of these articles they could be listed in a standalone list. And if that standalone list grew so it became unwieldy, then split the churches out into sub-lists either by period, style or denomination. So the concept of the lists is good, and it may work. But perhaps not right now. But let's try to make them work first, and if that fails, then merge what remains into Leicester#Religion. Does all that make sense? SilkTork (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

As closer of two similar articles, would you mind to have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 9 with regard to Draft:List of Baptist churches in Leicester. A lot of work went into improving that article, and may the best of the series. ThanksDjflem (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork, regarding I see someone has already removed some churches (I assume after making an appropriate attempt to WP:PRESERVE by doing a basic search), that was just me stripping away, at both of the list-articles, with notice to Talk. I was/am already proceeding on a low-energy version of the two-stage process (first: delete seemingly non-notable ones, wait a while to give a chance for anyone to try to salvage any of those, then second: merge the remainder (actually the seemingly notable ones are already merged)). I feel I honestly tried already, enough, during the AFDs, to consider how to save any items, but I saw nothing helpful at all in any of the purportedly wonderful sources. Like Djflem, I too would welcome your participation at the Deletion review. There I try to provide my bigger view about how to proceed positively (which is to work at level of "List of DENOMINATION churches in the United Kingdom"). Your view of how to proceed is maybe more positive; i would be happy to see you try to state there what you think can really be done. --Doncram (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

What you say you're doing at that article is what I would have done if I'd carried on working on it. Regarding the AfDs. Each AfD will be different, and the closer has to close according to what is said during the discussion, and weigh both the weight of the rationales with reference to policies and guidelines and the amount of people agreeing with those rationals. With regard to these lists of churches, each discussion will be different. What I think has to be disregarded is the principle that a list of single denomination churches in a specific location by default will or will not meet our inclusion criteria. The weighter rationales will be those that address the specific list in question. Arguments regarding the state of the lists will also carry lesser weight as that is not a WP:DEL-REASON but an argument to improve the article per WP:ATD. All things being equal it could just come down to a count of heads. I've not looked at the deletion review, and I'm not sure I'll be able to in the next few days, but if I do have time I will. I think your notion of working from the basis of "List of DENOMINATION churches in the United Kingdom" has merit, and that can be done regardless of if a particular area has sufficient single denomination churches to create a standalone list. If two people are working on the same topic with different/opposed approaches, then talking together informally on a solution can sometimes be more beneficial than talking in more stressful areas like AfD which tends to have more fixed outcomes and a fixed timeframe. SilkTork (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I was not a participant of the two AfD discussions whose closures were the subject of this thread (I participated in the previous three related AfDs), but I just wanted to make a remark on the statement that there is nothing in NOTDIR that applies to a discrete and selected list of items:

WP:NOTDIR#6 is explicitly about cross-categorization lists, with the given examples in that part being "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" and "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". The "List of [affiliation X] churches in [city Y]" is essentially the same as "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". So shouldn't NOTDIR apply because it explicitly excludes those lists from WP except for those for which the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon? The exclusion property has to be demonstrated in order for NOTDIR not to apply. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MarkH21. Thanks for the question. I don't see WP:NOTDIR#6 applying as that is about the sorts of intersections that are also rejected for categories. People can easily make up such intersections - "Girls at my local high school who shave their pubes", "Boys called Robert who are virgins and live by the seaside", "Jews who serve hamburgers in McDonalds". You know the sort of thing. They are often not just pointless, but also offensive in some way. But intersections that are encyclopedic and/or are "a culturally significant phenomenon", such as single denomination churches in a given location, would not come under that, unless we also wish to remove the notion that churches by religious denomination is not culturally significant, and that is clearly a non-starter: Category:Church buildings by denomination. I think you'd have a long hard struggle to get Wikipedians to write into policy that we mustn't group together religious buildings by faith in a given area. SilkTork (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course churches by religious denomination is culturally significant, but isn't the key point here that the intersection itself has to be culturally significant? I.e. "[denomination X] churches" may be culturally significant and "churches in Leicester" may be culturally significant, but is the specific intersection of "[denomination X] churches in Leicester" a culturally significant phenomenon? NOTDIR#6 is saying that unless the particular intersection is a culturally significant phenomenon, then the intersection is not WP-appropriate.

Perhaps a clear example would be something like: "Buddhist temples" is a culturally significant phenomenon, "places of worship in Leicester" is a culturally significant phenomenon, but it's unlikely that it is a culturally significant phenomenon that there are "Buddhist temples in Leicester". Or even more directly from the wording of NOTDIR#6: we can agree that Chinese restaurants are culturally significant and that restaurants in London are culturally significant, but one must ask whether Chinese restaurants in London constitute a culturally significant phenomenon.

I'm not saying that the particular cases of "Anglican churches in Leicester" are definitively not culturally significant intersections. I'm saying that NOTDIR#6 is applicable in the sense that it requires us to ask whether the intersection is culturally significant. It's a relevant policy to these kinds of lists. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC at AN

Hey, given that you were supposed to close the RfC first but opted not to, I think your comment would be valuable in this ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Self-requested closure review: RfC on race and intelligence. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I withdrew from the race and intelligence with this statement: "Given the doubts raised here, albeit slight, I will withdraw as closer, including as part of a team. When a debate starts up on a potential closer, that is an indicator that there will likely be a similar debate on their close, thus making the close insecure, and as such the close would not bring closure, but simply further dissent. This also means I will recuse from any race and intelligence discussions in future. SilkTork (talk) 12:15 pm, 5 April 2020, Sunday (16 days ago) (UTC+1)" As such I am recused from any race and intelligence discussions. I'm also not sure, even if I wasn't recused, what I could bring to the discussion. I've read the close and it appears to align with my previous close on the issue: [3], which I clarified on my talkpage: [4]. In brief, reliable sources which discuss the potential of a link between intelligence and race can be used, but such views are to be treated as fringe unless at some point such views become mainstream. However, as I have not read through the RfC nor the discussion on ANI, I am not in a position to say if Tony's close was appropriate, and anything I say here or there will likely to be taken by one side or the other as prejudiced. I will either be prejudiced because my close on a similar discussion is close to Tony's, or I will be prejudiced because I was canvassed. Nothing I say will carry any weight regardless of what I say! SilkTork (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You're only saying that because you're prejudiced. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I am! I'm prejudiced against prejudice. It's an awkward irony. SilkTork (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Naming of television episodes

Hello SilkTork. You opened the request at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Official title v commonname for television episodes. You have clarified that you don't have a position pro or con. But since you opened this, do you have an instinct or a personal view as to whether this 'abolition of COMMONNAME' would actually work? Do you see it as being a good solution to anything? From a 20,000-foot view, and without having studied the matter yet, it looks to me that the TV WikiProject is mistaken and that they ought to conform to the AT policy. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We can and do adjust policy in line with consensus. That's what we do all the time. The problem here is that a WikiProject have decided to organise articles in their topic area without making appropriate allowances for policy, creating a policy conflict. There now appears to be some confusion as to if they can or can't do that. The WikiProject seem to feel they can because the discussion was advertised on the policy page, and participants in the policy page RFC are saying that the adjustments they want to make can't be put into policy but can be enacted per IAR. It's kind of a mess, and I'm not sure if I can sort it out, or have the will to do it. SilkTork (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits to pub page.

Thank you for your edits to the pub page. I am concerned, however, that you may be under the impression that this is primarily a page about British drinking establishments. While the subject matter inevitably dictates that the main focus will British-centric, this does not mean that non-British (or non-Commonwealth) contries don't have a place in the article. I wonder if you would mind reviewing your edits in this light. Many thanks, Obscurasky (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your query Obscurasky. The article's main focus has been from the start to be about the pub, which is a British drinking establishment, rather than drinking establishments in general which can be found at drinking establishment. Variations of British pubs appear in some countries which have come under British influence, and there may be drinking establishments which theme themselves on a British pub, but a pub is chiefly British Defining a pub is difficult because there are drinking establishments in the UK which are not pubs. Not every bar or drinking establishment which serves beer is a pub, so even within Britain, the notion of what is a pub can at times be a matter of debate. I have been editing that article on and off for around fourteen years, and I think I am probably the main contributor, but I don't watchlist it, and I can go years without looking into it, so there may at times be some inappropriate or mistaken edits which when I do visit the article I tend to clean up. If you read through the article you will see that it is about the British pub, its history and culture, its licensing laws, its signs, its games, the variety of British pubs, etc. It is not about drinking establishments in general nor about pubs in other countries, it is about the British pub. SilkTork (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You say, three times, that the article is not about 'drinking establishments in general'. I was not saying it is, and I'm sorry if I gave you this impression.

I do not, however, agree with your argument that nor is it about "pubs in other countries". Wikipedia is available internationally and, if it was only about British pubs, the article ought be re-titled to reflect that. There is nothing in the current title to indicate that the article is about anything other than 'pubs' and clearly this is a view shared by other editors too - who's work you are currently un-doing. Obscurasky (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page and want the same thing, and I'm not sure where exactly I am diverging from you. I think we can agree that there are pubs in other countries. I hope we can agree that that is noted in the lead ("in countries and regions of British influence, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and Australia.") and is followed up in the section: Pub#Outside_Great_Britain. Can you clarify what your concerns are? And do you think we should now move this discussion to the article talkpage? And, just in case you feel I am some kind of drive-by vandal, it may be worth pointing out I have worked on that article for fourteen years on and off, and am quite likely the main contributor both in terms of content, structure, and focus. SilkTork (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you're telling me that you've worked on the article for fourteen years and are probably the main editor, but in any case, you have already said that. Obscurasky (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Because you said: "clearly this is a view shared by other editors too - who's work you are currently un-doing". Given that the bulk of the work on the article is mine, and has been there for some years, any work I would be "undoing" would be edits that would be inappropriate in some way. I wanted to make clear to you in the face of that statement that I am not a drive by editor or vandal, and that I have a good understanding of the article, its scope, and its contents. The scope of the article is the British pub, and over 1,400 editors have worked on the article with that being the scope, so I have consensus on my side. Where there are significant instances in other countries to justify a separate article, those can be created, such as Irish pub and Australian pub. I don't watchlist the article, and hardly go to it, but when I do, and I see someone has left an inappropriate edit or unhelpful revert, then I tend to correct it, same as I do on any article I am reading. Where I'm not sure I ask (or research), where I am sure I edit. SilkTork (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The main area where we are diverging is that you appear to believe the article is about 'British' pubs and have made edits to that effect. For example, you removed text saying "pubs are a prominent part of British, Irish, Breton, New Zealand, Canadian, South African and Australian cultures." and changed it to "the pub is an important aspect of British culture". While (obviously) I agree pubs are a British innovation, I do not believe the article should be restricted to this extent. Obscurasky (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is about the British pub, its history and development, laws applying to it, the structure and layout of the pub, games and culture, etc. If you wish to change the article into something else, then start a discussion on the talkpage. But changing the lead to make the article "appear" to be about a wider scope than it currently is would be inappropriate and misleading. Another option would be to develop the section Pub#Outside_Great_Britain and create a sub article whose scope is pubs outside Great Britain. I am sure you could develop an article quite nicely on that topic. SilkTork (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made a few, positive, edits to the page and hope you're not put out by these. Obscurasky (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I'll take a look later. SilkTork (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no suggestion that you are a drive-by vandal, but thank you for making that clear. And for my part, I want to make it clear that I am not being disruptive or pedantic. As much as I hate to repeat myself, however, Wikipedia is available internationally and I fundamentally disagree with your statement that "The article is about the British pub" - that would be the article British pub. This article's title makes it perfectly clear that it is about 'pubs' - and obviously that includes their British origins, influence and history. Obscurasky (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it would not be British pub because that would not be WP:CONCISE, we only disambiguate where necessary. We do, though, per MOS:LEAD, "identify the topic". The topic in this article is the British pub, not drinking establishments around the world. There are drinking establishments around the world which either copy the British pub (and so are a theme pub) or, while having a different history, are influenced by the British pub, such as pubs in Australia. The solution, if you wish to create an article on pubs around the world, is to write that article rather than try to shift the focus of this article. SilkTork (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there's nothing in WP:CONCISE to support your argument. Indeed (as neither Irish pub and Australian pub are specifically about theme pubs) the commentary on continuity actually supports my position.

In any case, I have no interest in engaging in a drawn out disagreement and, as you show no sign of trying to see things from my perspective, I will not dispute your edits to limit the article's scope. I would add though, that its scope has been a constant source of confusion and this is something which you would be well advised to make crystal clear in the lead. Obscurasky (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Easter or whatever you celebrate

or: the resurrection of loving-kindness --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That's just a little more in bloom than our cherry tree. I planted it about five years ago, and it has grown well. Loads of cherries last year, but we ate very few as some birds got to them before us! It's going to be a race this year - we're determined to harvest them before the birds pinch them all! SilkTork (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good luck! - Today, Le Concert Spirituel with the question The Proms or Proms, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

When I can't get a composer's article where I want it, I write about his composition, today see Credo, or this is the day from Psalm 118. (In your capacity as an arb experienced in infoboxes, what do you think about that strange recent edit war?) - Article titles: now also the question Fanny Hensel vs. Fanny Mendelssohn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I will take a look at that in a moment as you say there's an edit war going on. But it will have to be after lunch I'm afraid. SilkTork (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerda - is this what you are referring to [5]? I don't see anything else that fits the description of an edit war. That edit looks like a mass revert of a series of harmless and good faith but mostly unsourced edits by an IP. I haven't looked into the edits themselves, nor into the one source cited, to see if the edits or the source are acceptable. I expect you can do that better than me. SilkTork (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that I didn't clarify that is was in the past, and that it was in the composer's article, and yes, I saw a harmless IP who had no idea of a mine field, and could have simply been told that it is. Instead, 3 established users reverted, and one went to a noticeboard suspecting "(or a logged out IB warrior)", - it seems out of proportion - to me. There has been no infobox battle in years, - why still use such war terms? Nothing of concern in a broader perspective, but still a question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If you link me to it Gerda, I'll take a look. SilkTork (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I linked to the noticeboard, where the IP's seven edits are linked, and you will see the reverts in between by going back and forth. Also there's the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". All I'm interested in is that in the future, terms such as "IB warrior", and suspicion that some IP is one, may cease, - creative approaches welcome. I was just reminded of the case because the composer was pictured on the Main page today, because when I can't get a composer as I want him, I create an article on a composition, in this case Credo, which turned out to fit Easter so well with its "This is the day ...". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I see these three links: Credo, this is the day and Psalm 118. The "this is the day link" goes to a contributions history of your talkpage which doesn't show an edit war. I have a little bit of time to spare today, which is not always the case, so I can give it another go if you link me to the actual article where the recent edit war took place. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I can spell it out, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive405#User:184.58.230.245 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked). Sorry, I was busy with the next composer who died, and the article, tagged as unsourced, was plain copyvio from one of the sources, sigh. Took a while to repair. It's still not great but not quite as shameful as the three days since he died. I have no idea what the obit in Lithuanian says, unfortunately. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. I see it: [6]. An editor, User:184.58.230.245, put a person infobox into the Krzysztof Penderecki article. This was undone with an edit summary referring to WP:CMINFOBOX which indicates that there is a consensus that such infoboxes are not used in biographies of classical composers without first getting a consensus on the talkpage. The user continued to reinsert the infobox. Three different editors reverted them with edit summaries pointing out that they need to follow the guidelines and get consensus. On looking at the user's talkpage, there are several message from people regarding edit wars that user has been engaged in on other articles, as well as Krzysztof Penderecki (all such notices were deleted from the user's talkpage by the user), and they have a rather long block log [7] for someone who has been here only a short time [8]. That user's third edit was to insert a person infobox: [9]. From looking at that edit history it is possible that this is a user who has previously been involved in edit wars over infoboxes and been blocked. It is a shame when people become so single minded over issues like this, and feel they have to act against consensus. I have no views on infoboxes either for or against, though I tend to find them useful when tracking a musician's discography. Indeed, if you look at my editing history today, you'll see I have been sorting out the album sequence in the infoboxes on Ray Charles' albums (example: [10]). But I do have a view in support of Wikipedia operating by consensus. It is a model I much admire. So when people are working against consensus, especially in cases like this where it appears to be deliberate, then preventing them from editing and causing disruption is appropriate. As such I agree with the block. SilkTork (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. We talk different things, though. I don't think that anybody who had to do with infoboxes would be stupid enough to edit-war in that fashion, because - as can be seen - chances to succeed (if success is an infobox that is kept) are zero. I didn't look at that particular IP's history, I just think that AGF would recommend to assume an IP as innocent until the opposite is proven. A new user may not even know how to find and read an edit summary, and if, not understand our abbreviated guidelines. (I remember such situations from my early days, when I had no idea what a talk page is, nor how to find article history.) I believe that it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more inviting. Seven reverts means three people who know exactly when to stop without also getting blocked. I'm on voluntary 1RR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I am extremely sympathetic to new users finding their feet. I experienced impatience and hostility when I arrived, so I know what that is like. But the editing history of this particularly user points to them being familiar with infoboxes: they start introducing them with their third edit, and then engage in edit wars to keep them in place in several articles. I don't understand such behaviour and nor do you. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of users are positive and cooperative, But there are some editors who are not cooperative. And it is surprising how much time is taken up by the handful of editors who are not cooperative. Dealing with such deliberately disruptive behaviour can be quite negative and tiring and can demotivate users. I am thankful that there are editors who are willing to deal with disruptive editors. Of course we need to be sure that the editors dealing with disruptive users don't over step the mark. And in this case they haven't. The user was given clear advice and warnings both in edit summaries and on their talk page (which they promptly deleted rather than attempt to address). They have received gradually increasing blocks. From what I have seen, I think it unlikely that user will return as a productive user willing to follow consensus. But we live in hope. We never block someone for ever. We always allow people to return or at least appeal after a given time. There are some individuals who appear quite disturbed, and anyone serving on ArbCom gets an email from them every year, which has to be read and responded to. It is very rare indeed for any such user to be put on auto-discard. And those that are, are very disturbed indeed, and the Foundation will be involved, and sometimes law enforcement and/or lawyers. On the whole the ethos on Wikipedia is to allow everyone a second, third, and fourth chance, because anyone can change. SilkTork (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

credo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

the other side

Can we for a moment forget our historic knowledge about some infobox wars? I imagine I am an IP, read in the news (on our Main page) that Penderecki died, look at the article, think it's missing what I'm used to from other articles, an infobox, add it, not copying the one from 2009, nor the one from 2012, nor the one one from 2013, but assembe it piece by piece, and then find it gone. How would I react? - In case I knew that articles have a talk page, I would have seen this. - New question: arbitration requested to find consensus on every article's talk page (which led not only to a gigantic time sink but also to perpetuating the conflict by repetition of the same "arguments", - therefore I refused to participate in the 2020 Mozart discussion until pinged). Arbitration didn't say then "just for classical composers don't even try because there was this 2010 not-binding guideline". Therefore, in my understanding, a local consensus for one person should rule, not the general no-no for composers (on top of that Penderecki was also a conductor, teacher, person). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't uphold a notion which says we should not learn from history. Without history we have no intelligence and have to build from scratch. By gosh, our very genes contain history! SilkTork (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I see no connection. What I try to say, in a nutshell: when a new editor adds an infobox (or actually whatever else), assume in good faith that they try their best to improve the project (while bad faith assumes they come as warriors). A really new user deserves an explanation on their talk why an edit was reverted (not only an abbreviation of some guideline in an edit summary they may not even see, in this case: "WP:CMINFOBOX: no consensus reached to add an IB on Talk Page (there wasn't anything in this box anyway); seems to have been added by one user." - Would you understand that? A really new user would probably not know "WP:CMINFOBOX", "IB", "Talk Page". And if the user wan't so new in the end, would it hurt to spell these things out, just in case?). It could be so simple. - A friend died. He was borderline notable, - create an article or not is a question that concerns me more right now. Penderecki was again on top of my talk, "this is the day" - which is true every day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I see a disruptive editor who was handled appropriately by the community. You see something else. I think we see things differently. That is the nature of a mixed community. I love that there are different viewpoints. I am proud of this community that handles different viewpoints by asking people to abide by consensus. That works. It's simple, elegant, co-operative, and aids collaborative working. The consensus in this case was that the IP was disruptive. You don't agree with consensus. Fine. I don't always agree with consensus. But we abide by it, and if we really feel that consensus is so wrong that it is harming the project, we use appropriate methods to change consensus. We don't ignore or disrupt the project to make a point. This message to the IP seems clear enough. It's the message we have created that explains what a person is doing that is wrong, and what they should do to resolve the problem they are having. This was the incident. The IP had reverted an experienced editor who was restoring sourced and accurate information to an infobox: [11]. The IP wanted to assert that as we don't know the day or month the person was born, we can't know how old they were when they died. It was pointed out that we use the age given in reliable sources, such as this one used in the article: [12]. A second experienced editor got involved, and the IP edit warred with both of them. Another note was left for the IP: [13]. The next message on their talkpage relates to another edit war they are engaged in: [14]. This one regarding the spelling of someone's name: [15]. The IP blanks their talkpage, removing the comments left regarding their contributions: [16]. They are given two more warnings, they continue edit warring, so they are blocked: [17]. The user blanks the page: [18]. And so it goes on. Not everyone is temperamentally suited to editing Wikipedia. I think the community handled this person with enough patience. Warnings and explanations were given, and the blocks gradually increased in length: [19]. SilkTork (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, but we talk about different things. I am not looking at the Penderecki case which was only one of many, but, more generally, at the NEXT one which may come up. Can we afford to generously explain to an editor who may be unfamiliar with our abbreviations and our "consensus", even if that editor may be familiar already, - that is my question, in other words, AGF or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should (and mostly we do) AGF. And we also (mostly) explain. We should, though, remember that our editors are charity volunteers giving up their time to work on this project, so responses may not always be perfect, and the community will tend to side with the experienced and productive editor who may have been too quick with a warning, rather than with a new editor who has made an inappropriate edit and hasn't responded well to being informed the edit was inappropriate. On the other hand, the community will also make their feelings known if they find that an experienced editor has been too sharp or hostile with a new editor. It is sometimes a fine balance, and we are not perfect, but we are well meaning, and it's good to AGF about the community. It's also worth remembering that there really isn't an official or even quasi-official body organising this community of volunteers. We just get on and do it. We agree among ourselves, based on our experiences of editing in real time, how to deal with editors who make inappropriate edits. There is no person or body to complain to. If there is something you or I feel could and should be done better, we start a discussion in the appropriate venue to seek consensus for a new way forward, and whoever is available and interested will join in the discussion. I'm not sure where in our guidelines and policies we could recommend more patience and more explanations that we already recommend, as that's not an area I have worked in much, but it's certainly an area worth looking at. If you have an idea what we could do better, then go for it. I always support people looking for ways to improve the community. Find the most appropriate venue and start a RfC. SilkTork (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

room 13

Hi, SilkTork! Re: your closing here -- I'd quite like to know how to find room 13. I've been trying off and on for at least two years to figure out how to stay more aware of what WMF are up to, and I've failed to even figure out how to figure out how. Is there a newsletter I can sign up for that'll get delivered to my user talk somewhere so I'll get an other-wiki notification? Or a page I should put on some watchlist somewhere that I can be visiting occasionally? Thanks for getting that light bulb installed, btw. —valereee (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This is room 13: Meta.WikiMedia (not to be confused with MediaWiki). It's where the Foundation make their announcements, and where we are supposed to report problems. This makes interesting reading, and this is why I feel confident that I will not be buying anyone a case of vintage champagne. Read it and weep. Wikipedians are from Venus, and the Foundation is from Mars. We can't seem to be able to speak the same language, let alone think the same way. SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so Space was the light bulb? Yeah, I joined it, and it died recently from lack of interest. I never could figure out how it was supposed to work. The platform was strangely counterintuitive. I do understand WMF's pov on having any official communications here on enwiki; what does that mean for all the other projects? We could end up with hundreds of such pages and discussions rather than one centralized discussion. Maybe we could keep track of centralized discussions on meta if the pages we were watching on meta showed up on our enwiki watchlist, but expecting the average enwiki editor to go visit meta every day to see if there's anything important there is probably not helpful. Thanks for the links, I actually already had meta.wiki's main page on my watchlist there, but it never felt like I was seeing everything I should. Need to remember to visit more often. Thanks much! —valereee (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The Foundation's main role is to support Wikipedia. This site is Wikipedia. Yes, we have expanded into different language Wikis and other satellite programmes, but this is the main site. This Wikipedia is the most read one. This Wikipedia influences and drives the other language Wikis. This Wikipedia raises the money to pay the wages of the Foundation staff. Yes, they should make an effort to communicate here rather than expecting us to communicate there. They could use some of the money we raise to pay for several communications offers whose role it is to monitor this and the other sites to check on communications, and to post news and information. Heck, if they asked, there would be people from each Wiki willing to do it voluntarily for free and to give a weekly feedback. It is very hard for me to talk about the Foundation and not get frustrated and sometimes even angry. There is so much potential going to waste. SilkTork (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Enwiki is the main project, and it would make the most sense for them to come here and talk to us and get other projects to liaise. It's just, you know. The French. :) —valereee (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: New village pump

Hello, I am really glad to see this discussion. If it continues for the next 12 month' time, as you told, I'll also give both you and User:Alsee a plate of your favourite food.
What's the next step to see the VP live? With sincere regards. --Titodutta (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Titodutta given the consensus, anyone could install the page at any time - preferably with some significant content to post on it. Due to a combination of offline-life, procrastination, and (temporary) burnout due to dealing with the Foundation, I have not yet written up the stuff I intend to post... so I haven't installed the page yet. The biggest item I have in mind will basically seek to overturn a DECADE of past-and-future foundation strategy to rebuild the wiki around VisualEditor. (In 2011 the Foundation published an official strategy to deprecate wikitext - and while the strategy has evolved the ongoing strategy is still rather pathological.) Given how serious and major that topic is I intend to put some serious time into digging up tons of links and documentation on everything.

If you're patient, I will be installing the new Pump page once I can summon the energy and focus to pull everything together. If you're in more of a hurry, I'm certainly willing to discuss any plans for getting things moving sooner. Alsee (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

With initiatives the usual philosophy is to keep the ball rolling once the initial inertia has been overcome. But on Wikipedia it is more important to keep consensus than to keep movement. Moving forward poorly prepared can result in negative comments which can change consensus. I think Alsee is right to take the time to dig up appropriate links. The consensus is there, and that consensus will only change when something happens. Better for that something to be a well prepared page that the community can get behind, than something rushed for the sake of it, and the community call a halt to the initiative. SilkTork (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. Alsee, I was not aware about your other activities, and speically the burnout. Sorry to know about your Wiki-stress. I agree SilkTork, that we need a well-prepared page/process to give it a good start. Please start the page when both of you and others want to/think that's the right time. I feel, it can start as draft/incubation model as well, where experienced editors can collaboratively work on. Regards.--Titodutta (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Titodutta (and Silk)... I didn't even realize, multiple editors have already jumped in to make the page live! WP:Village_pump_(WMF). I guess I gotta get off my butt and get to work. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)