User talk:Storye book/Archive 29

Help with Peter Arnell

Hello. I noticed your participation in Wiki Project Biographies and Wiki Project Architecture, as well as your interest in photography, and would appreciate your assistance with a pending edit request to the article on architectural photographer and brand executive Peter Arnell. Thank you for your help as my COI keeps me from making these changes myself. With gratitude Joanne PA (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your request. I am honoured that you should have asked for my help. I went to the request on the talk page, and the article, with the intention of helping. But having read the article, I feel rather embarrassed by it. The article reads like an advertisement by a paid publicity agent to me, or at least a curriculum vitae being put out for Ansell's advancement. The article doesn't stand back and look at the biography subject as a whole; it's just really an achievements list, like a CV. The requested additions would only make things worse, because they are the same sort of thing as the existing content. I feel that I should put some constructive comment about balance on the request, in the hope that the situation can be improved. Storye book (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Little curiosity

I think if you'll take a look at my artcle creations you'll find evidence that if anything I'm more broadly curious than most. Boundlessly curious, my husband calls it. My family and friends regularly poke fun at my annoying overabundance of intellectual energy. And if you'll take a look at User:EEng, you'll find he -- oh, btw, Harvard alum -- is so curious about literally EVERYTHING that the page takes time to load. I cannot believe you wrote those things at DYK. Valereee (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand totally. I meant nothing of the sort, and certainly nothing about specific individuals. You have never done anything to prompt me to say anything negative about you, or any other individuals, in any respect. I am shocked that you have taken it that way. I'll get back to the discussion when I can return to my pc. Difficult to read on the phone. Storye book (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You literally said I would suggest that it is possible that a large contingent of contributors who have made themselves primary to this discussion see them as similar to the majority in their own culture, that is, intelligent, but who would happily acknowledge limited knowledge and limited everyday interest; who are most likely to know a lot about their national popular culture, but are likely to be ignorant of, and maybe even resentful of, specialist subjects and the culture of other nations. I think it is possible that we have a second, smaller, but vocal contingent of contributors here whose education or life experience has allowed them to understand and be actively curious about a great deal more. You literally compared those who want hooks to be interesting: but are likely to be ignorant of, and maybe even resentful of, specialist subjects and the culture of other nations to those who prefer not to require interesting hooks: contributors here whose education or life experience has allowed them to understand and be actively curious about a great deal more. Valereee (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

1. That did not refer to any individuals. 2. The word, ignorant, has been misunderstood in this case. I am as ignorant as everyone else about certain subjects, which I have mentioned elsewhere. That ignorance in my case covers, for example, most of the sciences and most outdoor team sports. Everyone has gaps in their knowledge, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. Ignorance just means not knowing stuff. If you have another meaning for it, then don't foist it on my writing. Here in Yorkshire, they use the word simply to mean rudeness, e.g. if strangers push clumsily past them, they get yelled at, and called "ignorant". But that usage is local to here. Is that a usage where you are? I am not originslly from Yorkshire, and would never use it like that myself. Storye book (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ignorant takes on significantly different connotations depending on subtleties of the surrounding verbiage, but I'm compelled to say that when the word appears in conjunction with your phrase maybe even resentful of ... specialist subjects and the culture of other nations, it's kind of hard to credit the "soft" connotation you're now claiming. EEng 15:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I too am privately resentful when those around me at home go on about outdoor team sports. But we all have to be objective in DYK. Like you and many other reviewers, I am happy to review such subjects objectively. However, I have seen examples (not by you or Valereee) in the DYK discussion which have e.g. included snidey remarks using the word "monomaniac" because an author regularly wrote about one specialist subject. That's what I meant about resentment. It is not very common, which is why I said "maybe even". Storye book (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Monomaniac is usually (though not always) overboard, but people very focused on a particular subject are apt to lose sight of how our readers at large may see things. With all respect to my esteemed colleague Gerda Arendt, I firmly agree with what others have said already: a hook like Performer P first sang role R by Composer C at Hall H on Date D, when there's nothing (apparently) unusual about any of those things (or about their combination), is just plain commonplace. On the other hand, I've rarely seen an article which didn't yield a much better hook once real effort was applied. EEng 16:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to divert the discussion of DYK hook policy, when that is already being discussed elsewhere. It remains to say - or repeat - that I have no reason to want to insult the intelligence or any other aspect of EEng or Valereee, or anyone else, for that matter. I have explained my use of English to you. I should perhaps remind you that Valereee's quotation, in green above, omits my introductory words, which make clear that I am not writing about people as individuals. Storye book (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You're not naming individuals, but you're still talking about individuals who form a group. EEng 16:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Brought it here to avoid derailing that discussion there. Omitted introductory words because even without them the passage is quite long. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Entire passage (although less than half of the entire post): Thank you, Ktin and Valereee. I understand now, and it so happens that I agree with you, Ktin. It so happens that I agree with you, also, EEng#s, yet on the face of it you are utterly opposed to each other regarding policy. I believe that the reason is simply that you are each seeing "our audience" in a completely different way. Of course, I may not make assumptions as to how you are each perceiving our readers, but I would suggest that it is possible that a large contingent of contributors who have made themselves primary to this discussion see them as similar to the majority in their own culture, that is, intelligent, but who would happily acknowledge limited knowledge and limited everyday interest; who are most likely to know a lot about their national popular culture, but are likely to be ignorant of, and maybe even resentful of, specialist subjects and the culture of other nations. I think it is possible that we have a second, smaller, but vocal contingent of contributors here whose education or life experience has allowed them to understand and be actively curious about a great deal more. And each contingent is modelling their concept of "our audience" on themselves. I believe that that issue is what has stymied discussion on templates such as Talia Or, and that is why you two, Ktin and Eeng, cannot comprehend each others' views. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, Valereee - after looking at that again, I am wondering whether what upset you is that I said in so many words that I agreed wholly with Ktin and with EEng's opposing views, but did not mention your view. Maybe you thought that I had an unspoken opinion about your view? The fact is that - as I understood it - you had kindly got in between their two posts to explain something, but I was only interested in their two opposing views at the time. I am not sure, even now, what your full view is (and I'm not asking you to elaborate it); most of us seem to have changed slightly during the discussion anyway. So I have never had any reason to criticize your view. If anything, I have seen you more as an explainer and peacekeeper in that discussion, and not a heavy pusher of one side or another, in the way that one or two of them are. So please don't worry - if anything I would back up what you have said and done in that discussion (apart from misunderstanding me, hehe!) ((((Hugs))))Storye book (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Lol. Wrong again, and Jesus you assume bad faith. Valereee (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

What? Is this another misunderstanding? I was being nice. I give up. Storye book (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sbook: you're overthinking things. Valereee: I'm not a religious man myself, but even so I think questioning Jesus' AGF is going too far. EEng 18:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

hahaha Valereee (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course I was overthinking it. I am very stressed by this. I was doing my utmost to be understanding and nice. It didn't work. That leaves me nowhere else to go, so I give up. Storye book (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Listen, no kidding. No one doubts you're trying to help, and concerned for everyone's feelsing, and that's to your credit, but in trying to achieve that you wrote at such length that it's hard for people to grasp correctly everything you're saying. Which led a some misunderstandings. Don't stress about it. I'm sure I speak for Valereee when I say: we cool. EEng 20:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

We cool. Valereee (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I missed this (no time to even read it), and seems I didn't miss much. I'm sad to have caused it, but am on vacation so have better things to do than being sad, please understand. I found a key sentence, a while ago and in other context, DYK? "grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith" (see?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: No worries, you didn't cause it. It was just a misunderstanding. Enjoy your holiday and be happy. Storye book (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Some information on IAR

I noticed you were a little lost on how DYK uses WP:IAR – we use it to give little passes on our guidelines. A lot of the time, we get nominations where rule changes wouldn't be appropriate to allow them through, but it's fine to make an exception. Since it improves the encyclopedia, we'll allow a nomination that's eight days old rather than seven, that wants a special occasion that seven weeks ahead instead of six, stuff like that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Concerto for Piano and String Orchestra (nom)

Off-topic, but can I ask what you mean when you talk about "real musicians"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It's just one way of referring to Gerda's target audience, which is not the audience represented in "broad audience" which is our guideline at the moment. It means whatever she wants it to mean. For me, it means those who will understand and/or enjoy the concerto itself, which is the subject of the article. That concerto is musicians' music for sure.

Anyone who has been part of a choir or orchestra (at least here in the UK) knows what that means. The musicians want to play particular music which they enjoy as musicians, because they understand it in depth, and/or because it gives them a physical buzz, via the instruments, when they play certain chords. For example in early English/Continental music (say 12-16th centuries) the composers loved to go via gloriously horrible clashing chords towards sweet harmonies, and that is called resolution. Modern music uses that process too (including in our concerto) but they now love to clash the sounds even more deliciously horribly, and extra loudly when they can. When Stravinsky did that in his Rite of Spring, the audience famously walked out. Today we're more used to it, and can enjoy it for what it is. But the choir and orchestra feel that stuff physically, through the instruments and their bodies, and get much more out of it in that way, than the audience ever can.

"Musicians' music" also represents why the choir and orchestra is often at loggerheads with their poor director, who has to get bookings, and often the only way he/she can get bookings is to offer the "broad audience" (sigh) shallow tuney Victorian stuff which bores the heck out of the musicians.

Sorry to go on a bit (as per usual). There is loads more to say on the subject, but maybe that's enough for now. Storye book (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in December 2022

WiR Women who died in 2022 Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Geofocus Southeast Asia | Women who died in 2022 Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change collaboration runs 1 December 2022 - 31 January 2023 Tip of the month: Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC

Hey, SB. Re: Special:Diff/1123725868.

The closer is free to look at whatever they want to look at, and no one is "directing" them to do anything. They're free to go read all 40,000 words, if they think it'll be of use for them to read all the lengthy posts and the previous RfC to see if they think anyone was somehow jumping the gun by suggesting/starting the runoff using the top contenders.

Much of the discussion at most RfCs isn't necessary for the closer to read, especially one like this where it's basically 40K words created by a handful of people trying to convince one another to change each others' opinions; there's not even any policy to be concerned about. The arguments are all of the "here's my opinion and why you should change yours" variety, and if a closer showed up, read the opinions, was convinced by those opinions -- and felt strongly enough about it that they didn't want to close per consensus -- the thing they'd do is add their !vote, not close, and then we'd need another closer.

I know you are having a hard time wrapping your head around how RfCs work, but we aren't shining you on. The runoff didn't complicate anything. It didn't skew anything. Telling potential closers that this isn't an absolute trainwreck they're being asked to close doesn't complicate or skew anything.

But I'm willing to discuss, so reply if you like. I considered posting at the RfC but at 40K, it really doesn't need more off-topic discussion. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not mention any specific person on the closure request. I just wanted to make sure that the closer understood that the whole Rfc is valid for reading, because someone on the discussion had, a few hours before, directed them to read one section only. I was not referring to you, because you had not done that. I gave an explanation of my edit in the edit summary only, because we are supposed to do that, but the edit summary is not my closure request statement. I am not trying to point a finger at anyone, and certainly not at you. I have never heard the expression "shining you on". Storye book (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

(This isn't about me, and I do not know why you keep saying you didn't mention any specific person as if that somehow makes a difference. No one cares whether they were specifically mentioned when something they did was mentioned. And I did say the exact same thing EEng said, just over at requests for closing.)

This is about whether anyone could cause complications or skew something simply by giving a potential closer reassurance that the RfC we're asking to have closed is the one at the section headed 'Runoff!' How does it skew anything or make things more complicated to inform them of that? Valereee (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait, so you're saying you do believe the closer needs to read all 40,000 words? That's a request for several hours of someone's time. This is a close everyone, including you, has said looks to be consensus around ALT5. Why would someone need to read a discussion longer than most novellas to figure that out when what we're asking for is closure of the runoff? Valereee (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It was I who requested the closure, and I whou requested the closure of the whole Rfc (which I had opened in the first place). My addition, made today, to my closure request ("my" in the sense that I signed the request), was intended to be the closure of the Rfc that I had initiated, and that Rfc is the whole thing. I do not criticise you, because you did not specifically instruct the closer to read only one section. Today's comment in the discussion asks for one section only to be read. To my understanding, that is something quite different. I am not interested in bickering with individuals. I am only interested in improving WP. Just like you. Storye book (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Then stop wasting everyone's time about this so we can all move on. I said to you a while back that you seem excessively preoccupied with process over substance, and you don't seem to have taken that to heart. How things (like an RfC) proceed isn't controlled by the person who happens to be first to post to the closure requests page -- it's controlled by common sense. EEng 22:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is bullying. I shall no longer respond to talkpage messages on this subject. Storye book (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)