![]() | Hi! This is part of SilkTork's
archives of past talkpage discussions.
Feel free to wander around and browse at will. Old archives from 2006 to 2012 are here. More recent archives are indexed here. Tea and biscuits are available on request at my talkpage. |
← Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 → |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure makes one think that the notability threshhold to get a football bio is much too low. So many of these bios have skeleton details and only links to soccerway. Just playing professionally for a couple games does not mean reliable sources notice you. Legacypac ( talk) 15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious about this (rather old) edit of yours. The article seems well sourced to me (and did so at the time you tagged it). Was there something specifically you were looking for in the way of sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as civil parishes go, they probably fall under WP:GEOLAND as "Populated, legally recognized places", even if as you point out they are likely to remain as stubs (as least for a while). However I am less sure about the notability of islands. IMO if and island has a stated population and area, that's likely to be a good sign of notability, but may not be conclusive. As a note, my frustration is mainly about the time frame of the change in restrictions, rather than the proposed reductions. If we were reducing the restrictions step by step each month of 6 weeks for example, I would regard that as reasonable and practical, however only removing part of it ever 6 months is way too long and very discouraging to me. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 09:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Cool. I hear what you're saying. But the community has an unease about speed, and an unease about you because of what happened in the past, so we are moving slowly. SilkTork ( talk) 19:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork - I'm a Stanford student working on a project on how to improve Wikipedia edit abuse filtering. Would you be willing to talk for 20-30 minutes about your experience working with Wikipedia over the years? Anything you can share would be incredibly helpful! You can contact me at dlevine2@stanford.edu. Thank you! 2601:681:4d00:8ba0:d871:9d55:1510:36f 23:16, 20 January 2019
I was following the comments in Talk:2011 Iran assassination plot and saw that there was a consensus to move to 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot. Further discussions were, as far as I saw, not leading to a new agreement, while the page was moved to "2011 Iran assassination plot" without having built consensus. I tried to move it back to the agreed title, but I created a mess by leaving a " in the title. Can you move it back to the last consensus? -- Mhhossein talk 12:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
"Armstrong was largely accepted into white society, both on stage and off, a rarity for an African-American person at the time." This is an extremely dubious claim. You need more than one person's opinion. Also, "tidy" as an edit summary does not explain what you did. You added material. If the material was sourced with a citation, then you have to say you added sourced material. If the material is not sourced, don't add it. Please be specific about any changes you make in Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (
talk)
20:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I changed "a privilege reserved for very few African-American public figures at the time" to "a rarity for an African-American person at the time" as I felt that was more neutral than using the word "privilege" [5]. If you disagree, please amend it to something you feel is more appropriate, though I wouldn't advise returning it to the word privilege. SilkTork ( talk) 03:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind words. As I've been trying to do/show over the past two months (something which I feel has been completely ignored by some ArbCom members, by the way) is to show that I have reflected on all the comments and that I have truly changed for the better - trying to verify the additions of other editors (though, as Isaacl has pointed out, this is onerous and not an ideal way of editing) rather than simply reverting, and slowing down and taking time when interacting with others. Giant Snowman 10:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
If he'd have continued to not understand what I was trying to say then my next step would be to raise this at a wider forum - but I seem to have got through to him, as I've found no problems with any of his recent edits that have popped up on my watchlist. Giant Snowman 10:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as they go I would probably create some for missing towns (many "people from subcategories such as Category:People from Halesworth already exist) and some DAB categories (for example Category:Bury should be a DAB which I got renamed and Category:Austin should also be a DAB). Note that I have created thousands of categories at Commons and none have ended up at CFD (although a few of my first ones were later deleted as empty) however I'd note that a Commons category is more like a WP article and a category for a hamlet or tiny island is likely to be acceptable there (as long as there is at least 1 file in it) while categories here should only usually be created if they have a reasonable prospect of having a reasonable number of pages, which is why most villages don't have categories here. I don't I will be creating many new templates at the moment. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of the review, which seems similar to the probabtion idea I've been floating, with perhaps more tolerable language.
If it really must be indefinite, I think you need language that opens the possibility of GS requesting the whole review to be, erm, reviewed, not just the individual restrictions. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, could you please respect my preferred pronoun? You are failing mistaken to do so
here though I have previously politely highlighted that I am being referenced incorrectly in this case by others
here, and it is unnecessary to see a case where I am alternately referenced as "her" and "him". Wikipedia discussions can get this right, and Arbcom cases are probably a place where gender should be seen to be handled respectfully. --
Fæ (
talk)
11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Mentioning this here, as I think it is unhelpful to repeat this a second time in the case itself. Apologies if it is not the done thing to mention minor tangential matters in relation to a case on user talk pages. -- Fæ ( talk) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
...is a perfectly fine word. Please stop changing every usage to the word "drink". It is a needless change. Frankly, I think it's a bit of an ENGVAR thing, as American English seems to use the word more frequently. REGARDLESS, if the word "beverage" is already in a sentence, there is no reason to change it to "drink". It is not an incorrect word, nor is it jargon. Anyone who told you that is wrong. oknazevad ( talk) 16:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
My lord,
Go then; and with a countenance as clear
As friendship wears at feasts, keep with Bohemia
And with your queen. I am his cupbearer:
If from me he have wholesome beverage,
Account me not your servant.
![]() | Hi! This is part of SilkTork's
archives of past talkpage discussions.
Feel free to wander around and browse at will. Old archives from 2006 to 2012 are here. More recent archives are indexed here. Tea and biscuits are available on request at my talkpage. |
← Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 → |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure makes one think that the notability threshhold to get a football bio is much too low. So many of these bios have skeleton details and only links to soccerway. Just playing professionally for a couple games does not mean reliable sources notice you. Legacypac ( talk) 15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious about this (rather old) edit of yours. The article seems well sourced to me (and did so at the time you tagged it). Was there something specifically you were looking for in the way of sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As far as civil parishes go, they probably fall under WP:GEOLAND as "Populated, legally recognized places", even if as you point out they are likely to remain as stubs (as least for a while). However I am less sure about the notability of islands. IMO if and island has a stated population and area, that's likely to be a good sign of notability, but may not be conclusive. As a note, my frustration is mainly about the time frame of the change in restrictions, rather than the proposed reductions. If we were reducing the restrictions step by step each month of 6 weeks for example, I would regard that as reasonable and practical, however only removing part of it ever 6 months is way too long and very discouraging to me. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 09:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Cool. I hear what you're saying. But the community has an unease about speed, and an unease about you because of what happened in the past, so we are moving slowly. SilkTork ( talk) 19:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi SilkTork - I'm a Stanford student working on a project on how to improve Wikipedia edit abuse filtering. Would you be willing to talk for 20-30 minutes about your experience working with Wikipedia over the years? Anything you can share would be incredibly helpful! You can contact me at dlevine2@stanford.edu. Thank you! 2601:681:4d00:8ba0:d871:9d55:1510:36f 23:16, 20 January 2019
I was following the comments in Talk:2011 Iran assassination plot and saw that there was a consensus to move to 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot. Further discussions were, as far as I saw, not leading to a new agreement, while the page was moved to "2011 Iran assassination plot" without having built consensus. I tried to move it back to the agreed title, but I created a mess by leaving a " in the title. Can you move it back to the last consensus? -- Mhhossein talk 12:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
"Armstrong was largely accepted into white society, both on stage and off, a rarity for an African-American person at the time." This is an extremely dubious claim. You need more than one person's opinion. Also, "tidy" as an edit summary does not explain what you did. You added material. If the material was sourced with a citation, then you have to say you added sourced material. If the material is not sourced, don't add it. Please be specific about any changes you make in Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (
talk)
20:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I changed "a privilege reserved for very few African-American public figures at the time" to "a rarity for an African-American person at the time" as I felt that was more neutral than using the word "privilege" [5]. If you disagree, please amend it to something you feel is more appropriate, though I wouldn't advise returning it to the word privilege. SilkTork ( talk) 03:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind words. As I've been trying to do/show over the past two months (something which I feel has been completely ignored by some ArbCom members, by the way) is to show that I have reflected on all the comments and that I have truly changed for the better - trying to verify the additions of other editors (though, as Isaacl has pointed out, this is onerous and not an ideal way of editing) rather than simply reverting, and slowing down and taking time when interacting with others. Giant Snowman 10:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
If he'd have continued to not understand what I was trying to say then my next step would be to raise this at a wider forum - but I seem to have got through to him, as I've found no problems with any of his recent edits that have popped up on my watchlist. Giant Snowman 10:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as they go I would probably create some for missing towns (many "people from subcategories such as Category:People from Halesworth already exist) and some DAB categories (for example Category:Bury should be a DAB which I got renamed and Category:Austin should also be a DAB). Note that I have created thousands of categories at Commons and none have ended up at CFD (although a few of my first ones were later deleted as empty) however I'd note that a Commons category is more like a WP article and a category for a hamlet or tiny island is likely to be acceptable there (as long as there is at least 1 file in it) while categories here should only usually be created if they have a reasonable prospect of having a reasonable number of pages, which is why most villages don't have categories here. I don't I will be creating many new templates at the moment. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 10:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of the review, which seems similar to the probabtion idea I've been floating, with perhaps more tolerable language.
If it really must be indefinite, I think you need language that opens the possibility of GS requesting the whole review to be, erm, reviewed, not just the individual restrictions. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, could you please respect my preferred pronoun? You are failing mistaken to do so
here though I have previously politely highlighted that I am being referenced incorrectly in this case by others
here, and it is unnecessary to see a case where I am alternately referenced as "her" and "him". Wikipedia discussions can get this right, and Arbcom cases are probably a place where gender should be seen to be handled respectfully. --
Fæ (
talk)
11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Mentioning this here, as I think it is unhelpful to repeat this a second time in the case itself. Apologies if it is not the done thing to mention minor tangential matters in relation to a case on user talk pages. -- Fæ ( talk) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
...is a perfectly fine word. Please stop changing every usage to the word "drink". It is a needless change. Frankly, I think it's a bit of an ENGVAR thing, as American English seems to use the word more frequently. REGARDLESS, if the word "beverage" is already in a sentence, there is no reason to change it to "drink". It is not an incorrect word, nor is it jargon. Anyone who told you that is wrong. oknazevad ( talk) 16:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
My lord,
Go then; and with a countenance as clear
As friendship wears at feasts, keep with Bohemia
And with your queen. I am his cupbearer:
If from me he have wholesome beverage,
Account me not your servant.