User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 63

in case of interest
Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (have tickets), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand, singing "Freiheit!" (freedom) instead of "Freude" (joy), in a tradition started after the Fall of the Wall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. SilkTork (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * did you see what Levin said? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Re your comment at Requests for adminship/Tamzin
Hello SilkTork! With regard to your comment here, the candidate made it clear that she wouldn't personally support editors of a certain political persuasion at RfA, and that she personally wouldn't oppose a purely hypothetical rule that would exclude such editors from adminship altogether. You may disagree –I disagree– but please, don't call it advocating for a form of segregation or apartheid. Segregation and apartheid are based on such things as race, sexual orientation, or religion, not on political views. Treating editors with certain political preferences differently already has wide support on this project per WP:NONAZIS (an essay which, by the way, I personally wish wouldn't exist, because it creates the wrong impression that our rules would only exclude one very specific type of extremism, while actually they exclude all forms of extremism), so it's really more a matter of what one personally does or does not find extreme enough qua political views to warrant a different treatment. Or perhaps more accurately, which views are extreme enough to warrant a different level of trust, since not supporting a candidate at RfA is in this context really about trust. So she doesn't trust some people whom others would. This may be a legitimate reason to oppose the candidate, but not to say that she's advocating for segregation or apartheid. I would appreciate it if you would strike that bit. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 11:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment User:Apaugasma. I think I said I was opposing their advocacy for segregation, which is a form of apartheid. Segregation is segregation, and it can be done for any arbitrary reason, including political views. When we get into the arena of segregation for arbitrary reasons (and political views are arbitrary because people's political views change with the prevailing wind and do not reflect, as Tamzin asserts, a person's true character), then that is similar to apartheid, which denied people certain rights purely on the colour of their skin (which is not a rational reason to exclude someone). I accept any argument that Trump's views are repugnant and should be resisted. But I cannot accept that those who voted for him, for whatever reason, or even those who continue to support him, should be treated any differently to any other fellow human. We should take people entirely for what they are, what they say, and what they do, not for the colour of their skin, what god they believe in, which country they were born or live in, or which politician they support. Goodness, should we all be locking up our parents because their views are a little more right wing than our own? My concern regarding Tamzin is not just that they advocated for such segregation, but they reaffirmed their attitude twice. If they had reflected that they were bringing politics into a neutral workplace which contains a range of people, including those they are advocating against, and that on reflection they saw how divisive their views are and apologised completely, I would support. But continuing to stand their ground they are showing a wilful stubbornness. Bear in mind that it is highly likely that a number of admins will have voted for Trump, and may - if they chose - vote for Trump again. So be it. We are not here to say who people should or should not vote for. Tamzin can campaign against Trump as much as they wish outside of Wikipedia, but it is inappropriate for them to target supporters on Wikipedia as though they were black people living in South Africa during the apartheid period, or communist supporters living during the McCarthy era. Segregation is segregation, and arguments defending segregation because a relative was assaulted (or frightened) by a black person, a Communist, or a Trump supporter do not make comfortable reading. SilkTork (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Race, sexual orientation, or religious background cannot be morally reprehensible. They cannot be calling for the exclusion, persecution, or killing of human beings. Political views can be all of these things, and sometimes they effectively are. I'm not arguing with your oppose rationale, which I believe to be legitimate. I am arguing that it is unfair to equate assessing people on their political views with assessing people on their race or sexual orientation. Even if you think both are wrong, they are not the same, and by putting them on the same line you are imputing to the candidate a far greater wrong than they actually committed.
 * I'm sorry for the ad hitlerum, but do you really believe that a Jew whose relatives were assaulted by Nazis would, in taking exception to a Nazi proponent, be equally wrong as someone who would take exception against a Jew because they are a Jew? Where do you draw the line? I mean, it may be open for debate what political views are morally reprehensible or not, but is it ever fair to compare it to something like being a Jew?
 * Thanks for taking this in consideration, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree they are not the same, but the act of segregating someone based purely on a personal dislike (and we are talking about disliking people wishing to vote for Trump, not Trump himself - and it is important to make that distinction), regards of the reason for the personal dislike, is still segregation. The moment someone tars everyone with the same brush for an arbitrary reason is the moment when reason has gone out of the window. An argument that it is OK to dislike all Trump supporters because some supporters behaved in a certain way is no different to the argument that some people have against blacks or immigrants when a black or imigrant is caught breaking the law. Treat everyone as an individual, regardless of which political party they belong to, what colour they, what their sexual preference is, and we have the basis for treating everyone fairly. Damn all people with short hair because a person with short hair was involved in a crime, and you have the basis for prejudice. SilkTork (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear you about the need to approach Trump supporters as individual human beings just like everyone else. I merely think that by using terms like segregation and apartheid, both words which have pretty heavy connotations, you too are painting with too broad a brush. But thanks for your explanation, I think I better understand where you're coming from now. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a sister who is a Trump supporter (lives in the UK, so not a voter, but supports his views, and is outspoken against foreigners living in Britain, even though my wife is French). She sent me this message the other day (she'd been adopted at birth, so grew up apart): "Do you know ?? That sometimes i wish we had been brought up together ? And you and lyn would have Talked / slapped me out of right wing thinking x I would now be a sweet person x". SilkTork (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Chat
Your input is requested at the freshly-created bureaucrat chat. Useight (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please could you strike/remove your comment from the crat chat. If you are recusing then you should not offer an opinion on that page. You are of course welcome to post whatever you wish on the talk page. Thanks! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I was following precedent in that the previous two recuses had indicated they voted in support, and one linked to their support statement. I have now struck my comment, and entered a neutral one. SilkTork (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Translation attribution shell
Template:Translation attribution shell has been nominated for merging with Template:Banner holder. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Izno (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

RE: Admin tools laid to rest
Thanks for the award! &mdash;Sean Whitton / 21:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving notice
Hey! During your moving of Talk:The Portsmouth Grammar School, you forgot to update the archive location. All you need to do is adjust the  parameter in the   template to the new page name. Don't worry, I've fixed this for you. Just keep this in mind if you move a page in the future. Thanks! Aidan9382 (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is normally automatically done, and a note comes up saying if it has or has not been done. I was clearly a bit distracted because I didn't pay attention, nor did I tidy up other aspects which I would normally do (such as tidying up the talkpage, which I will do now). Thanks for being so attentive and community minded, you should do well here; though it's always as well to check the experience and knowledge of those you are giving advice to, to make sure if it's advice or just a reminder you should be sending, or if indeed it is appropriate to be sending a note about a minor edit you've just done along with advice on how to avoid making the same "mistake" (page moves automatically leave a redirect anyway). All of us make errors now and again such as a little typo, or forgetting to update a link after a move - generally it is only significant mistakes, or repeated mistakes that warrant a talkpage message. There are differing views on informing experienced users of policies and procedures, and we have some essays on that issue - the main one being: Don't template the regulars. Some experienced editors find it irksome. My advice to you, moving forward, is if you come upon a minor error in future, just fix it and move on. Only contact a user if they are repeatedly making the same error. Other than that, I think you've done OK. SilkTork (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

June songs
How is your summer? Talk looks empty, thanks for tea and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Gerda. Talk looks empty because I don't do much on Wikipedia these days. Age and health issues catching up with me. I don't seem to have the energy or motivation to do much these days; and there's often so many other things to be done which take priority with what energy I do have! SilkTork (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Best wishes for where you think! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * today: a song about getting through the night, after plenty of music over the weekend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Coat of arms of Harrow" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Coat of arms of Harrow and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. I'm notifying you as a participant in Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of Harrow. A7V2 (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Palamedesz.
Thanks for your help with reverting the nonsensical edit. In character, LIZ disclaims any and all responsibility (for making the mistake and for her having to correct it after she made it). 21:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Obadiah Poundage for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Obadiah Poundage is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Obadiah Poundage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Ploni (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"Cinescope" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cinescope and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 5 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish bureaucrat chat
Hi SilkTork, I have started a bureaucrat discussion for ScottishFinnishRadish's RfA. It can be found at Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish/Bureaucrat chat. Thanks in advance. Acalamari 01:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Klines Mill, Virginia
So it's been deleted even though evidence of notability was found with reliable sources? Even though the Mill, a historic building in and of itself, still exists? sigh. Anyway, I am requesting that this now soft-deleted content be put into my personal Wikipedia space somewhere, I'd be fine with something along the lines of User:Shearonink/Draft for Klines Mill if that designation is kosher - I'll personally take the content over. I do not understand why it has been even soft-deleted since there was still an ongoing discussion with what I thought was clear evidence of notability but ok... Shearonink (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Placed at Draft:Klines Mill, Virginia with full contribution history. I wish you well with it. Any questions, let me know. SilkTork (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. Shearonink (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a question about this draft & its subject... Can I change it from an unincorporated community - which said designation seemed to cause problems for some of the commenting editors at the AFD - to a United States historic place, like George Washington's Gristmill? The Mill building itself plus the surrounding structures are historic and its place was a community with its own post office at one time (though progress has now passed it by without destroying it). The other issue I have run into is there's some confusion of named places - there's a wedding venue/event space called "The Barn at Klines Mill" which is a completely different entity, un-associated in place and history, located in another Virginian county over 50 miles away. Then there's a place that Google Maps calls "Klines Mill" located at Klines Mill, Virginia 22655 and our historic Kline's Mill whose address is at 544-574 Ridings Mill Rd, Stephens City, VA 22655, those two "places?" are located less than a mile away from each other but seem confused in time and space. Google Maps' supposed Klines Mill (no possessive) is located down what seems to be a private unpaved country lane, Kline's Mill is named as an actual place on a paved county road...in this instance I think Google Maps has probably made a mistake. Kline's Mill also has the nearby Klines Mill Lane which was truncated by Interstate 81. The ghost road of Klines Mill Lane can be seen to the west of our Kline's Mill, where Ridings Mill Road turns to the south and parallels I-81. Shearonink (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This essay may help: Out of scope. I think that will answer your questions.
 * If you feel the topic of the article is an historic mill, then that will be the scope of the article, and that is what you concentrate on - finding sources that will supply you with information on and also provide evidence of notability of the mill. Other aspects relating to the term Klines Mill that do not belong in the scope of an article on an historic mill should not be present in the article. If your research indicates that there is another topic (or topics) with the name Klines Mill which may be notable, then an article can be written separately on that topic, and a decision made as to which article title is most appropriate (Kline's Mill for the mill, Klines Mill for the place?), with hatnotes pointing to the existence of the other topic.
 * I hope that helps. If not, please let me know. SilkTork (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, it sort of does...I just wanted to make sure that I didn't have to stick with the previous "unincorporated community" designation, since the previous article was among the many many "unincorporated community" non-notable stubs recently under consideration at AFD. Shearonink (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Follow your research and do what you think is right - there's no restrictions on the direction you take. Though the article will need to be reviewed before being moved back into mainspace - paste  at the top of the article, and that will put it in the review queue. Be aware that - like submitting an article for GA, there may be a wait before the article is reviewed. When I put an article in the GA queue, I tend to do a few GA reviews, as sort of payment. You might consider doing the same thing when you submit Klines Mill for review - the submissions are at: Category:Pending AfC submissions. If you wish to change/move the article name (to, say Draft: Kilne's Mill), please do so. SilkTork (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's me again...the editor who JUST won't go away lol. Could you take a quick look at Draft:Klines Mill, Virginia and see it there are any horrible/terrible/awful problems with it that just jump out at you and SCREAM "this Draft sucks."? I'm probably going to submit it in the next few days and I think I've done a pretty good of re-crafting the subject into a keep-able article but would like someone else to look it over before I submit it at AFC. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's looking good Shearonink - I think it's moving in the right direction. I think that a focus on the mill as an historic site is the way to go. I'm not sure that trying to have the article about both the mill and the local community is helpful. That's not to say that the associated community shouldn't be mentioned in the article (I think it should), just that the focus as given in the lead sentence should be clear that the subject of this article is the mill. SilkTork (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying about site vs. community - I do think the "Historic site" Category & designation is appropriate - but it is important to note in the lead that Kline's Mill was a bustling rural community with multiple businesses & homes plus a post office. Community? neighborhood?...it is important that WP not just look at the present facade of that somewhat derelict and faded mill with all the rickety remains of the various other buildings but keep the past community in mind. In my opinion - though one other seems to disagree - without the 2 brick houses, without the post office, without the general store, without the fact that a continuing business was operational there from the 1770s through the 1960s, Kline's Mill doesn't really mean much. It is mentioned in published accounts and in records as a standalone mill but also as a definite place. As an aside, some of the problem dealing with any Virginia county is that so much of the various county and local records were destroyed during the Civil War. Stafford County, which is not terribly far from Frederick County, is especially a mess because the Courthouse was burned by Union troops (and looted I believe?...tI seem to remember that the County Seal was returned sometime in the 20th Century by a Union soldier's descendants). I am waiting on a 1980s local newspaper article published about the area that apparently talks about the businesses and the community there - perhaps it will have some clear references to the community aspect of Kline's Mill.
 * Oh, and above you seemed to mention submitting for GA but I think that was perhaps in error...can't I just move it myself to article space? Why do I maybe have to submit it to AfC? In its present state I don't think it's a stub anymore and I am certainly experienced enough to be able to publish it as an article.
 * I did toggle the first sentence just now - if you would take a look at the difference and reply here with what you think of the changes that would be most helpful. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

As regards the first part of your response, I think it would helpful to read it back to yourself and consider how much you are basing your interpretation of the notability of the community on what reliable sources say compared with your own assessment of the situation. I've not read the sources as closely as you, though my own fleeting impression is that it is the mill itself that is notable rather than the community. And if the community were to have notability independent of the mill (such that in the lead sentence it would be included as an "and"), then a separate article dealing with that community could and should be created.

As regards moving the article into mainspace - the wording of the close of the AfD is "the article may be undeleted into Draft space on request, from where it may be moved into main space after passing review", and I don't think it appropriate to alter the wording or intention of that close depending on the experience of certain individuals. The intention is to have a view independent of the closer's and the drafter's look over the article to see if it meets our inclusion criteria. In my experience, the more we work on an article, the less we can be relied upon to be impartial about it. That's just human nature.

As regards the current first sentence, I feel that is more appropriate. Perhaps call it an historic mill, as that appears to be what sources are saying, and that is the basis for its notability. Mention of the Oliver Evans system earlier in the lead - perhaps in the first or second sentence would also be appropriate, as that really does underscore the notability of the mill. SilkTork (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I like the current version I think... See that is why I asked re: the Draft & the AfC, I don't normally take on deleted/undeleted articles. Thank for the clarification. Yes, the 1)Oliver Evans works are notable and 2)that the works have survived without major modifications is notable, rare, and, frankly, amazing. I'll re-craft that bit.
 * I'll wait on the newspaper article to arrive - a library graciously made a copy and is mailing it to me since it isn't available online (lol, cannot believe that Newspaper.com actually missed a newspaper. Re the place itself being notable...hmmm...yes, the Mill itself is notable and the community isn't famous, nothing much seems to have happened there other than business and commerce, people being born, living & dying. There is a cemetery (on private land, not sure if much of it survives at this late date) where at least the Kline son who built the mill-works is buried. That a community aggregated around the Mill is a fact, doesn't seem like the Wikipedia article about the Mill should ignore/downplay the associated community. Shearonink (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the content quite a bit, feel free to take a look. Will wait for the snail mail to deliver my copy of the newspaper article, work on it some more and then I'll submit the finished product to AfC. Ha, I confess it does feel kind of funny to have to submit a Draft to AfC... Thanks for all your help. Shearonink (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's looking very good. I should think that it would pass review now. You've done well. SilkTork (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've now edited it some more and have moved the Draft to a new title - Draft:Kline's Mill, Virginia (a possessive S, per most of the sources I've consulted). Assuming it passes AfC muster, I'll subsequently create a redirect to "Klines Mill, Virginia". Found one more source that I am waiting on, once that source & info gets to me within the next few days I'll edit a little more and then submit it to AfC. Thanks again for all your help, Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: It's not a stub anymore is it? Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Annnnnnnd... Kline's Mill, Virginia. Shearonink (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: I think the article is now eligible for a possible DYK - am I right? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be eligible for DYK as a 5x expansion. CMD (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Well done. SilkTork (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Appreciation for your appreciations

 * Thanks xeno - I do like a Barnstar, and I assume that older users, like retiring admins, like them as well. SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What can I expect?
Hello, old friend! So what can I expect from an RfA attempt? I have to say, I've been pretty disappointed by the level of general coldness I've been seeing so far. Have we always been so... inhuman? – ClockworkSoul 18:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What you consider coldness is resentment toward editors who seem to violate WP:HATSHOP. Adminship is a big deal and if you've been inactive and expressed you think you should be above the rest of us for your convenience, then the community is going to prevent that. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An ex-admin asking for the tools back is not hat-collecting nor it is "thinking that you should be above the rest of us." It used to be the case that any former admin who had been procedurally desysopped could request re-instatement at WP:BN. As ClockworkSoul has been inactive it is hardly unreasonable that they would be unaware of a relatively recent policy change. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note I said "editors who seem to violate" and "expressed you think you should be above the rest". seem to evince a demand for either better treatment or a cudgel with which to bully. A smarter former admin would lie and claim to be excited to work a backlog.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned about the tone that the common discourse has taken, but I neither demand nor expect anything. And I have no interest in misleading people about my intentions. If you think my honest concern disqualifies me to be an admin, then I am disqualified. – ClockworkSoul 19:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What disqualifies you is this amateur-hour draft and . This isn't 2005. Our standards have changed. This is why the inactivity levels were increased to force editors like you through another RfA. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I respond to your insults with kindness: thank you for your feedback. I accept it with gratitude. – ClockworkSoul 20:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Clockwork. I'm pleased you've returned to editing Wikipedia - you remind me of the old times. And you were supportive of me when I started here and was finding it difficult. Wikipedia has changed in a mighty way since those days. Of necessity, things have tightened up. The innocent days have gone. Because of a series of compromised admin accounts, there is now a requirement that passwords should be unique and strong, and that admins should adopt security measures. For example, many admins now have two accounts - one for when they are at home, which will be their admin account, and a second, non-admin, account for when they are travelling or at work, and may be using shared or public machines or a mobile phone. Obviously the passwords will be different. It's worth reading up on Administrators to bring yourself up to speed on that and other changes.
 * As regards a RfA. The community would expect you to become familiar with the current way of doing things on Wikipedia, and the current expectations of admins. Recent evidence of strong content work would be of benefit, especially of taking an article to Good Article level, as a considerable proportion of the community feel that admins should have knowledge and experience of content work. But that is not essential. Some admin type work such as closing various discussions, such as AfD and RfC, would also help. Evidence of commitment to Wikipedia would also help overcome concerns about the patchy involvement since 2010. Some sustained work on one or more of the backlogs at Backlog would be good evidence of commitment. As your particular strength has been to give assistance to new users, then helping out at Teahouse would suit you, and also assisting new users to create articles by doing some reviewing at AfC, see WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. You should allow yourself three months at least, to build up experience and confidence, before going for RfA. When you're ready I'd be quite happy to look over your contributions just to make sure everything is ship shape. Most candidates are nominated these days, but a self-nom does pop up now and again, and being an old timer you'd probably prefer a self, but if you did want a nominator, I'd be proud and happy to take that role. SilkTork (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Israei beer" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Israei beer and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Artem.G (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)