User talk:Deskford/Archives/2020/August

Malcolm Arnold edit

Why have you undone my correction? The BBC article is not correct. I am a direct witness to both disputes.

Regards Robert Arnold (son) Robert arnold skye (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your message. The problem is we can only say in Wikipedia what can be verified by what Wikipedia regards as a reliable source. If the BBC article is not correct we need to find another source that is correct. Do you know of another source? --Deskford (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Undo of my edit of Requiem für einen jungen Dichter

I am puzzled why you removed my edit on Requiem für einen jungen Dichter, commenting that Stravinsky is not mentioned in the source cited. First of all, there is no reference for many of the other musical quotes cited in the entry. Secondly, the quote from the Symphony of Psalms is overtly present in the "Prolog" section of the work (I assume you do not disagree). The Stravinsky work is very well known and I see no reason why not to mention this without a reference. --PloniAlmoni (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant; we would need a reliable source to back it up. Requiem für einen jungen Dichter is a well-sourced article, so it would seem inappropriate to add new unsourced claims. As far as I can see the cited Gramophone review mentions all the other musical and textual quotes. If you can find a source that mentions the Symphony of Psalms quote then by all means add it, but please add it to the body of the article, not just the lead. --Deskford (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Mayer

I would appreciate if you would not revert me edits for reasons that are not apparent. I understand the first revert (without a blue link), so I added one. Disambiguation pages are not just for articles but also to alleviate confusion for those looking. As in, I was looking up the John Mayer in question and found nothing of him on wikipedia even though he has 7 books at least from the 17th century. He is important enough to warrant his own page, but that isnt even the issue. The issue being is it neccesary to put his name on a list of Mayer's. Is he a mayer? yes. Clearly it is proper to add. If you are not sure of certain policies or shall we agreed upon processes and clearly being polite is one that you may need to remind yourself of. If an edit has been reverted a couple of times and the editor adding said material is even attempting to be productive, it is common to communicate before reverting again. I did not communicate with you until now because it was apparent that I was fixing what you inferred as being the problem. Take a look at Disambiguation and pay close attention to

Each bulleted entry should have a navigable (blue) link, normally as the entry itself (see the previous bullet), or in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked.

Adding a redlink is a needed step for missing articles to be written by those with pertinent knowledge. Believe me I would rather just create the article than argue with someone but I don't believe I have enough info. Please if you feel the need to revert ..... communicate first...at least with me. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speednat (talk • contribs) 22:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and apologies if you didn't find the communication clear. When information is squeezed into an edit summary it is often necessarily abbreviated. I reverted your addition of John Mayer (priest) to the disambiguation page Mayer (name) because no page on that person exists. In certain circumstances a red link to a non-existent page may be permissible on a disambiguation page if there exists at least one article (not another disambiguation page) that also links to the same non-existent page. That doesn't appear to be the case here. In addition, the entry must also include one blue link to a page that gives more information about the subject. You added a blue link to "exegesis", but John Mayer is not even mentioned on that page. MOS:DABRED explains all this better than I could. If you believe this person to be notable (Wikipedia-speak for "worthy of an article"), and if someone from that period has books that are still known today that would appear to me to indicate notability, then your best move would be to create an article on the person first. Once the article exists you can then add links to it on disambiguation pages and other pages as appropriate. You may find people willing to help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or other specialist WikiProjects. Best wishes. --Deskford (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Let me play it out for you, but if you need to me locate the verbatim pages, I can do that but I would prefer not to except for the sticky points.

1. Is it OK for an editor to add red-links to "any" article? Obviously yes 2. Why? It promotes growth as it shows editors that "John Mayer" needs to have an article created. 3.Should I create an article that will probably not be very full because I am lacking in religious Biographies? If yes, then what is to stop the next "watching editor" from starting the deletion process on this substandard article. So where are we? We have not improved Wikipedia, there is no article on "john Mayer" and there is no redlinks to prompt others to create it. You quote the Disambiguation/red link, but you forget that is a guideline actually, not a hard fast rule. Remember has few rules/policies. BUT one of these policies is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules , and I believe this actually is the most important point. It's not long, complex, ambiguous, or unclear, it states

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Now I am not going to edit war with you over John Mayer, but I honestly feel that if you are looking at the big picture of improvement of this great endeavor, the only choice is simple .... unrevert your reverts.

Thank you - speednat (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Query

What is the reason to rollback this edit? Zingarese talk · contribs 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I reverted the edit because it removed, without explanation or prior discussion, valid information about the relationship between the two versions of the composer's name. It also left the IPA pronunciation conflicting with the given spelling. --Deskford (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Dear Deskford, I understand, but I really feel rollback should only be used in cases of vandalism (per policy), in which this user's edit was clearly not. Their edit certainly may have been misguided, but I cannot see how they had bad intentions. In this case, a regular undo, with explanation in the edit summary, is the appropriate action. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right there, I probably should have reverted with an explanation instead of using rollback in a hurry. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Deskford (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Harris

Sorry for all the drama I have created with this but was there any consensus to move from "Outer Hebrides" to "Scotland" after the 2nd RM in 2008? You stated that "previous lengthy discussions settled on "Harris, Scotland" as the preferred article title" but I can't find any discussion on that (apart from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland/Archive 12#More cleanup required in 2015 which was mainly about using commas instead of brackets). I would also note that I moved the Commons category originally to "Harris, Scotland" before I realized that there was one on Rùm. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That discussion has now been closed in favour of "Harris, Outer Hebrides" however "Harris, Scotland" still redirects here and when I write an article on the Rùm one we can add a hatnote on the Outer Hebrides saying that "Harris, Scotland" redirects here, for the place on Rùm, see Harris, Rùm. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Jura Small Isles

I know you haven't been around for a while but for when you come back, Small Isles, Argyll now exists, I hope to see you back, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)