None of the Wikipedia volunteer editors who add and improve content in articles receive any financial benefit. We all simply contribute our time because we care about building a great encyclopedia for you and innumerable others around the world to use.
If you cannot afford it, no one wants you to donate. Wikipedia is not at risk of shutting down, and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform and is asking for these donations, is richer than ever. Hosting costs are around £2 million, while salaries for staff who do not contribute to making Wikipedia, but who are the ones asking for donations, are £67 million

WMF 2021 Audit Report

Edmund Blair Leighton - A flaw in the title.jpg

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

Our text should arise as a summary of the reliable sources, rather than editors first deciding what they want to say and then looking for sources. Agricolae

To remove the sandbox link add #pt-sandbox { display: none !important; } (or li#pt-sandbox {display: none !important;} for MonoBook users) to your common.css page.

To prevent the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent site notices add #siteNotice { display:none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent the MediaViewer follow these instructions

Use {{Reflist|30em}} instead of {{Reflist|2}}

Mahalia Jackson

in case of interestEdit

April songs

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 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TamzinEdit

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 ChatEdit

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! — 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 shellEdit

 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)