User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 50

This is an archive of past discussions with User:SilkTork. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

ArbCom election 2011

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=SilkTork – I believe that you might have forgotten about the account you've created. Can you please revise the disclosure in your statement? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a FYI - I changed question #1 so it's more fair for you (definitely didn't realize the involved party thing). Thanks. --Rs chen 7754 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had noticed. I am still on holiday in Nice, so questions which involve a bit of research I am leaving until I have more time when I get back home. We are flying back tomorrow, so I hope to have some time for research on Thursday. The questions which involve the most amount of research are going to be the questions which get put to the back of the pile. If the research appears to be unreasonable it is likely I will not fully answer the question, though I hope to be able to leave some kind of response. I am quite comfortable with people not voting for me because my time is limited. I put myself forward when I read in Signpost that only four people had nominated themselves. The situation has clearly changed between the Signpost article being written and me reading it last night just before the cut off point, as I see that several people have volunteered. If there are enough decent candidates it would be more appropriate for them to be elected in place of me. But if I am elected, I will live up to the commitment, as that is in my nature. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have given a brief answer to your question. I see that you were involved in that ArbCom case - apart from the length of time it took, were you satisfied with the result? Did it end the conflict? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Arbitration Committee Elections

SilkTork,

As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. --Tznkai (talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance regarding a user who continues to troll Cung Le articles

Hi, I just wanted to know if you can help edit or help me contact someone regarding a specific user who refuses to acknowledge any proof that I have provided regarding a recent error by the UFC.

The specific user in question is Glock17gen4. His only evidence is a picture based on a mistake by UFC production, where MMA fighter Cung Le has already responded that he did not know about, yet Glock17gen4 refuses to accept that and continues to revert Cung Le's Nationality as a current Vietnamese national.

I have provided significant proof in both discussions at the UFC 139 and Cung Le's articles. Please take a look. Cung Le has acknowledged both his American nationality and his Vietnamese heritage (especially with the 3 striples flag which represents the fallen Saigon). I hope you can help. Both his website at CungLe.com and UFC.com profile describe him as a Vietnamese-American and he quoted as calling himself an American Wushu champion. Glock17gen4 seems to not understand the differences between Nationality and Ethnicity. He continues to only use that one picture as his proof. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to post this on every user's talk page. I am handling the situation.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize Cyberpower. I was only doing so because I was not receiving a response from any users. I will follow your advice and await for your response in terms of resolving the situation. Thank you and again I apologize and I will not revert or request assistance from other users. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that this matter has been dealt with. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed listing at centralized discussion

Since you're both interested in DR and are the go-to guru of Template:Centralized discussion, I was wondering if you think that this naming dispute is important enough to be listed at CD. I bounced it there as a mediator at DRN and it goes to the much broader question of whether "Palestine," even though unquestionably the most common term for the area in question, is now so non-neutral due to Palestinian nationalism as to be avoided in favor of a facially-neutral, but far more obscure term such as Southern Levant. Let me note that I say facially-neutral only to recognize, but not to necessarily agree or disagree with the claim of one of the disputants, that:

"Describing the region in history as being called Palestine is consistent with scholarly consensus and replacing it from its normal context with an an uncommon term like "Southern Levant" could imply support for Israeli nationalism, since Zionist propaganda organizations like CAMERA have attempted to expunge the name Palestine from history for many years (e.g. a recent example here) in order to further their cause." — (Oncenawhile) 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you think it qualifies/is worth listing at CD? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand the thinking behind your question, however CENT is not for content disputes. There are other venues for that, and I see that it is already listed at Requested Moves. I'll take a look at the issue and give my views later. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Goldfinger (novel)/GA1

Hi there, Thanks for the good review: I've re-worked the lede, which did look rather thin. It should now dip into most areas of the article as well as stand as a "mini-article" in its own right. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to polish it further!. I've also answered your one outstanding point in the GA talk page too. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review - a painless and very positive process. Once it went to GA it was edited in a number of places - poorly, I think, with some very bad linking etc. This is an editor who has previously caused a few minor issues, especially with WP:OR on the gold references in both the book and film. I've reverted 95% of what they've done, as I think that their edits weakened the article, but could I ask that you check to see if I've acted properly with my reverts, or whether you think that their edits were viable? I wouldn't normally ask, but I do feel that if an article has just gone to GA, then it shouldn't be messed around with, except for the obvious slips that may have been missed. Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the edits in question, and they were of variable quality, though they weren't vandalism, and were done with good faith. The edit summaries are informing others of the reasoning behind the edits, though perhaps could have been worded more carefully, and with less opinion. I think you've probably kept the best bits. It is in the nature of Wikipedia that sometimes in a series of edits an article can get better and worse at the same time. I sometimes disagree with some of my own edits - sometimes the same day, sometimes years later! I have been known to reword a sentence more than 20 times, only to end up going back to the first version! You were right to check through the edits and keep the article up to standard. I notice that you did a series of reverts. I have found that making a general edit, and improving/removing questionable or poor quality material at the same time, is less potentially disruptive than doing a specific revert, or series of reverts. Some people get hurt and angry when their contributions, especially fresh ones, are reverted; though are more accepting if the changes are done in a more general edit. It's less personal and more dignified that way. It's also worth bearing in mind that Sbharris helped take Ernest Hemingway to Featured Article status, so while his edits on this occasion may have been rather casual, he is capable of top quality work. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tea, I hear it's good for you

'Bout this edit, is that use of {{relist}} instead of {{reflist}} something WP:REFLINKS did, or you? If former someone should amend the tool. If latter hahahah you're a human. :D ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha! That was me! Shows that you should actually look when you press preview! Thanks for catching it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate those big red words. I hate them so! You'd think we'd have software that could auto insert the ref section by now... ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. If a page is in wp:article space and is not a disamb or redirect page, then it should be possible to auto insert a ref section. There would, of course, be monumental argument over what it should be called as there are some strong characters on Wikipedia who dislike to use "References" and will insist on "Notes" or "Footnotes". I wonder if it has been proposed before? And if so, what the objections where? If not, then it may be worth proposing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

More bureaucracy than I'm interested in. :D ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia essays

Isn't it true that all humorous/non-serious essays and pages should be tagged with Template:Humor? Especially when they're satirical/sarcastic? Can you take a look at this? (It's currently tagged as I'm writing this, but I may get reverted again, and there's currently no point in my starting a discussion on the talk page since I don't actually know if there are any rules concerning this. But I saw your name listed at the Essays WikiProject so I'm asking for your opinion.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Scott_MacDonald#Wikipedia:The_Last_Word and Wikipedia_talk:The_Last_Word. It is currently tagged as a humorous essay, and Scott made the last edit himself, so that seems appropriate. I think his objection is that there was a double tag, and I agree that two tags is too much. The current tagging seems fine to me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

William Lax

Hi Silk. I'm currently working on William Lax. I've hit a bit of a wall regarding information on him. I've listed the article for peer review but I know how long these things can take, so if you get the chance would you mind peer reviewing it? Cheers Farrtj (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a long waiting list for GA, though my understanding is that Peer Reviews are usually fairly prompt. It's not an area I get into - I've never done one, nor asked for one to be done; however, I think you get at the very least a semi-automated review within two weeks. If you hold on, I'm sure someone will be along to give the article a look over. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Live at Leeds‎

Hi Drmies. I understand why you are unsure about linking to a copy of the work, however that is what we do and are encouraged to do. We talk about a topic and provide as much information as possible - including, if possible, providing a representation of the topic, such as an image or a sound file. For albums, we provide an image of the cover, even though that is strictly not legal, and we claim a "fair use" privilege. We embed a brief sound file if appropriate, pushing against the boundaries of legality in order to do so, as this is helpful to the reader. And we are encouraged to link to an external website which legally makes available the entire file, as this provides the reader with immediate access to the topic in question, and is of immense encyclopaedic value. This, unlike the previous two examples, is perfectly legal, and is encouraged by Wikipedia if the site is legal. See Wikipedia:External links, the section named "What to link", and the subsection, "What can normally be linked", which is commonly referred to as WP:ELYES. The #2 criteria says: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the Links normally to be avoided criteria apply." I'll repeat and highlight the important words: should link to a site hosting a copy of the work. The caveat is that the site should not meet any of the criteria on WP:LINKSTOAVOID. In this case the site does not meet any of that criteria. It is a legal site, owned by a European government, that pays a streaming licensing fee for use of the recordings.

If you have any queries about this, please get in touch. If you are satisfied that the link is appropriate, then either you or I can restore it shortly. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, your understanding is appreciated, but I am really not unsure. On the other hand, you might be confusing "musical score" with "recording." Please refer to the discussion at ANI. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Can you provide me with a link to the discussion? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing: Wikipedia:Ani#Copyvio_or_not.3F. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a beer

Thanks for taking the time to close the merge proposal at Saint Thomas Christians. It is much appreciated! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I do like a beer now and again! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Incubation cleanout

I was strolling through incubated articles and discovered Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn... apparently incubated as slightly premature back in 2010. As the film has now been released and we have The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, is MFD the way to clean the incubated one out of the closet? If so, I'd be glad to nominate and will suggest at the MFD that any pertinant info be moved to the mainspace article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

At MfD, participants frequently suggest that such cases are dealt with without an MfD nomination because they are generally uncontroversial. I recommend that you merge/redirect Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn into The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn and place the {{Copied}} template on their talk pages for attribution purposes. Cunard (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for as little bureaucracy as possible, so I like Cunard's suggestion. It doesn't completely clean out the Incubator space, as it would leave the title hanging around, but it saves having to do a history merge before deleting the incubated one. I checked the history, and there's not a lot there, but just enough activity to make a straight housekeeping deletion inappropriate. Of course, with your brand new admin tools, you just might want to play around with doing a history merge! But after reading WP:HISTMERGE you might just change your mind and go with Cunard's suggestion! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder about the worth of any sort of merge of two different but similarly named articles... each created seperately from the other... the incubated one being speculative in tone and the mainspace version being more factual.... and while both have some editors in common, each has edits unique to it.

When an article arrives in the incubator as a result of a deletion discussion, it generally is deleted without fanfare after sitting unimproved or untouched for a reasonable length of time. For instance, the incubated article Pornstar (film) was simply and quietly deleted with the summary "(G6: Regular Maintenance: Article Incubator Candidate with no activity or progress in 9+ months.)" Since the last minor edit to the incubated article was in May 2011, and the edit before that was in November 2010,[1] I think a G6 could be a better and non-controversial solution here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have arrived as part of a deletion discussion, but as a result of this. However, upon looking at the histories closely, none of the subsequent edits to the incubated one were ever transferred over to the mainspace one. The only significant edits were made by the creator of the incubated one, User:Cliff smith; it may be appropriate to let Cliff smith know that Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn is under discussion. Essentially the incubated one can be treated the same as material created in Cliff smith's user space. Cliff smith may have the option of the material being moved directly into his user space, or deleted. If he opts for deletion it can be deleted as G6 (house-keeping) or G7 (author request). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just dropped him a note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cliff smith hasn't edited since September 2010. He may not be able to provide a timely response.

Another option to clean up the incubator article and preserve the history is to move Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn to Talk:The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn/Old. I found this idea from Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. While this was not a cut-and-paste move, the suggestion is helpful. Preserving the content and its history may be useful for Cliff smith when he returns to editing. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've actioned Cunard's last suggestion, and left a note on Cliff smith's talkpage. If there has been no response from Cliff smith after a reasonable length of time the material can be deleted. If he does return to editing at a later date and wishes to see the material it can be undeleted and moved to his user space. I have watchlisted his talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Quite decent solution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn per the suggestion at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions so users will not accidentally edit it. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions

hello,

is "he helped to craft the lean and powerful style of R&B that formed the basis of the Stax Sound" a quotation from Britannica? Or a quotation from a quotation? Because I don't have access to [2] while I think you have. And is it the same as [3]? Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 19:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pumpkin. It's not a quotation - it's a summary of some points raised in Britannica. And, yes, looking at the two, the Academic one is the same as the Library one. How do you get access to the Academic one? If the Academic one is open to the public, it's preferable to use that one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Hi SilkTork. Thank you for closing Talk:Saint Thomas Christians#Merger proposal. Would you be able to close Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory or any of the other discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Request for closure? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the discussion! Best, Cunard (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey, I saw your name when browsing around just now and I definitely recognize you, but I can't remember where from! I do remember you doing some pretty good article improvement. What are the FAs you've written? I see you're currently working on Janis--not really a fan myself, but I can probably help you a tad if you need it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about fact checking

Moved to Talk:Persian people

Is there any way to candidate an article for fact checking? I know one article who’s central tenants are based on original research and unverifiable claims. It is the article about the Persian people that in my view has been totally distorted for political purposes.

The following claims are bogus and is in contradiction with several reliable sources and third party publications Original research and unverifiable claim 1

"Besides modern Iran/Persia, ethnic Persians are also found in Central Asia (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) and are usually called "Tajiks" and "Farsiwans"

Original research and unverifiable claim 2 that can easily be proven wrong by linking to official Iranian government websites

While a categorization of a 'Persian' ethnic group persists in the West, Persians have generally been a pan-national group often comprising regional people who often refer to themselves as 'Persians' and have also often used the term "Iranian" (in the ethnic-cultural sense). As a pan-national group, defining Persians as an ethnic group, at least in terms used in the West, is not inclusive since the ethnonym "Persian" includes several Iranian people including the speakers of Modern Persian.

I don't think that Wikipedia should be used as a tool of cultural genocide using original research and unverifiable claims. Truthtellers78 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can add {{fact}} (including the curly brackets) after the quote, which will add a request for a reference.

You can post to the talk page of the article and hope that somebody takes interest in your concerns.

You can remove the dubious facts from the article yourself, but be sure to add an edit summary saying why you're removing them; something along the lines of "unsourced and dubious". After you remove it, you might also want to post about the removal to the talk page as a belt and braces approach. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue Truthtellers. GraemeL is right - putting a {{fact}} tag just after the disputed material is the normal way, and raising the matter on the talkpage is also good. Removing the material is also an option, but as Graeme indicates, this may be contentious. I would suggest only removing material after you have first checked for sources yourself. I took a quick look and easily found these sources to support the first statement: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The second claim is a little more difficult to check as the claim is more complex, however I found these: [9], [10], [11], which indicate that the nature of Iranian and Persian identity and ethnicity is a matter of valid scholarly discussion. The second claim would need more research, and some balancing statements, as well as sourcing, though simply removing it would be inappropriate. I hope that helps. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked at the article in question, and the material you quoted came from the lead - however, the material was sourced - either in the lead itself or in the main body of the article. I would agree, though, that the sourcing could be improved. I have added one cite, and I moved some material from the lead to the main body. There is further work to be done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for taking time to do your duo diligence; I have looked at your sources and think that none of them support any of the quotes. You have referred to several books about the central Asian states and nowhere have I found support for the claim in the first quotes which is that people who speak Persian are 'ethnic Persian' or automatically a part of the Persian people. Support can be found that speakers of Persian language are found in those areas but it doesn't prove the claim that they are ethnic Persian. Speaking a language is often not enough to be considered a part of any ethnic group. You are welcome to make a direct quote from any of your sources and we can discuss it.

Let me explain something. Persian language or "Farsi" is a language with various dialects [Tajik language] that is being spoken in central Asian (the former territory of the Persian empires) whereas Persian people or فارسیc is a distinct non - ethnolinguistic ethnic group from the country of Iran. This can be compared with the French language that is spoken in many parts of the former French colonies such as of Africa, List of countries where French is an official language, whereas French people is a distinct European ethnic group from France. Speaking a language or a dialect of a language doesn't make you a part of an ethnic group. I'm writing in English right not, but that doesn't make me an Englishman.

The definition of ethnicity according to Wikipedia is as follows

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.

The people defined as Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbeks doesn't fit the criteria for being considered as a part of the Persian people. Many of them who are in Iran as refugees are considered as non-Persian and non-Iranian by the native population. These ethnic groups also have their own Wikipedia articles that refute the claim that they are a part of the Persian but give plenty of explanations of their own ethnic roots how they historically have been influenced of Persian language and culture. The article in its current form defines everybody who speak the language Farsi as belonging to the Persians which is ridicules and confusing.

The CIA factbook which is a very reliable source defines the follow ethnic groups in Iran:

Persian 61%, Azeri 16%, Kurd 10%, Lur 6%, Baloch 2%, Arab 2%, Turkmen and Turkic tribes 2%, other 1% (2008 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

Afghanistan: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html

We can seen that Persians are a distinct ethnic group differentiated from both Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. Why would the CIA fact book make this artificial distinction of everybody who spoke Persian belonged to the same ethnic group? I can make references to Iranian sources if needed.

The only source presented in the article which in some way relates to the second quotes is the following

Iran and the Caucasus, vol. 9/1: 37-42. Quote:"Furthermore, some scholars, mechanically identifying the speakers of Persian as a distinct ethnic unit (the ‘Persians’), exclude those Iranians who speak dialects of Persian, or other Iranian dialects closely related to Persian.3 On the other hand, the Persian-speaking non-Iranian ethnic groups (such as, for instance, Arabs) are numbered as Persians. However, it is obvious that this approach to ethnicity in Iran is misleading, as historically all ethnic groups in Iran, including the ‘Persians’, irrespective of their origin, language, or religion were always referred to, collectively, as Iranians (Irani)."

How should we interpret this? Firstly the source supports the notion of a distinct Persian ethnicity that excludes other groups who speak the same language, secondly is says that the term "Iranian" is an umbrella term referring to all of Iran's ethnic groups. It doesn't mean that the Persian people are not a distinct ethnic group or that they don't exist just because”Iranian" is an umbrella term for various ethnic groups in Iran. Example: All ethnic groups in the UK can be called "British' but that doesn't mean that it is wrong or misleading to speak about a English people, or a Welsh people.

The article has been problematic and a source of edit warring and contention for a long time, it was previously flagged for about than one year (look at the history) before somebody removed the tags and it was semi-protected without any of the issues being resolvedTruthtellers78 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please go back and read the sources. Google Books doesn't allow me to cut and paste, and I think you should at least make the effort of reading the sources I found rather than asking me to laboriously copy out the material for you. If you read those sources you'll note they indicate that Tajiks trace their history back to Persia, and consider themselves Persian. Your initial post here was that there was unsourced material in an article - but it turns out that the material is sourced, and that what the material says can be supported by further sources. And now you are attempting to interpret what a source is saying, which is not our purpose at all. We are not writing essays and giving our personal opinions - we are summarising verifiable facts and verifiable opinions of experts. It matters not that we agree with those opinions. We are not taking sides in a debate. I suspect you are too close to the topic and are over-thinking the issue. I often find it better to edit articles on subjects which I don't have a close interest or opinion. I can be more balanced and factual. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

let’s go back to the contentious first quote

"Besides modern Iran/Persia, ethnic Persians are also found in Central Asia (Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) and are usually called "Tajiks" and "Farsiwans"

It is making one claim and a second claim & conclusion that build upon the first claim. The first implied claim is that Persian peopleare defined as an supranational ethno-linguistic group that can include any ethnic group who speak the language, the second is that there are Persian speaking people known as [Tajiks]] in central Asia and that they automatically can be included in the Persian ethnicity.

I have found no publication that supports the first implied claim, and therefore the second claim is null and void. Tell me which pages of your sources claim that Persians are a supranational ethno-linguistic group that can include any people who speak Persian language. I don't think that ANY ethnic group in the world can be defined by the use of a common language alone. There are a lot of ethnic groups who are very closely related racially, culturally, linguistically but still are distinctly different. A good example of this is the Scandinavian people nobody claims that Swedes and Danes are the same people, although they are very similar in many ways, they both know the differences and wish to keep separate identities, I think that a Swede would become very angry if his distinctiveness were violated in Wikipedia.

I agree that your sources provide plenty of evidence that Persian speaking peoples known as Tajiks, Hazara etcetera live in central Asia and that they are called names such as Farsiwans but that bears no relevance for this discussion.

The Tajiks are a people with a mixed heritage, some of their ethnic and cultural heritage is indeed Persians but they have been transformed into a new distinct ethnicity through the process of Ethnogenesis, although they still share the same language and cultural traits with Persian people. I'm sure that they can trace back their roots to the Persian empires, many people can as "Persia" is 3000 years old, but We can't live in the Past. Ethnicity is a two way process, it is like a marriage where both parties have to say "YES", one party is not enough. We don't know how many Tajiks consider themselves as belonging to the Persian people and how many consider themselves distincly different, any sources on this? Any sources on what the Persians (from Iran) think of this?

Tājik' (Persian: تاجيک; UniPers: Tâjik; Tajik: Тоҷик) is a term generally applied to Persian language speakers of primarily East Iranic (mixed Sogdian, Khorezmian, Bactrian, Tokharian and Parthian)[1] origin living in Central Asia. The traditional Tajik homelands are in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and southern Uzbekistan. [1] Krader, L. 1963. Formations of the Peoples. Indiana Uralic and Altaic Series v. 26- Peoples of Central Asia: 54-57, Hirth, F. 1917. The story of Chang K'ien, China's pioneer in Western Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society. v. 37, no.2: 89-152; Shiratori, K. 1902. Über den Wu-sun-Stamm in Centralasien, 103-140.

The Tajiks are probably the oldest group in central Asia, descending from eastern Iranian Bactrians and Sogdians. In the seventh century, the Sassanids( See Persian Sassanids) were conquered by the invading Arabs, and many Western Iranian speaking, or Persian speaking peoples fled to Central Asia and mixed with older Eastern and Western Iranian speaking populations. Most experts consider this blend of ancient Iranians with the flood of Western Iranian refugees to be the foundation of the contemporary Tajik People. Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Volym 1 Barbara A. West, page 770. http://books.google.se/books?id=pCiNqFj3MQsC&pg=PA770&dq=Tajik+people&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=xDzuTtL4FcrZ4QT97NDmCA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Tajik%20people&f=false

And Why should there be a separate article about Tajik people if they are the same as Persian people, makes no sense at all.

finally the language and diction of the whole article is mushy and confusing and it if very hard to comprehend the nucleus because of all unrelated content and political manipulation, such as issues relating to language, rugs, and close related ethnic groups. I advise you to ready some of the discussion relating to the article and you will understand how politicized it really is Truthtellers78 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving this discussion to Talk:Persian people as it is more appropriate to deal with the matter there, and to allow others to contribute. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Snow Prince

Thanks for reviewing this article! Since this is my first GA nomination, I might need quite a lot of guidance from you, so thanks for the help in advance. I have added more information to the lead, but I feel that the paragraph I added does not flow really well. Can you have a look at it? I still have two other queries:

The problem in the Plot section you mentioned has been bugging me since the article was Start-class. However, despite many attempts by three other editors and myself, it is still not up to standard. Therefore, I would definitely need your expertise in this area. Can you highlight to me the sentences/paragraphs that needs working on (and mention what is wrong with them, if possible), so that I can try to redo these with your help? And if you have any queries about the plot, I will be happy to answer them (Sadly, any external writeup of this film's plot does not exist anymore, so I can't show you any).

Lastly, you mentioned about adding the book's information. Can you specify which area is lacking (eg:plot/history/background info) so that I can work on it? Thank you and I look forward to working with you. Apologizes if my English is not really perfect. Happy editing!--Lionratz (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving to Talk:Snow Prince/GA1. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

(in case you haven't seen)

Congratulations on your election to the Committee! I'm looking forward to working along side you for the next few years. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! You'll always be a n000b to me though. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That butterfly meant a lot to me at the time, and I've never forgotten that. I've passed on the same butterfly to a number of people since. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome to the team! Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! I look forward to working with you! Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for supporting you. I hope that you don't blame me too much in two years' time. NW (Talk) 05:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't apologise ;) Congratulations! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me not be the last person to congratulate you on your election. Now, you will have even less time to spend on what you already planned to do! ;-) All the best. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

All too true! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Roman Dacia

Roman Dacia has been cleaned up and is now back to the main space. Could you give it a second review for the WP:GOOD? Thanks!--Codrin.B (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just glanced at it, and there's some good work been done there. I have a few GANs on my plate at the moment so I'll want to clear them off before I take on any more, and then in January I will be fully inducted into ArbCom and may well be busy with that for a while, but I would be interested in reviewing the article, so if nobody else picks it up by the time I have a spare moment, I would be glad to do it. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review of (What's the Story) Morning Glory?

Thanks for your GA Review of the article. Will look at adding suggested improvements throughout the next week. I do have a query about your points on Focus, and the open air shows in particluar. Although, yes, these concerts (Loch Lomond, Knebworth etc.) were not part of the album's initial promotional schedule, the events were a direct result of the success of the album and were landmarks in the band's career at that point.

These two sources group the gigs as being part of the What's the Story world tour, and in remarking that "With their second LP, (What's The Story) Morning Glory?, now 10 months old, everyone had it down pat", the second source seems to portray the gigs as a direct result of the album and its popularity.

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/music/oasis-knebworth.htm http://www.citylife.co.uk/news_and_reviews/news/5086_ten_years_on___oasis___knebworth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There is also this: (What's the Story) Morning Glory? Tour. I think it would be worth having a section summarising the tour, and linking to the fuller article. I was at the Nov 5th concert at Earls Court. It was so loud that the ground around the hall was shaking and there was a news report next day that London Transport had stopped tube trains from passing under the hall because of concerns! I was near the front and almost got crushed when Oasis came on. The crown surged forward. One of my laces was undone and I was standing on it so I couldn't move that foot, and people were pushing against me so I started to fall over. It was a scary moment, and - like a wimp - I got out of the crowd and watched the rest of the concert from the side. I was a teacher back then, and that was one of the trips I organised for some of my students.

I'm moving the relevant parts of this conversation to the GAN page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Kirkby

Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Margaret_Kirkby Hi, I've had this listed as an article for creation since May 2011. Could you push its verification through or something? Farrtj (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally get involved in AfC so I'm curious about this request. Have I been involved in this matter in some way? Did I delete an article on Margaret Kirkby or something? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Songs produced by Sufjan Stevens

I have made a further comment at Songs produced by Sufjan Stevens. You may wish to respond. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Responded. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Yepp

Excellent Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)