User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 49

Protection
Hi.Thanks for your helps and guidances.Please protect this article,because this user User:علی ویکی is trying to delete materials which have sources.In this article,could I delete the name of persons who are not pure Azerbaijanis? About this deleted article,Articles for deletion/Genocide of Azerbaijani people in Iran,will be there any sanctions on this user User:Khodabandeh14's seeking mass canvassing vote in another Wikipedia ,, (he convassed in Farsi wikipedia),, and were informed by this way to oppose this article?He also convassed, for this article too.With respect--Orartu (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am unable to read the links in relation to the canvassing question. However, if you feel that Khodabandeh14 was not aware of the guideline: Canvassing, then it would be appropriate to politely point it out on Khodabandeh14's talkpage.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the edits in question on the Iranian Azerbaijanis article. I don't know the topic well, so I don't understand the nature of the conflict. It seems to consist of reverting these edits, which are about changing Persia to Iran, Azeris to Azerbaijanis and removing various images. You mention sources, but I see no use of sources in those edits. I'm willing to help, though you'll need to explain more clearly what is going on.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Again Iranian Azerbaijanis Article
Hi.Thanks for your attention.I will explain about already mentioed controversial changes in this article.But if it is possible for you please help and guide me here ,when the official language of a country is imposed to minorities, could this official language be written in small font or not?In addition, these users, , want to make Iranian and Azerbaijani-related articles a place to propagandize Pan-Iranist views, Azerbaijani people of Iran are exposed to many discriminations in Iran,I think wikipedia must consider the catastrophic situation of minorities in some countries, and at least in the case of these minorities let using all resources that can be achieved With respect--Orartu (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have some GANs that I need to close, so I will attend to those first, then take a look.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance.I surprised to see the mentioned users past disruptive activitiesUser:Khodabandeh14 was aware of principles of wikipedia, and intentionally violated the principles.He also banned from all edits in article and article talk space concerning the topic of Eastern European or West Asian nationalism, for six months for frequently violating princioles, and please look at User:Kansas Bear statements here,User:Kansas Bear has been already warned for his edits,and User:Alborz Fallah either wants to launch edit war in every Iranian and Azerbaijani-related articles or wants to make these articles site of controversy to impose his views.This is also surprising that User:Alborz Fallah' activities and his views have similarity to User:Hajji Piruz (formerly knownUser:Azerbaijani)'s,please look at here Statement by user:Dacy69 With Regards--Orartu (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, why don't you take a look at the edit history of Abd al Qadir Maraghi. Maybe you can explain how after Orartu removed referenced information and was reverted that suddenly numerous IPs, all from the same place, start reverting back to his version. Maybe you can explain why a user with 1186 edits seems to know so much about wikipedia(AA2), yet ignores consensus, ignores references, removes names of countries(POV editing and edit-warring by Orartu) where buildings are located and has edit warred to push his/her POV on Iranian Azerbaijanis. As of 04:14, 1 November 2011, Orartu still has not responded to my proposal on Iranian Azerbaijanis.
 * Maybe you can explain why user:Orartu continues to attack user:Khodabandeh, who has not edited since October 14, 2011? His/her continued mentioning of Khodabandeh makes it appear that he/she has a personal vendetta against Khodabandeh. Which is similar to this personal attack made earlier by a "different" editor. I eagerly await your response to my questions. Cheers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you lawyer of User:Khodabandeh14? Which questions?You only want to impose your views, I cannot waste my time more.You are not interested in reaching a compromise, but rather push POV. I am sorry for you, you could not recognize an experienced user from new user.Then you cannot judge about my activities neutrally.I always want to respect principles of wikipedia, and any violation of principles on behalf of me is unintentionally.I am confident the admins are intelligent enough to judge appropriately.I don't attack User:Khodabandeh14, he and his friends(or mybe sockpuppets),attacked me and misused my low experince in wikipedia.This user User:Khodabandeh14 is an experienced user but frequently violated the rules intentionally(I mentioned before).Because my views are radically different from his,he could not tolerate and along with User:Alborz Fallah, and User:Xooon, from the first want to prevent my activities.They have vendetta against me, it is obvious from their activities against me, I only defend.--Orartu (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding one point to Kansas Bear's comment: can you explain this edit which I corrected (cf. edit summary!). This is really disruptive. Or this edit, ... Extreme POV pushing (cf. this edit summary is dangerous, and here race is coming in!, ...) with no respect for wikipedia rules. These are, at least, disruptive. Some of us should check Orartu's edits and revert. Thank you. Xashaiar (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone should check Xashaiar and mentioned users' edits to prevent them make here a site to propagandize in favor of Pan-iranist views.They even cannot tolarate the name of Iranian Azerbaijan in articles.--Orartu (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here User:علی ویکی has deleted material with its source, and did vandalism.About changing Azeri to Azerbaijani,both of them referes to Azerbaijani people or Azerbaijani language.But Azerbaijani is neutral word:In her valuable book entitled Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity, Brenda Shaffer astutely observes that:"Until the early 1990s, most Azerbaijanis in Iran referred to themselves as Turks. Some researchers and Azerbaijanis themselves refer to this group as the Azerbaijani Turks.... The term most commonly employed by the Azerbaijanis today, and which is considered most neutral... is "Azerbaijani."". But using the word Azeri by users like User:علی ویکی is not neutral, because by using this word they want to propagandize in favor of Iranian origin of Azerbaijanis and subsequently Pan-Iranist views.Ali Khamenei has frequently emphasized that his ancestors were not native to Azerbaijan and were immigrants to Azerbaijan from Tafresh a Persian city, before his statements about this, all thought he was an Azerbaijani-ethnic.But now that he rejected being an Azerbaijani-ethnic, categorize Ali Khamenei as an Azerbaijani or putting him as an Azerbaijani in Iranian Azerbaijanis is wrong.But to cover up and to deny the problem of huge discriminations against Iranian Azerbaijanis User:علی ویکی and User:Alborz Fallah want to show that he is Azerbaijani and subsequently Azerbaijanis are in high positions in Iran and live without any discrimination in the land of milk and honey. --Orartu (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) User:Xooon,put all the Pahlavi clan's members(family of former shah of Iran)in category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent referring to Azerbaijani-ethnicity of one of the ancestors of Farah pahlavi(wife of former king of Iran), because the Anti-Azerbaijanism was founded in Palavi era.Borders and brethren: Iran and the challenge of Azerbaijani identity By Brenda Shaffer,"prejudice and widely held anti-Azerbaijani stereotypes were apparently prevalent in Iran". User:Xooon intentionally want to show pahlavis were Azerbaijanis. --Orartu (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so you should know........
I have posted a warning to user:Orartu's talk page concerning the personal attack directed at myself and other users on the Iranian Azerbaijanis talk page. I find this statement, "I shortly refer to your group's enemity against me, and Azerbaijani people.Obviously, you and agreeing users with you want to make wikipedia battleground and a site for spreading ethnic hatred., unacceptable to the building of an encyclopedia. His continued accusations against an editor that is blocked and has not edited since October 14th, hostility to editors that do not share his/her opinions and personal attacks make assuming good faith extremely difficult. Since user:Orartu has been posting on your talk page, perhaps some guidance from you would be helpful. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I had to answer User:Kansas Bear unfounded claims.I have also posted a warning to user:Kansas Bear's talk page concerning the personal attack directed at myself on the Iranian Azerbaijanis talk page  I find this statement,"You are "not neutral" either. Your personal animosity towards other editors which you continue to post on SilkTork's talk page is a clear indication of your battleground mentality and non-neutral editing.unacceptable to the building of an encyclopedia.--Orartu (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Khodabandeh14's violation of wikipedia's principles needs attention, and I have already mentioned above and here (when he was not on sanction), and this is not related to his being on sanction, and this is not showing animosity to user, some users want to poison the atmosphere against me--Orartu (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to look into this yet. I will do shortly.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention of X in Y
Hi again. You ask a question in Talk page of Iranian Azerbaijanis that I preferred to answer it here in your talk page, because I know elongation of a talk with a huge amount of text will end up in losing the main topic of conversation. If you think this sub-topic is important in that talk, I can remove it to that page. You asked : I note that other articles on this topic follow the naming convention of Foo in Foo, as in Azerbaijanis in Georgia, Azerbaijanis in Armenia, Azerbaijanis in Russia, etc. Why is this article named differently?.The brief explanation is that the ethnogenesis of Azeri ethnicity has occurred in Iran, and the population of Iranian Azeris is at least two times the whole population of Azerbaijan Republic , so as an indigenous population they may not be mentioned as X in Y. I can explain more if you think that is necessary. Thank you so much --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add to what Alborz Fallah has said, that the real Azerbaijan so to speak, is the one in Iran, the country called Azerbaijan today, actually borrowed the name from the Iranian region, just a few decades ago. If you're interested in the topic, here is a collection of various academic sources, discussing the issue of how Azerbaijan (ie Republic of Azerbaijan) came to be known by that name. This is almost an identical situation as Macedonia naming dispute if you're familiar with that topic. For example, the Azeri-Amercian historian and scholar Shireen T. Hunter, of Georgetown University, address this issue in "Iran and Transcuacsia in the Post-Soviet Era", writing in page 106 that "After the Ottoman empire had collapsed, both the Communists and, later, the Azerbaijani nationalists developed the myth of one Azerbaijan divided into a southern and northern part, comparing it to what happened to the two Germanics and to Korea, and using this myth to justify irredentist claims toward Iranian territory."  In short, Iran is an indigenous homeland of Azerbaijanis, and has twice as many Azerbaijanis as the Republic of Azerbaijan, which makes the issue different from Azerbaijanis in Russia, Turkey, and Georgia, who have small non-indigenous minorities. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And the whole naming issue was already discussed in details on the talk page, and agreed upon by the consensus of all the editors involved. It's based on the most common usage in Google books/scholars and academic sources in general, which is what the standard procedure for naming is, on Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijanis in Georgia, Russia,... are indigenous population too, because they live in historical lands of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijanis who live out of middleeast and Caucasus are Azerbaijani diaspora.Then real iran and persia is fars province of iran,the other people's lands added to persia after conquest of kings then calling other parts iran and persia is mistake too.So according to you kurds in Turkey and syria are not indigenous population, Kurds in Turkey, Kurds in Syria--Orartu (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are they indigenous in Russia and Georgia ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijanis in Georgia and Caucasian part of Russia are native.Which principle of wikipedia confirms your justification about formulas(x in y=non-idigenous ethnics in mentined country;yx=indigenous ethnics)?--Orartu (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look at : North Caucasus to find the Azeri part of Russia .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can find Azerbaijanis here:Dagestan--Orartu (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep.That is true about that 3% !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * More or less,they are native in Caucasian parts..Derbent was an Azerbaijani city(now belongs to Russia), and Azerbaijanis of this city are native--Orartu (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the article about the term ethnogenesis --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why?--Orartu (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved discussion to relevant talkpage.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW
Please read why you should not edit others' comments. Thanks. Xashaiar (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that you may be unhappy that your comments were removed, and I offer you my personal apology for any umbrage you feel. It was not my intention to offend or upset you. However, I have made it clear that I will not tolerate personal or potentially disruptive comments on that talkpage, and your comments could have been disruptive. I cannot make any exceptions, and I do not wish the matter to escalate to the point of blocking editors. Dispute resolution is time-consuming and wearying for all concerned, and the issue can get side-tracked by people bringing up old grievances, so that the article at the heart of the dispute does not improve. If you have issues regarding any past behaviours of other editors, then please take the issue to Wikiquette assistance. If you have views on the issue at hand - removing bias in the Iranian Azerbaijanis article - then please share those, and I will listen very carefully. Your help is appreciated.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I do not believe that you "have a concern" about personal or potentially disruptive comments. Since user:Orartu started with the "disruptive comments" that I and other users were not neutral, then she stated, "I shortly refer to your group's enemity against me, and Azerbaijani people. Obviously, you and agreeing users with you want to make wikipedia battleground and a site for spreading ethnic hatred. At which time I posted a warning on user:Orartu's page for said remark and letting you know of the warning. Your disregard to this issue speaks volumes. Do not attempt to shift the blame, as to why the discussion has not progressed, to other users, when racist statements like that are allowed(and still remain) and certainly were not deleted out(as you have done to other user's comments). --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, you're now an involved party on the content dispute on Iranian Azeris. Since you totally disregarded the earlier comments about "Iranian Azerbaijanis" being the most common terminology in academic works, and are still insisting on moving the page, it's proof that you've clearly taken sides in a content dispute. Therefore, you should think twice, before threatening other users with blocking, when you're an involved party in a dispute. Abuse of administrative tools is not something that will be taken lightly in Wikipedia. I just left this note, so that you know that I consider you an involved party in the dispute in question. Kurdo777 (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Stones Brewery
Hi, could you change the title of the page William Stones Ltd to Stones Brewery please? This seems to be the naming convention for such pages, and Stones Brewery is the more commonly used name. Cheers Farrtj (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I glanced my eye over the article, and you've done some excellent work there. When you're ready to nominate it for Good Article listing let me know and I'll put it in my review queue.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blimey that was a quick response! Thanks for that. How do I nominate it for GA listing? I've done about all I'm going to do on the article now. Farrtj (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Add to the top of the talkpage. A bot will do the rest. Let me know, and I'll tag the review page, though I have a few other reviews in hand, and I'm not quick anyway, so it may take a month before the review is complete. This, though, could be quicker than leaving it in the GA list, as a month is the average wait these days before a review even starts.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you could have a look at it that would be great. I've put the GA notification up there anyway. It would be great to have a few more beer related pages up to GA status. Beer etc seems to have been a hugely neglected area on Wikipedia. The standard is shocking. Not to slight our efforts on WikiProject Beer, because we're doing our best. The Stones article was absolutely shocking before I got my hands on it. Same goes for the Websters page. If I can get those two to GA status I can move on to Boddingtons, Newcastle Brown Ale, Tetley, John Smiths, McEwans, Courage etc. All badly in need of attention.Farrtj (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help out where I can. I have neglected the beer articles for some time now. I have Brewing on the back burner, with an intention to bring that up to GA status. And I am aware that Beer is in need of an overhaul, the lead is very poor. I have put my name down for reviewing Stones Brewery, and will get around to doing it shortly.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Stones Brewery Review
I've responded to your comments in your review. I'm in favour of the split if you agree.Farrtj (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have enough material there to justify a standalone article. I'll take a closer look later at the sources to see if it would stand up to scrutiny at an AfD.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Stones Brewery/GA1
A decent and informative article. There's a few areas that'll need attention to get it listed as a GA, though I don't see that as a huge problem, and anticipate the article will get listed. I have put the GAN on hold for the standard initial seven days to allow the work to be done. Good luck!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done. What article are you aiming for next?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's awesome! Thanks for the job reviewing it and helping me as well. I nominated Webster's Brewery for GA status review around the time I asked you to review my Stones piece. The reviewer wasn't very constructive. In fact the whole experience was very disheartening. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like you to take a look at it when you can and give me a few pointers to get it to GA status. Maybe they were right and I'm wrong after all. Farrtj (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm also the dynamiteninja chappie on RateBeer.Farrtj (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GA is a loose and informal procedure, and the quality of the reviews will vary. If you disagree with a review you can simply renominate the article. There is also the WP:GAR route, but I don't find that route very helpful, and have considered proposing we do away with it. It tends to produce a lot of heat but little light, and can take ages. Quicker, easier, and less controversial is to simply renominate - and that's generally what we recommend. Implement positive suggestions the reviewer has made and renominate. I'll let someone else pick up the review, but if it hasn't been picked up after a month, give me a ping and I'll do it.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  13:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Somerton/GA1
Its been a few months since I put this up for review. Have you got the time to reach a consensus on it yet? Jaguar (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jaguar, I have slowed down a bit recently. I am aware that I still have four GANs open, and I do wish to close them down one way or the other in the next week. I will take a look shortly and make a decision one way or the other.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rod has left Wikipedia for the time being so I'll carefully look at the review and improve the article if need be. Jaguar (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and helping out with the article - it was a very hard article to pass. Jaguar (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FAC review request (2010 Nobel Peace Prize)
Hi Steve, I'd like to request that you take a look at Featured article candidates/2010 Nobel Peace Prize/archive3‎. The nomination doesn't seem to be attracting much interest for reasons I cannot fathom. Anyway, as I'd ideally like to put it up for TFA soon, I'd appreciate it if you could have a look and perhaps comment as to its meeting FAC or not. I've asked others to review the prose and other aspects, so if you've got little time, I'd appreciate it if you could examine it purely from an NPOV perspective. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, surprising lack of interest in all of the FACs its had. I'll take a look.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  08:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a few comments. I think the article needs more work than I am able to spare the time for at the moment otherwise I'd help out. My view is that the POV issues, occasional prose errors, and the lack of background on the man himself need addressing. If I get some time in about a week or so, I'll see if I can help out.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Steve. I've now had the time to review the article bearing in mind your comments. I do agree that it makes an improvement overall. I added a few sentences in the first section along the lines you suggested; I didn't think it's either necessary or desirable to rehash his life story. My only problem, if you will, is where in the article this brief career recap ought to go. Would you kindly look this over and comment further? Cheers, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look later.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a ping to keep this from being archived. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not only are you amazingly sensitive to NPOV matters, your great knowledge and reading from media cues astounds me. Thanks for all your feedback so far. I wish you a successful marathon, and bon courage!, as they say in France. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your good wishes for the marathon. I'm back now. I've just taken a look at the article and the FAC; it seems you are not getting much help, which can be dispiriting. I'll see what I can do when I have some spare time. In the meantime - don't give up!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've been busy building another article in the meantime – nothing to do with politics... but economic crime! -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Synthpop
gee thanks! wasn't aware the input was noteworthy. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Award

 * I do like a barnstar; however, let's wait and see how this turns out, shall we? I haven't done anything yet!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  15:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to contribute in wikipedia anymore.I only wanted to appreciate you accepting Azerbaijani language as one of the languages of Azerbaijani people of Iran.I am sure admins in wikipedia are neutral about Iranian and Azerbaijani related articles.Cheers--Orartu (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding
hello, I appreciate your review, but it would be nice if you would do it a little bit faster. I planned to nominate it on FAC and then propose it on TFA (on 10 December, the date of his death). Whether it fails there or not doesn't matter; but I really wish at least to try it. Thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll look later today and close it one way or another. Sorry for holding you up.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding
hello, please fail this article; I want to take it to Peer Review as suggested by the second reviewer (although I don't think it will help; well let's see how it goes). I want to thank you for your efforts; with your help, the article would never be as good as it is now. Regards.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 11:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the barnstar, and good luck with the Peer Review and the future development of the article. I think your determination to improve the article is admirable, and is just the spirit that Wikipedia needs. I'm genuinely sorry that I couldn't help out more on the article. What I like doing is passing an article as a GA - it frustrates me to have to let one go. I would like to continue helping out, but I have such a backlog of requests at the moment, and am rather busy in real life, that I am struggling to keep up. I think what held us up on Otis, was the issues regarding the history merge and the images. Best wishes.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  22:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot
I and another editor named "Plot spoiler" have a content dispute regarding the article Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot, We can't reach a consensus about the name of the article and he is removing my well cited content because it doesn't fit his point of view. I think We need help to settle this dispute and to avoid edit warring. Truthtellers78 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have locked the article and have opened a discussion on the talkpage.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Alexander the Great
Hi there, I thought I'd let you know I re-nominated Alexander the Great for GA status. I've done a lot of work on the article in recent months, adding sections on generalship and Macedon during Alexander's absences, as well as beefing up the Legacy section and adding lots of citations. I think it will pass this time. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just had a quick glance, and it looks impressive. I think you've done some excellent work there. Unfortunately I can't keep up with my present commitments, so I am unable to deal with any further requests at the moment. Good luck. And if the GA is still open in a couple of weeks time I should be able to tackle the review.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you please take a look ?
Well, I think your involvement in our debate has made an opportunity to fix the parallel discussions in other topics. I know that is time and effort consuming to get involved, but anyway you have already done a part of the job. I want you to express your opinion as the Third party in our active disagreement in the page Iranian Azarbaijani Kurds. I have filled a request in WP:3O, but I'm not sure it will find an active and listening admin at all ( as my 3 previous requests in admin boards was either neglected or turn out to be useless or back firing ). Thank you --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for delay. I just went to take a look and found the above link has been deleted. I searched on related talkpages but couldn't find the discussion you mention. I am about to go to France to take part in the Nice-Cannes Marathon, so my internet access will be limited for around a week. If you still wish me to look into it when I come back at the end of the month, please let me know then.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Admin tools
Thanks for the message. I've been asked before & always said no. I'm interested in article improvement & I can't see the tools really helping with that. I know that Xfd & the myriad other admin functions are important and I generally respect those who do them, but it's not something I can get excited about. I also try to avoid most of the areas of wikicontroversy. Maybe when I have more time after I retire from my job I will reconsider, but not for now - but thanks for thinking of me.&mdash; Rod talk 10:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I do like a barnstar!  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing of WP:MUSIC request for comment
I commend you for taking this on; I was looking at it as well (I wasn't involved in the discussion), and I was finding it difficult to determine an effective way to summarize it. That said, I do think there are some problems with your close: Happy to discuss if my analysis here is off-target, or if I misunderstood what you put in your closing statement. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The numbers point to a no-consensus close. While I agree with the notion that it's supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, the discussion here indicates that the community is split on the question of whether to make the change. If there's such a split, then the supporters would need to have effectively rebutted the opposers' arguments. That doesn't appear to be the case here; if it is, I think you need to say more about how you're perceiving that.
 * Your linking to WP:NOTINHERITED in your close is problematic. The supporters were not making a link to that essay, and the bulk of their comments did not appear to be focussed around that. Putting this in your close risks a perception of a supervote. Beyond that, the essay (which generally has strong consensus) does not even support your position, as it says, three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances.
 * There is a larger consensus about SNGs. There has been a minority of editors who would like us to do away with the subject-specific notability guidelines, and they argue that every article must meet the GNG. But there is not consensus for that change on a larger scale, when it has been discussed in a larger RfC. The change that you've made to NALBUM and NSONG effectively does away with those SNGs and reiterates the GNG.


 * Thanks for raising this with me Paul. I've taken a look again, and a simple head count gives 22 in support and 12 against. This is around 65%. I didn't include the !votes from the immediately previous vote as that was a different discussion, and those taking part in that had their own section within the discussion in hand, though looking at it now, and including those votes (9 in favour, 7 against) wouldn't make any real difference. Looking at the comments that the keeps made, only 6 were unambiguously in favour of albums of notable musicians being in themselves notable, while some other keep comments were less clearly in favour of such albums being automatically notable: Sir Armbrust indicated that the wording was already in favour of album articles needing reliable sources so no change was needed; Robert.Allen felt the wording was useful in making it clear that independent sources were needed. As Fiftytwo thirty pointed out, there were different opinions being expressed because the wording was unclear. However, what emerged from the discussion is that there was a consensus that the wording needing amending, and that most people wanted the wording to follow the GNG guideline.
 * As both the headcount and the comments indicate a consensus that wording which implies that "Every album by notable musician gets own article" is not acceptable, I don't see how a close in favour of that could be seen as a "supervote". If the consensus is already there, then extended comment made by the closer is simply additional comment made for purposes of clarity. WP:NOTINHERITED was mentioned in the discussion, and implied in a number of the views, so linking to it was appropriate, though I take your point that, interestingly, the essay does mention WP:NMUSIC. Perhaps that should now be looked into?
 * I am personally in favour of subject specific guidelines, and have been involved in writing a few of them, and in rescuing "failed" notability guidelines so they are categorised as essays on notability - a template for which - Template:Notability essay - I created in 2009. But I am also someone who likes to follow consensus as I feel that is essential to the smooth running of the project. My view is that if there is a disagreement about the way things should be done, then we should hold a discussion, and then follow the consensus that arises from that discussion regardless of our personal feelings.
 * I hope that has answered your concerns, if not, then please let me know, and we can discuss it further.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate you taking the time to further explain your reasoning, SilkTork. It seems to me that our differing views of the consensus in that discussion have more to do with a difference of emphasis rather than some fundamental misunderstanding. Thanks as well for the reassurance that this wasn't a case of you imposing your own personal views. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Saison.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Saison.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Latin music
There's a new editor making what I think are poor changes to various Latin music articles such as Afro-Cuban jazz which I know you have worked on. Care to check in and see what can be done? No need to reply here... Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! Yes. I see the user has been temporarily blocked. I am going to be away in France for a week, running in the Nice-Cannes Marathon. I'll take a look at that user when I get back to see if they have improved. Thanks for letting me know.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:AdultKidneyTransplantWaittimes.jpg
I think the creator of the graph, Dilip rajeev, was linking to the website that holds the video from which he gained the data to compile the graph. The graph itself does not appear on the website, nor in the video, so there is no need for permission from the website. I have adjusted the template so that it might better reflect the circumstances. The author of the graph, User:Dilip rajeev, has already explicitly given his permission to use the graph, so there is no need to go via permissions. The only dispute might be over the rights to the data, but as Dilip rajeev has linked to the source of the data, I think that's fine.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be the closing admin on that, it will be up to him/her to make the determination. As you've mentioned "given his permission", that may be an issue that would be best resovled using the OTRS permissions so that there will be no future questions regarding the release of the data and/or the related images.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 02:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to confuse you, I was simply letting you know as a courtesy that you had tagged the file in error so you could remove the tag yourself if you wanted. I understand why you made the mistake, and I didn't want to simply remove the tag without letting you know. I've now removed the tag. No need to go via OTRS as the creator and uploader is a Wikipedia user and has clearly given permission for anyone to use the graph.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  10:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Old Style Porter Bottle.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Old Style Porter Bottle.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted it. Multiple violations.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  11:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi. I think you have been involved a lot with the GA of Roman Dacia. We need help to salvage the article. Thanks. Codrin.B (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about this. Looking at the extent of the copyvio, it would be more appropriate to work from the current version than to try and salvage the tainted version.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)