This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Thanks for your comments (& edits) for the GAN of this article. I have started to address your comments & will have another look for other areas needing citations etc. I have most of the books here & will try to reword or find other sources from the web for other contentious bits. I based this on the work I did some time ago for Buildings and architecture of Bristol and recent work on Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset and will try to bring it up to the standard of those two. Give me a few hours/days (depending on whether I have suitable sources handy) & I'll try to do justice to your comments.— Rodtalk 19:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been less active on Wikipedia until recently. I've revisited the Speckled Hen article and wondered if you knew of anywhere that I could pick up some more recent sources to keep the article up to date. Regrads, HJMitchellYou rang? 14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
O gosh - sorry, I've been rather busy. There are some industry journals that will send you free email updates. The best are The Publican and Morning Advertiser. You'll get daily emails on news and info about beer, breweries and pubs in the UK. SilkTork *YES! 21:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Also, two very ill-prepared FAC noms: [1]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Oldest alcoholic beverage
Hi SilkTork. On the talk page for beer [2], you mentioned that research has found 'time and again' that beer is the oldest beverage. I am not an expert on the history of alcohol, but I cannot find a source to support this claim. At present, the oldest evidence of an alcoholic drink I've found is from around 7,000 BC, and is not a beer [3], although I don't know quite what one would call it. Do you have a source for beer predating that? Thanks in advance, Thomas Kluyver (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I find the link you provided interesting. Thanks. There is a question as to whether modern rice wine can be classed as a beer because sake uses the amylolytic process. However, the full version explains that "Before such a complicated system as amylolysis fermentation was developed and widely adopted by the ancient Chinese beveragemaker, the grain probably was saccharified by mastication and/or malting. Because cereals lack yeast, the initiation of fermentation would have required a high-sugar fruit and/or honey, as attested by the Jiahu mixed fermented beverage." And this view is also reported here. I'll give it some thought as to if it is worth including those references in Beer. Regards SilkTork *YES! 18:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It's specifically relevant to the claim in the Beer article that it is the oldest alcoholic beverage (as you may have surmised from the title I gave this discussion). Do also update the relevant section of the talk page [4] with the results of your deliberations. Best wishes, Thomas Kluyver (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
I have been accused of having a sockpuppet. See User talk:Mutual monarch. What do I do now? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You thank the person for bringing the matter to your attention. ("Thank you for letting me know.")
If that is an alternative account of yours, declare it immediately.
If there is an investigation, you co-operate fully. Check any statement you intend to make with someone like myself before posting - just to make sure.
If you wish to comment further on the matter to anyone on any page on Wikipedia, please ask someone to check what you wish to say first.
I will speak to the people concerned to discover what is going on. I will get back to you when I have something to report. You did right in getting in touch - this is one of those situations that could flare up. SilkTork *YES! 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I can thank him but he appears as confused as I am that he is called a sockpuppet of mine. There does not appear to be any investigation that I can find. Apparently it is something an editor can stick on another editor's page. —mattisse (Talk) 18:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am looking into the matter. SilkTork *YES! 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm having to message you because I really don't understand the comments that you made about The Bill.
In what way should the lead section be expanded? It says in the link you provided to include controversies. I did once include a section about it being axed in Scotland in this part but I got told to remove it as it wasn't allowed in the lead section? So I removed it and it's now down at the bottom of the article, reduced to two sentences as requested for it to be a good article.
What's a prose? I did look at the link you provided but it didn't make any sense. Is it that there are too many tables in the article? We could take out the cast tables etc but the article would probably be as clear as mud without them. They would then be reading something like Supt Jack Meadows, Simon Rouse, Insp Dale Smith, Alex Walkinshaw, DI Neil Manson, Andrew Lancel. Not clear in my opinion.
You also say that there's very few citations, which I don't understand because the article has over 40 references? That's about the biggest amount I've seen in any article on Wikipedia. So I don't understand why you're saying it's got too few citations? Also I got told to try and avoid fansites as references (which is what I've done) as they're not reliable references but everything else is, yet you're saying the article has very few reliable sources? I don't understand that at all.
Finally, can you please help me with this article then? When it was first reviewed it apparently didn't meet the criteria for quick fail, now it does so it seems I've done the article more harm than good which wasn't my intention obviously. But with the comments left today I don't understand where I'm going wrong --5 albert square (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm having to message you because I really don't understand the comments that you made about The Bill.
In what way should the lead section be expanded? It says in the link you provided to include controversies. I did once include a section about it being axed in Scotland in this part but I got told to remove it as it wasn't allowed in the lead section? So I removed it and it's now down at the bottom of the article, reduced to two sentences as requested for it to be a good article.
What's a prose? I did look at the link you provided but it didn't make any sense. Is it that there are too many tables in the article? We could take out the cast tables etc but the article would probably be as clear as mud without them. They would then be reading something like Supt Jack Meadows, Simon Rouse, Insp Dale Smith, Alex Walkinshaw, DI Neil Manson, Andrew Lancel. Not clear in my opinion.
You also say that there's very few citations, which I don't understand because the article has over 40 references? That's about the biggest amount I've seen in any article on Wikipedia. So I don't understand why you're saying it's got too few citations? Also I got told to try and avoid fansites as references (which is what I've done) as they're not reliable references but everything else is, yet you're saying the article has very few reliable sources? I don't understand that at all.
Finally, can you please help me with this article then? When it was first reviewed it apparently didn't meet the criteria for quick fail, now it does so it seems I've done the article more harm than good which wasn't my intention obviously. But with the comments left today I don't understand where I'm going wrong --5 albert square (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. I'm afraid I already have more than enough on my plate at the moment, so I would be unable to help out. I did leave links to the relevant guidelines, which are quite clear and helpful - they just need careful study. I noted that there were large parts of the article uncited (such as the first three paragraphs of the history section and almost all of the cast section). I also noted that a significant proportion of the cites are to primary source via YouTube. As regards amount of cites. I am currently reviewing for Good Article status, Cyprus, Hong Kong and Pink Floyd. And articles I have worked on recently myself which were accepted for Good Article status - Van Morrison, Kraków. As you'll note, the cites in these articles range from over 100 to over 300. At the moment your material is derived from snippets on the web. I do recommend you contact your local library and order some books on the subject - that way you'll be able to flesh out the snippets with some more substantial content. A quick glance at Google Books does reveal there is some decent material available. Give me a ping in about a month or so, and I'll take a look at the article again then. Regards SilkTork *YES! 08:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Speckled Hen and The Bill
Thanks for stopping by. I'll look at the sources you suggest for the Hen. Thanks for the tips. Also, thanks for taking the time to comment on The Bill's GAC. I'll take note of your suggestions. Indeed, I'm in the process of compiling a subpage of useful sources in order to expand it slightly and get it better referenced. Kind regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 08:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Ah, I just left a comment on sources above! I suggested to 5 albert square that the library is a good place for sources. Sometimes the local library can be a bit slow in getting books (or the books are out of print), so I sometimes buy them second-hand from Amazon. Google Books is a good place to look as well, because some of the books can be read online. I'll take a look at your subpage later. regards SilkTork *YES! 08:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I don't know if you're watching my talk page but it makes sense to keep a discussion together, so
Oh dear, I do apologise, you must be getting the orange bar every 2 minutes! I'm sure you have better things to do than humour me (over and over again!) but I wonder if you wouldn't mind casting a very brief eye over the list I've put up at Talk:The Bill and possibly add anything I've neglected and comment as you feel you're able to. No rush since it's 5AM (again!) and I won't be active on here until the afternoon. Thanks again, HJMitchellYou rang? 05:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Message
You have a message on my talk page. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have one last question (I think it is last one :)).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry accusations
I read some of the concerns of Literaturegeek, and frankly most of them are bad faith. I've never engaged in any disruptive editing, and not that it should matter, but my knowledge of Wikipedia stems from reading and editing since for years. Reading through his/her contribs, Literaturegeek appears to have legitimate problems with disruptive users on other articles he/she edits, and I've been sucked into that mess. I hope you understand that it is very difficult to edit Wikipedia when a person engages in conduct like this, and I hope this is the end of it. Thanks a bunch for your help. Mutual monarch (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Cyprus article
Hi there - I'm so sorry not to be engaging fully with your response at present - it's just a very busy week IRL! Will try to deal with your concerns over the next few weeks. Is it OK to come back to you when these are done? Thanks for all your work on this page Vizjim (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, give me a ping when you are ready. SilkTork *YES! 21:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed you said "weeks" - I read "days". I stopped my assessment of the article as it became apparent that there were too many issues to be resolved in a reasonable space of time. I am expecting to either close the GA Review as a fail in a few days or to have good evidence of progress made toward addressing the concerns. I'd like to see enough progress made over the next few days to give me reason to think this would not be a long drawn out affair. If you feel you cannot fully commit to this at the moment because of other matters, then that's fine. We can close this nomination, and you can work on the article at your leisure and nominate it again later. Don't be concerned about the article going back into the nomination queue and hanging around - you may contact me when you are ready to nominate again, and I will take it on immediately. SilkTork *YES! 01:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be best as it doesn't seem as though other editors are particularly engaged with the process. I will get back to you when I feel that your specific concerns have been answered (and we can move on to a new set of specific concerns!) Best, Vizjim (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That's good. If I get time I'll drop by and do some work on the article. SilkTork *YES! 10:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Per your review comments, I have expanded the lead paragraph based on the guidelines from WP:LEAD. Hopefully the current version provides a better summary of the article. Tavatar (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong#Requesting Move. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I am an involved editor as I created the article! However, I understand what you mean. I have left a comment - though I feel the issue is not so much about looking into what is the most appropriate name, but is more about passing a point of view about the perspective of the treatment of the Falun Gong. As this is clearly a dispute resolution issue rather than an editing issue, I feel I would rather step back for the moment as there is only so much dispute resolution issues I wish to be involved with, and I am already quite occupied in that area. Regards SilkTork *YES! 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I see, thank you, do you have any experience/advice what to do in cases like this? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
"I am an involved editor as I created the article!" => You are of course right, I'm sorry I used the wrong term. I guess impartial however would have been, indisputably correct. And these articles need impartial editors like fresh air. So all I'm saying is that your presence was/is much needed and greatly appreciated. Thank You again! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I will give some thought to getting involved in editing those articles. SilkTork *YES! 08:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank You! Here is a cookie for that thought. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, SilkTork, is the new process in operation or are we waiting from ArbCom's sign-off? If the new process is in operation, we should use M's recent comment to road-test it. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
We should take the initiative in assisting Mattisse to edit on Wikipedia without drama and conflict. Which comment has she made that you are concerned about? SilkTork *YES! 10:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The Clarification post last night. It was not strictly an incident in the normal sense, but shows the impulsiveness that often creates incidents. I've agree elsewhere with your comments on that post. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I've just read your comment after mine on Mattisse's talkpage. We appear to be in agreement that if Mattisse makes a negative comment against another editor she should be blocked. I am prepared to do that. I would rather, though, that she use the Plan and consult with somebody if she is feeling stressed. SilkTork *YES! 10:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Sweetheart of the Rodeo edits
Hi SilkTork, I just wanted to give you the heads up about a couple of changes I've made to your recent edits of the second sentence of the lead section. I don't mean to tread on your toes but this sentence was worded very carefully in order that it was accurate. The album is sometimes (erroneously) labeled as the first country-rock album, but that’s not true. That particular honour often goes to Gram Parson's previous album by The International Submarine Band album, Safe at Home, but I personally would argue aginst that as well. It's a somewhat contentious issue and this is why it's important that any claims about Sweetheart being the first of anything are carefully worded. It was the first album to be widely labeled as country-rock by an internationally successful rock act - not the first major country-rock album because The Band's Music from Big Pink could equally lay claim to that title, since it was released a month earlier than Sweetheart. But The Band weren't an internationally famous rock act at the time of that album’s release, they were pretty much unknown to most of the public at that time, although Music from Big Pink' soon changed all that because it was very successful. Hopefully you can kind of see what I'm saying here. The wording has to be precise. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Editing is good - not toe treading at all! It would be good to get some of that information into the article - I don't recall a mention of Big Pink. If there is a reliable source on the development of country-rock which places Sweetheart in context of the other albums, that would be useful. SilkTork *YES! 09:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, in my view, a chronological history of country rock is probably slightly above and beyond the focus of this article. The article does mention that Sweetheart pre-dates Dylan's Nashville Skyline because that would be the only other likely contender to the title of "first country-rock album by an established, internationally successful group." This lineage, including The Band's album, is covered by reference #6, which follows the statement about Nashville Skyline, so a brief history of the genre could be ascertained from there or indeed from the Wikipedia country rock article. My concern is that it would be very easy to get bogged down in a history of country rock releases, which wouldn’t really enhance the article and could be contentious and open a can of worms for no good reason. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
