User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 → Archive 40

rhetoric a useful background

I wonder what you might think of this book.

I quite liked the parts where they ripped fluffy business books and talked about how the "new" is really recurrent. I didn't like it as much when they actually tried to be a business book (vice commenting). But still...thought it was interesting how they had a different take and were informed by the background of one of the writers being a trained rhetoritician. (I'm not.)

TCO (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've not heard of the book before. I don't read many management books (and the ones I've read, I don't really like). Though, perhaps, that means I might like this one :). Thanks for the suggestion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hii

responsibility of montage issue is yours, you come to consensus on other montages, including american Indians article, then attack indian ethnicity articles Head12hunter (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No sir. Consensus is that the montages should be removed on all articles related to Indian communities. You will need to get consensus to readd the montage. I have no idea if a similar consensus would hold on other articles--it's up to you if you want to explore the issues. You can't use the argument that another vaguely related article does something, so you can do it here, especially when there is a solid consensus against it. And no, you can't say that I have to first go to the other articles and fix them. There are nearly 4 million articles on English Wikipedia, I couldn't possibly touch more than a tiny fraction of that; and what each editor does is up to them, as this is a 100% volunteer project. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, but i cannot agree with you on montage, you please discuss montage issue with admins and undo my montage Head12hunter (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I have not added any references now or additional content in my recent edits, I have rearranged the notable people section, you cant deny it, just like that montage i completely disagree with your view Head12hunter (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
your view point of removing montage appears POV,
three revert rule appeals to u also,
It is ur responsibility to explain what is the difference u find in this article and other caste realtes articles Head12hunter (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
see any strong consensus, i will not accept POV Head12hunter (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hinduism in india article, khatri article, etc where is the consensus?? Head12hunter (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, first, please do not start a new section for every single comment. Use colons to indent each comment one level more than the last person.
As for the montage discussion, it was held at the Noticeboard for India-related topics. You can see the specific discussion at WT:INB#Photo montages in infoboxes of caste/community articles. On June 18, regentspark, who is an administrator, summarized the discussion and found that the consensus is that montages should not be included in any caste related articles. You can read regentspark's summary of the discussion. As for Hinduism in India, that doesn't, I believe, count as a "caste related article". As for Khatri, I'll go remove the photos now. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly. The thread is Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly. Thank you.

You probably already know about this, but I have to include you by WP:ANI guidelines, sorry (that its so delayed also)...

F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 07:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please desist from whipping up so much opposition. I apologized already. Hublolly (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
His post here came before your apology. Why don't you stop trying to go everywhere around this place to defend your (IMHO) indefensible behavior? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Saini IPs

Despite their geographical disparity, the current tranche of IPs at Talk:Saini form some definite groups. I did the following analysis last week, based on the IPs then listed at the (unarchived) page:

The first two groups (Arkansas & Ontario) are the most vociferous. I have no idea if they are meats or even proxies but at the very least it seems certain from the edits that they are each moving around their own two IP ranges. I also suspect that the last (162.*) may be connected to the Arkansas situation, and I know that Dewan357 is based in New Jersey, has a Verizon account and is likely to be on their vacation around now.

None of this - nor the frequent failure to sign - amounts to anything more than a fishing expedition at the moment and therefore it is pointless taking it to WP:SPI. However, there is also a confirmed (& blocked) sockmaster & puppet on that talk page from around April. Can you see any connections there? Whatever is going on, it is very, very odd. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Dewan has Verizon, but his primary is Optimum Cable (or something like that) and there's numerous coffee shops and libraries that he uses. —SpacemanSpiff 12:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Comfort women". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is ever

  • a definition of grave-dancing that becomes part of the Wikipedia lexicon, the response edits here, as well as that respondent's edit history on that particular page could be used as illustrative examples. Shearonink (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • or a need to illustrate attempted outing, this edit might work. Shearonink (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A moment of clarity for you

You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances - given your paranoia and obsession with getting me into trouble.

Is that clear? Do not, ever, at all, in any shape, form, geometry, infiltration procedure, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it.

Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.

Never. Ever. Forever.

To eternity and beyond - when our atoms become the reminants of the destroyed solar system, to drift through the universe and from which anything can happen - be it that they form a new planetary nebula and solar systems with new life forms which devlop their own computer technologies and internets and wikipedias telling the same thing to simalar editors, or crushed and shredded by black-holes, whooshed through wormholes (should such cosmological topology exist in spacetime fabric), and collapsed into the big crunch or frozen solid in the "deep freeze" end to the universe.

Except that you will not edit my talk page. Not ever. For all time.

Understood? Sparkling clear as a wine glass? Actually - is diamond opaque in comparison to what I just said?

I trust we understand each other.

Goodbye (as in I am leaving WP for a short break, not permanently). :-/ Hublolly (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I received this message, too. Qwyrxian, I understand your desire to avoid overreaction, but Hublolly does not and does not want to understand the rules of conduct here. It seems impossible for him/her to assume good faith. this edit alone qualifies for a block, as does this one. Hublolly is creating a poisonous atmosphere I have rarely witnessed. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Same here, also with Patrick0Moran. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 19:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Change in my behavior

If I guarantee that my behavior will change in the future is there any chance I could avoid being blocked from the site? I have made a lot of good contributions, even in the age of majority/age of consent area, not all of them were bad, and I've guaranteed to change. --RJR3333 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Message from Tophthemetalbender regarding deleted article "Bishop Matthew Williams"

Qwyrxian, can I recreate the article Bishop Matthew Williams and add references to it and change the content in the article that may have been copyrighted? Tophthemetalbender (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What makes him notable in a Wikipedia sense? Can you provide an example of the types of sources you plan to use to demonstrate that he has been discussed in depth in multiple, independent, reliable sources? Simply being a Bishop is not sufficient to have a WP article. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

TOC right limit 2

{{TOC limit|2}} + {{TOC right}} = ?

How to combine the two? It would be perfect for List of hospitals in India and others.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Comfort women, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thank you for speaking about the mediation. I was busy with to decipher, however, I'm relieved because you told them some satisfactory opinion.Wingwrong (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Uttar Pradesh

I'm trying to develop article in GA manner.Saw your maintenance tag..can you please list the violating contents. Thanks a lot 25 CENTS VICTORIOUSϟ 14:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'll explain in the next day or two. If you don't hear anything from me in a few days, go ahead and remove the tag. I can always come back w/specific suggestions later. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I started today, but I probably can't get back to it for about 24-36 hours. Thanks for being patient. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter,is article need still need lots of work? I'll add citations,meanwhile will develop culture section.I request you to please make it quick as soon as possible. Thank You 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 06:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was finding problems in each section I went to, so I definitely think there's more phrasing to be worked on, plus the unreferenced material (which I can't easily help with, other than tagging it or removing if necessary). I'll try to do it when I can. However, note that you can't really try to file for a GA until you take care of all of the reference concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Perfectly fine.Tag citation notice on unreferenced material,i'll fill them.Language used in article i feel is quite incoherent.Take you time but please make it quick.As far as lead and POV concern,i've already requested to one of user to overcome these issues.Please post a message on my talk page when you finished with your work. Thanking You --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 08:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, all the work has been done from my side.I wrote culture section completely. Rest of things like reviewing or examining depends on you.Thank you -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣ 16:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello

No. It was a mistake. Mortifervm is my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liviu Marius Dobrea (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. For your future reference, only a user can remove messages from their own talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Alienating and disrupting

The WMF, of course, could rule by fiat as the owners of the servers, but even there they run the risk of alienating too many editors...if he were to attempt to bypass obtaining community consensus on such a significant issue, it would be viewed as disruptive.

Would it bypass any kind of existing "consensus", and what's wrong with alienating editors who refuse to allow change even when it means improving the site? Some decisions can't be implemented by consensus. Personally, I don't care, as I have no interest in administration, but most admins I know are either retired, missing, or just don't use their tools. What's the point of maintaining that kind of system? If needed change requires alienating users and disrupting the site to fix a problem, I say bring it. You've got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Fire up the griddle. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't make sense to make it easier to get 50 new admins if the resulting process made 200 current admins and 500 of our highly experienced non-admins leave. We need some clear evidence that a change by fiat won't do more harm than good. I am somewhat open to the WMF taking a stand here, arguing that the number of admins is going down so precipitously that it's hampering regular functioning of the site...but I don't think they will. Look at what happened with the image filters. Again, they could do it--they refused to implement the community demanded requirement that only autoconfirmed editors be able to create pages. But I still don't see this particular decision being made at this time. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe progress is made by consensus, but rather nonintuitively, against it. Look at history and you'll see that I'm right. Consensus works on a small scale, which is how the site got off the ground and up and running. However, consensus doesn't scale, which leads us to the question of devolving and decentralizing admin tools to all users, which follows intuitively in terms of sheer numbers. Ironically, this is entirely consistent with the original idea behind sysop rights. If you asked for it (or wanted the responsibility) you got it. What we have here is yet another adulteration of a good idea which has finally come back around full circle. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
But see, here, we can see the exact problem: while I agree with you that RfA is broken, I would propose that administration means exactly the opposite of what you propose it does, i.e., what it used to. Adminship is, and should be, a big deal. It even involves the ability to do things that it didn't exist at the time that the "no big deal" statement was made--the deletion process was less robust, I don't even know if we had page protection. Plus, that was before we had organized teams (armies, perhaps might be a better word) in the ARBPIA and other areas, and before corporations and politicians had found out how important it is what their WP page says. And, for that matter, it was before the WP page was one of the top 3 hits for every major subject in the world. We matter more now than before, and, as such, adminship also matters more. Plus, I would not want the WMF to create any sort of "easy" adminship process without corresponding desysop procedures: a quick emergency process, and a more robust consensus process. And this, ultimately, is why ruling by fiat is a problem--because the WMF doesn't necessarily know all that much about how actual editing works (as we've seen before). They don't pull multi-hour "shifts" trying to clear out WP:RFPP, or have to make tough decisions about when and how long to block someone. I'd be very worried about such an uninvolved group making such decisions. Thus, at a bare minimum, they'd need to get the input of some well-invested people (probably the ones who worked on RFA Reform 2011 would be the best). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I really appreciate the time and effort you put into that reply. I can tell you are a thoughtful person who has some great ideas. I agree with your point that adminship and its tasks have changed over time and become more complex; that's a solid argument. However, I disagree that there is a need to delegate administrator tasks to specialized groups of users. The unstated rationale behind adminship being "no big deal" has little to do with the simplicity or complexity of the tasks but with maintaining the cohesion of the community without a hierarchy. Geek culture traditionally operates as a meritocracy, and while informal hierarchies will inevitably emerge based on skills, expertise and qualifications, access to tools is implicit in this structure. In common parlance, someone showing "clue" will get access. For me, the biggest problem I have with administration is that we need to have less of it, not more. As I've explained in previous discussions, devolving and decentralizing admin rights, for example, in the case of protection, would work just as well. Trusted editors could easily apply for protection rights and help clear out the RFPP queue without needing the need for deletion. In fact, one could query all protection requests for the last year, find the top 20 non-admin requests, determine the highest percentage of successful protection requests where the editors were uninvolved, and offer those editors a "protection" right. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Your last idea has merit. And it's one that I know the WMF would never think of on their own. I'd be willing to bet that many of them have never filed a page protection request. Heck, I bet a number of them would be hard pressed to identify why and when we protect pages. So, perhaps what we need is for the WMF to rule that something must be done to increase the number of admins (or, if you prefer, the number of people with admin-like permissions, the so-called "de-bundling" option), that the community gets 3 or 6 months to hash it out and present their top proposals, and that if they can't come to a consensus, the WMF will pick and choose from among those proposals. Basically, taking the idea of community consensus building but adding on a layer of executive control.
As a side note, I've personally long supported de-bundling. I've thought that we should have a user right with the technical ability to protect pages for up to 12 hours and block accounts and IP addresses for up to 6 hours (or something like that)--what many people have called a "Vandalism Patroller". The right could be granted at WP:RFP by any admin, and we could probably establish some sort of ad hoc minimum number of anti-vandalism activities, like how we require a minimum number of articles created in order to get the auto-patrolled right. This would both decrease queues at AIV and RFPP, and allow obvious problems to be stopped faster. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Forgive me for noseying, but I found the above to be an interesting discussion. Where did the original quote come from? And are you aware that I've just been granted AP despite not having the "minimum" creations - feel free to remove it, although the reason for granting was sound (basically, it is obvious that I can be trusted despite the below-quota situation). - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It was originally in Jimbo's talk page, now found in an archive at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 110#RFA reform by fiat, wherein a user proposed that Jimbo invoke his dictatorship powers to implement change at WP:RFA without seeking community consensus. My original response was that even though I actually agree that there's something wrong with RfA, Jimbo doesn't actually have fiat powers anymore. The last time he tried a major unilateral change, the community rose up and Wales ended up essentially relinquishing most of his fiat powers, which is briefly described in Wikipedia#explicit content, and I'm sure in tons of 2010 archives. As for you having AP, I certainly think it's a safe choice :) Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fast track

Qwyrxian, I support your proposal for a vandalism patroller right. What is the current status and how do we go about getting it on the fast track to approval? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been proposed at least half a dozen times and never got even close to getting a "vote" because the opposition was too clear. There's too many people who say that they don't think that anyone who can't pass an RfA should be granted this. Further, some people consistently claim that there's not really major backlogs (these people, of course, aren't the ones who have to deal with massive vandal attacks). I don't know off the top of my head where the discussions were, though probably either WP:VPP or WT:RFA. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's back up a bit. There was strong opposition to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions until it was successfully implemented in July 2008. What's stopping us from proposing new permissions, such as protection? Taking your lead, do we have an evidence-based assessment of protection backlog wait time and user demographics to support requesting this user right? Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's back up further! I'd guess that well over 50% of my reverts might be classified as anti-vandalism, but I am not a patroller and am too involved to risk blocks etc by reverting etc with that description when I might equally well opt for "good faith revert of ..." . However, I do frequent RFPP as a "requester" and do see numerous other pages protected without recourse to RFPP. That particular aspect has frequently been backlogged of late and sometimes those backlogs have resulted in appeals at ANI etc. Without wanting to personalise things, is there any reasonable objection to granting semi-protection powers to someone like me, with a limit of say 12 or 24 hours? It would free up the time of fully accredited admins to do stuff that is of greater import and at minimal detriment to the project. Would I use those powers myself? Hm, quite probably - I know that the area has problems and I know that my contribution could be a net benefit precisely because it frees up resources elsewhere. One of the big issues with RfA - aside from the obvious, and increasingly prevalent, specious battleground/roasting - is that it assumes a generality of experience that is in fact largely a black art. There are many, many experienced contributors who have little or no experience of one or two areas that are considered vital at RfA (PRODs/AfD closure etc) but who have a perfectly decent understanding of other stuff without the necessity of trying to gain marks in their classbook just to prove that they have been there and done that. It is late and I am not phrasing this particularly well, but I hope that you get the gist. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me answer Sitush's question first: personally, I would have absolutely NO qualms about giving you such a limited right, as long as you were required to follow WP:INVOLVED and WP:Protection policy just like admins are. I would grant it to just about anybody with a lot of edits and a clean block log. To be honest, I'd probably even grant it to some people without clean backlogs, like Malleus or Youreallycan, though in the interest of getting such a change in user rights implemented, I'd probably not recommend that in formal discussions. I would use WP:RFP to hand it out. Or, if there really was community resistance, I'd require some sort of panel, like how we now use 3 admins to close contentious and heavily populated discussions.
But to do that, Viriditas has hit on the key point: we would need to demonstrate how necessary the right is, and we'd need data for that. Unfortunately, such data would be a royal PITA to gather. The only reliable way would be to look at RFPP (and AIV, if we want to extend the right to microblocks) at a variety of times over the course of several months, and see how many unfulfilled requests there were at that moment. It would be particularly helpful to show that it was regularly backlogged (which, for RFPP, I think means more than 10 unfulfilled requests). The next useful piece of data would be to link to each of the recent ANI discussions where someone was begging for admin attention to a protection request, and the number of times someone had posted on AN asking for help to clear a backlog. That's, frankly, a lot of work. Plus, we have to meet all of the objections made in the past. One discussion I found is at WP:Vandal fighter (the initial discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 202#New user rights). I don't have the wiki-time to devote to such research, but I would lend my support to a solid proposal if someone else made one. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Eslöv

Real problems with this user. User talk:Eslöv had 3 copyvio warnings before I added three more. The last copyvio from this user was last night, after your warning. Shall I block or? Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well...he seems to be getting a little better; the last copyvio (on Umar) wasn't really a copyvio as much as it was excessive quotation from a copyrighted source. I've given a final warning. The truth is, he's hurtling headlong towards a block even w/o the copyvio problem, since he's trying to reshape more than one article into a specific (in this case, Shi'a) POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, I've seen the pov problem also. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Kimberley Foster Curtis

Honestly, Foster Curtis has neither significant publications nor presentations that garnered significant attention, thus probably does not warrant an entry on WP, hence the strange (and diminutive) nature of the entry.

Wgsprof (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)wgsprof

Hmmm...I'll take a closer look at it later; it may be that deletion is warranted then. It will have to go through a community discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

James Eagan Holmes

Nothing wrong with your edit, but you might want to revert it - the article is fully protected. Black Kite (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm assuming it was an accidental bypass of protection as well, and agree that a self-revert is best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 03:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, what happened was that I had the editing window open for a few hours (I saw it in the morning and started editing, but then had to start work and didn't get back until lunch). The protection went up in the meanwhile, but that didn't trigger an edit conflict since I'm an admin. I've self-reverted. While the part definitely needs to come out per WP:UNDUE, it doesn't rise to the level of WP:BLP to allow overriding protection. Thanks for letting me know and AGF-ing! Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem. It was pretty easy to guess what had happened, due to the type of edit it was. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 11:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Krizpo

You saw this message I left on his page, right? What you reverted was sadly him improving. I don't think that he's going to be helpful to the site if we have to tell him specifically what not to cite (because he doesn't seem to get general categories), and how not to cite them for every edit (because he doesn't seem to get "don't say stuff that isn't in your citation"). He's not a new user anymore. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Bwilkins#Regarding_Krizpo. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing's happening over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Krizpo. While I know that, as you are involved, you cannot endorse the CU and carry it out, would you kindly comment over there? Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
There's not really much I can add...SPIs sometimes just take time. I note that Africanstoner hasn't edited since Krizpo was blocked, which could mean that, if they're actually the same person (rather than a friend), then he's automatically caught under the IP autoblock. As long as Africanstoner doesnt' carry on the same disruptive edits as Krizpo, there's no need to hurry to complete the SPI (unlike 3RR, they don't "go stale"). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nair Article Edit

hi,i dont know why you reverted my edit.I have cited reliable souces,have a look.I am from Nair community,so u can trust me:-))thank u stephenking 06:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)anandjayakrishnank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandjayakrishnank (talk • contribs)

More PAIDHELP stuff

Qwyrxian, you are my only hope. No, seriously, jokes aside. I've contacted two over people over the past week to help out with this and have gotten no response, so...bleh. I hate going to you all the time because I don't want it to seem like i'm putting all the work on your shoulders. Sorry again about that. The section is here. No one else has responded to my request for a second opinion and QueenCity has been patiently waiting a long time. SilverserenC 04:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nair Article

hi, i got what you meant,but just check their wikipedia profiles itself...example;mohanlal z full name is mohanlal viswanathan nair thnk u stephenking 12:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)anandjayakrishnank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandjayakrishnank (talk • contribs)

Actually, no, there is no verification:
  • Mohanlal: Says his name is Nair, but does not indicate that he has claimed membership in the caste.
  • Dileep, Prithvraj: Those link to dab pages, no indication even which person you mean.
  • Suresh Gopi: Said he is a Nair, but no verification. I've removed that info from that article.
  • Bhavana (actress), Anoop Menon: Don't mention Nair at all

And the rest were redlinks. So, no, those stay out until you have sources that meet WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

HI,I dont get what u mean by caste membership,anyway i would add some reliable sources.But to remind you,Pillai,Menon,Kurup they are infact from nair community itself.Prithviraj not prithvraj thats why u gt it as a redlink.I dont know your nationality ,but if u could grab some book on this you will become more clear at why some guys use nair as surname,why some use menon or why some use no surnames at all.Anyway i would cite som reliable sources ASAP..thxUser:anandjayakrishnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandjayakrishnank (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

he knows you're alone edit

hi,i dont understand why u reverted my edit.First thing ,have a look at wiki page of tom hanks,its clearly stated that his debut is in this film.Moreover imdb too its clearly mentioned that this film is his debut.So i am reverting the edit u madestephenking 12:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)anandjayakrishnank(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandjayakrishnank (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is never a reliable source. IMDB is generally considered to be a reliable source only for basic information (like who acted in a movie, or who the production company is...and even then we have to be careful), not for anything else. So, first, you need a reliable source. Second, that info probably doesn't belong in the lead, anyway, because it makes it seem like that's almost the most important thing about the film.
More importantly, you have to stop your habit of automatically reinstating your edits when someone else reverts them. The process that is strongly recommended is called WP:BRD, which means that it's okay to make a Bold edit, but then if someone Reverts you, you go to the talk page to Discuss the issue. Not just insist that you are right. Especially while you're new and you don't seem to understand Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this objectionable?

Hello! Please help. Can I request deletion or delete (if admin) my own talk page in good faith? In this case, do someone can (or should) object on the deletion? Or I have the right what to do with my own talk page and no-one can object? Tari Buttar (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, talk pages cannot generally be deleted--the history of your conversations with previous editors need to be kept. You can blank your talk page, or archive it, but not have it deleted. The only time deletion of talk pages is every really allowed is in cases of a vanished user...even then, we usually just rename the page. However, if there are individual things that can be revision deleted (like if someone is harrassing you, or someone posted personal info about you), those individual diffs can be deleted.
Was there a particular reason you wanted it deleted? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for a quicker reply. There are some things on my Punjabi wiki (pa.wiki) talk page I'm not interested in. So (as I understand you, you wanna say that) if I'm not interested in archiving yet, I can blank it, right? (I mean if I've not found the conversation(s) not much important to archive.) Tari Buttar (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Just happened to see this and I want to clarify, the policy Qwryxian talks about above applies to the English Wikipedia only. The Punjabi Wikipedia can have their own rules and you would have to look into what their rules say about deletion of User Talk pages. GB fan 03:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh? the Punjabi wiki may have own rules? That's strange @GB. Okay then I'm going to tell you in briefe why I want to delete my Punjabi wiki talk page. There are most conversations on typing Punjabi help written like an advertisement but I'm not interested in typing Punjabi softwares etc. as I've the best source for typing Punjabi. Now, is this okay to delete the revisions? And further, if a page is deleted on the request by the author then why don't one can delete his/her very own talk page that only belongs to him/her not of public interest? (this msg of mine has 2 point of views please don't continue with the one) Tari Buttar (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
As GB Fan says, it's correct that each WP has it's own rules. The only real rules that are required to be shared are some extremely basic principles set forth by the Foundation (like legal issues, the idea that we don't publish original research, that we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, etc.). However, if I was going to make a decision on an English Wikipedia talk page, it would depend on whether or not any other editor had ever edited your talk page. If they had, I would not delete it, because the point of talk pages is that they provide a way to communicate with you, and there may be reasons in the future why someone may want to see who talked with you in the past. However, if the only thing that was ever on your user talk was something you put there, then I would consider deletion. This actually lines up with the more general idea that, as you say, "a page is deleted by request by the author"--if you make a Wikipedia article, and then later someone else edits it, you can no longer request deletion (well, you can request it, but an admin should decline the request). User requests are generally only allowed for mainspace pages which no one else has ever edited, or for user pages and user sub pages (excluding user talk pages). But, ultimately, they may be more flexible on Punjabi WP--what I've heard is that English WP tends to be the most rigid and bureacratic, mainly because its the biggest and the victim of the most abuse. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
hmmmm, got you a bit. Rules may different but I think the basics like Neutrality, Verifiablity, Must be Referenced, Reliable sources etc. should be the same in Punjabi wiki otherwise it 'll not be a encyclopedia any more, right? Tari Buttar (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
You can see the common set of principles on meta-wiki at meta:Founding principles. NPOV and V are common to all Wikipedias, as are not-censored, free licensing, collaborative environment, and a few others. RS, however, is not a universal principle, and, as far as I know, is one of the most varying across the 'pedias. On en-WP, we've developed a really extensive body of precedent regarding what is or is not an RS, but other wikis are so much smaller that they have less firm stances. I imagine that some wikipedias allow more online sites than we do, or are more flexible about older sources, or accept sources that are more biased as "fact". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your review of the Stevens Institute of Technology article. I was moving apartments the past few days and did not have Internet access, but seeing your review was a nice welcome back to the wired world. QueenCity11 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I don't have too much time to help on the Cooperation project, but if people ask me, I'll try to do them when needed (especially history merges, since that takes an admin). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WWGB

I've reinstated my comment, but courtesy-struck the part which can apparently be construed as a "personal attack", even though I only picked up the word "lost" and pointed out that that is not how we should ever describe the outcome of a discussion. People don't lose or win discussions, the better arguments prevail (or they don't because too many people filibuster the discussion). The attitude WWGB displays in his comment is clearly belligerent. Nevertheless, struck for courtesy. If you think the struck part should be removed altogether, go ahead and do so. But please keep in mind our talk page guidelines, which say about "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." --78.35.236.173 (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

SEAL? -

Seal GUI, the entry for which you deleted, should've actually been merged into a certain DOS article. oZone GUI and OpenPine apparently derive from it (thugh oZone seems to have ditched or reduced the inner API). Please restore the page, and merge it into a short article describing the most notable DOS desktops. SEAL, or a similar desktop, was apparently used for sketching the laptop UI in Jagged Alliance (laptops of the era lagged behind more significantly than current ones). Yura87 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, deletion was the intended result. However, I am willing put a copy in your userspace if you want to try merging some of the content. Note, though, that you should only merge content which is verified by reliable sourcs. Let me know if you want it in your sandbox. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your JPOV on Korea/Japan dispute

I'm a new user in Enlgish Wikipedia. I don't know this is proper comment to adminstrator. However, I think adminstrator should keep fair and neutral postion editing stance on Korea/Japan disputed topic, even you are Japanese adminstrator. As i know, Administrators acting in this role are neutral This section blanking is hard to see neutral. I sincerly asking you. Administrator should not pushing their national POV on dispute topic.

This is user express by WP:ADMINABUSE "If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner."


--Ejwcun (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not Japanese, even though I live in Japan. Second, that information was previously removed for very specific reasons:
  1. The first two paragraphs have nothing whatsoever to do with the Rusk documents. Adding them there is implying a conclusion about the documents that is not contained in them, nor in commentary about them. That's synthesis, which is not allowed (it's a part of the rules forbidding original research).
  2. The Korean Herald article is an opinion article. Even though it appears in a reputable newspaper, it is clearly a statement of opinion, not one of neutral scholarship/journalism (sentences like "" The series of events taught the government a lesson. Its so-called "quiet diplomacy" and actual occupation of Dokdo are not solutions to the problem. Ironically, it was Japan that used "quiet diplomacy" to successfully claim Dokdo. " clearly indicate a single opinion, not one of analyzing the debate).
  3. prkorea.com is an opinion website, not published by a body of scholars or other people with long term evidence of good editorial judgment. It falls under WP:SPS, and, as such, is not a reliable source per our guidelines.
I hope this explains more clearly why the information was removed--it was not to push a Japanese point of view, but to keep Wikipedia neutral and be sure all of the information is verified by reliable sources. Please let me know if you have further questions. If you'd like to debate any of the individual points, probably the best place is on the article's talk page; later, if we can't come to a consensus there, we can always pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TOOLMISUSE

Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:

  • Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins.
  • Communal norms or policies – When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable.
  • Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation.
  • Reinstating an admin action that has already been reversed (sometimes known as "wheel warring") – Responses have included Arbitration and desysopping even the first time.

I know you are very experienced user than me, you surely know these things. I "believe" your editing on Japan-Korea dipsuted topic may violate above things. I "believe" administrator should not pushing one sided POV on dispute topic. I sicenrly asking you I "believe" admin should not pushing Japanese(or Pro-Japan) POV on Korea/Japan disputed topic even you Pro-Japan editor. --Ejwcun (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. subjective POV view. The first two pragraph directly related to Rusk documents. the State Department report("Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks)") mentioned rusk document directly. It is not editor's original research.
  2. Korean Herald article is an opinion article ? No, author is a Japanese scholar who work for univ. Even if article is an opinion article, 1954 US state of department document is proven document.
The cited article considered based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
  1. Again, 1954 US state of department document is proven document. It is not personal opinion website.
The cited article considered based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

If you claim is true, then entire page of Rusk Documents page should be removed. The page was purely subjective, it contains too many opinion from Japanese scholars.

I think we need go to dispute resoultion. until that, the page should keep because it is cite material. It should checked by indepedenced third party editor by completely newutal manner (except for You and Pro-Japanese editors). I think we should go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Ejwcun (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Per our standard editing behaviors, you need to leave the information out for now. You made a WP:BOLD edit, I reverted it, for policy based reasons. You need to discuss the issue, and, leave the info out until there is consensus to include it. As such, I have reverted you one last time. I'm hoping that you'll proceed with discussion, rather than trying to force your POV into the article. We can go to RSN if you like. I'm about to leave WP for the night, so I'll open a thread there tomorrow.
However, one final note: I have not used administrator tools on that article. And I never would--I am WP:INVOLVED with respect to that article. Rather, I'm acting as an editor there just as you are. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

You're being discussed there by the editor above. I pointed out there's been no use of Admin tools. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And that appears to be taken care of....I was actually hoping it would go to WP:ANI. Though I'm not actually certain I agree with the final decision. I'm not actually certain they're the same person. The question is, is there any value in trying to unblock them on those grounds, when I think it's nearly inevitable that they'll eventually be blocked for violating WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc.? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for not noticing that my attempted edit at ANI was caught in an edit conflict. By the time I noticed, Newyorkbrad had already said what I was going to say. As you say, no point in unblocking. I wonder what proportion of active editors are actually socks of banned or blocked users? Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Three short pages

Hi. Thank you for reviewing Arun Kumar Pallathadka.

I have recently developed biographies of three persons Benoy K. Behl(writer photographer), Mumtaz Begum (former Mayor of India)and above one. Of these, first one was reviewed by Sitush and considered as notable achievement and it was removed from deletion notice.
  • I request you to review Mumtaz Begum and give your opinion.
  • Regarding Arun Kumar Pallathadka, kindly note that he has written two books and both are available in google books. And in this angle, I developed the page. Can we consider his writing of books as notable achievement and retain those details (instead of deleting the page?). Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
No, just writing a book is not enough to justify a Wikipedia article per WP:AUTHOR. The books need to be notable in some way, widely discussed in sources, held in a large number of libraries, etc. I'm not convinced that the publisher is even a non-vanity press, noting that they only have 3 authors at the moment. We need independent sources of some type to justify Pallathadka's notability.
On Begum, I think she just barely passes WP:POLITICIAN. Normally mayors and other local politicians aren't automatically notable, and must have independent coverage (like most people; compare to governors and national politicians, who are normally notable just for holding office). Her status as the first Muslim mayor, along with the coverage in the Hindu, is enough for me to say it's okay. The layout and writing itself is fine. I'm not quite sure on the "World Mayor" part (given the nature of the source), but I'll leave it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing Mumtaz Begum, article developed by me. Regarding Arun Kumar Pallathadka, what you have opined is agreeable to me and let AFD discussion continue.Rayabhari (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dera Sacha Sauda

I totally understand that this is not a DSS website. I appreciate the encyclopedic overview and that is why i referred to links. I added only few things with an intention that wikipedia remains an encyclopedia. I want you to undo your action as all the content was required and was just telling about the stats not about all other details like persons attended or the specified area and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arora.arsh26 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the list of every event that was part of that campaign is not appropriate. For example, we don't list every stop a politician makes while on campaign and we don't list ever tour stop for a musician's tour. Only the information about the drive as a whole is notable in an encyclopedic sense. If you still disagree, please open up a discussion on the article's talk page so that others can comment as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Ok Join me there (Arora.arsh26 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographical features)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographical features). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Article on Pratibhapatil

Thank you for your valuable comment on my post, When you have indicated that the two posts are violating the copy right rules of Wikipedia,I have re-added it after para-phrasing, which is the best way (and legal too) to avoid copy right violation. Then I again informed that copy right is violated... Could you please clarify my humble doubts... 1. when an article is paraphrased and reference has been given to it in unambiguous manner how could it be termed as copy right violation? (The entire wikipedia is paraphrased and corresponding reference is given to it) 2. Is there any Jurisprudential tool available at your disposal to judge a matter legal, non-legal, illegal or barely legal?

Now the legal Implication of the acts of former president and the very Ratio decidendi to re-add the alleged facts.

1. The former President of India violated a convention which is being followed by the highest office of a country, The Rashtrapathi Bhavan (Office of the President), this convention is an etiquette followed in all the countries. 2. ANY PERSON, Including the Incumbent president of India, needs the government order to take away or borrow the gifts which he/she received in his or her official capacity. 3. The former president got a government order, the first of its kind in the history of independent India, which is paving the very way for a new wrong convention. 4. The gifts were borrowed for a museum on her name, managed by her family trust, and above all while she was alive!!! 5. It is a popular belief that high officials should behave in a dignified manner by avoiding all possible scandalous acts and, in this case,this very belief has been crushed by the highest dignitary of India. 6. This is not a scandal but a question of law (1)"whether the government is empowered to grand such an order without informing the parliament" (2)"The order which passed by an executive officer at the office of the President is maintainable in the court of law since the gifts are the properties of the nation." (3) "Under what law or rule or regulation has the executive officer conferred the power to grand such order."

I think now you are aware of the legal issue involved in this and who is going to answer it... definitely neither you nor I, but the Court of Law, mean while it is a social duty of a person to inform the public about such issues, In this case, the readers of wikipedia.

Since it is reported in all the news papers of India, this becomes a valid matter for posting in wiki.

I believe you have "Turnitin" kind of facilities to detect copy right violations... then again run the sentence I have re-added if you find any ditto entries then you can block my account.

Pramodcusat (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First, you don't rephrase a whole article (i.e., change a few words here and there) and then put it into the article. Instead, you summarize it, and insert a much shorter summary. Remember, we need to write in 1 article everything important about her life; it's not appropriate to devote multiple paragraphs to one small aspect of it.
Second, just because something is reported in many newspapers, doesn't mean Wikipedia should post it. Part of one of our policies explicitly says, that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We need to write about things that are going to be of lasting importance, and it's far too early in that story to knwo if it will. "Social duty" has absolutely know place on Wikipedia; you can make a blog post, write a news story for a newspaper, or whatever, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Third, we are supposed to be extra strict with regards to information about living people; this appears in WP:BLP, one of our most important policies. In this case, only vague accusations have been raised by one person/group of people against her. Nothing formal has occurred or been decided. Per WP:BLP, we can't even consider including this until formal charges have been filed (I think it's called a charge sheet in India), or until the story is shown to have long lasting (that is, several months worth of coverage at a minimum). In some cases, information of great importance on scandals can go in earlier, but only when it is of the most dramatic and obviously historical nature and there is some solid evidence to believe it's true. That's not even close to being the case here. 00:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response All the suggestions will be taken care of in future

Pramodcusat (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Persistent content removal

Here. Could you intervene if you're on-line? Thanks in advance... --E4024 (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much.

BTW I know I gave you a lot of trouble on Cyprus-related issues, but I would like you to see this to understand why I am so keen on patrolling certain areas... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Kogga Devanna Kamath

Hi. I have created Kogga Devanna Kamath, a page dealing with biography, which please review and kindly advise me, whether it is worth to develop the article with sources. thankyou.Rayabhari (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

hello need help

hello i need your help once again after Suggesting You edits on daniel day lewis and chritopher nolan page,actually could you Please Change M Night Shyamalan 's Nationality To American-Indian,Shyamalan Was Born In India To Indian Parents Then He Moved To USA His Wife Is Also India So Please Could You Change It To Indian-American Please this is proof http://www.mnight.com/bio.html

please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.208.93 (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, his nationality is American. American-Indian is taking his nationality and combining it with his ethnicity. Second, the article already says that he was born in India, so what is it that you want to change? Lastly, whatever it is, that link you give isn't proof of anything--that's just a mirror of Wikipedia (i.e., someone took what was on Wikipedia, copied it, and put it on their own page). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian/Archive_33&oldid=1148818369"