User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 39

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.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Sockpuppets in Tau Epsilon Phi?

<redacted> Nevermind, it's too confusing. But I have no doubt that there are at at least two people using mulitple accounts. Perhaps they don't know they're not allowed to do that, and I'm not looking to get anyone banned. But what I am hoping is that you could at least post a comment on the talk page (directed to everyone) to make them aware that using more than one account (on a talk page or to edit an article) is a major violation; that they cannot switch back and forth between accounts. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note explaining the rules on the talk page. As I mentioned there, if you do have serious concerns about a particular editor and can support them, contact another admin privately with your evidence. Hopefully, though, now that everyone knows the rules, they'll be more careful. As you say, I think that there really was just confusion, rather than intentional malfeasance. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Approver Conduct in Iyengar and Thenkalai?

It has been my observation that User:Hari7478(talk) has in several places amply demonstrated his leanings to one of the two Vaishnava traditions and hence does not deserve the moral right to be approving changes to Iyengar and Thenkalai wikipages. As it is evident from the wikitalk page of Talk:Iyengar, Hari7478's views have been constantly contested. He/She has also been accused of "pushing his/her own fabricated conclusions", "misquoting of sources" and "perpetrating falsehood" in addition to wielding undue 'reverting' influence in places where his POV is challenged. I request you Qwyrxian, as an administrator, to consider commissioning another competent review authority for these pages. People like Hari7478, with their fanatical/ideological leanings to a particular tradition do not merit the moral authority to be administrating these webpages anymore. This is my sincere request to uphold the spirit of information sharing principles. Mukukv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're confused about how Wikipedia works. We don't have reviewers, and administrators don't have the powers you imply. Anyone is free to edit any Wikipedia page, so long as they follow our policies. You, unfortunately, have not been. One of those policies is that all substantive information in Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. Your changes to Iyenagar had no such sources. If you can provide sources to verify that info, you can re-add them; if you don't know how to make citations, let me know here and I'll teach you. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have to agree with Qwryxian here, at least as far as Iyengar is concerned. That article is on my watchlist and I've undone a few things that people have added etc. If you do not have a reliable source to support your statements then you will get nowhere here, sorry. Equally, if you are wanting to remove statements that do have an apparently reliable citation then you really should take it to the talk page of the article, eg: Talk:Iyengar. It is perfectly ok for Wikipedia articles to show more than one opinion and it is also perfectly ok for you to challenge something that is in an article. But we work according to consensus. I admit that this is a concept that can be difficult to understand and that sometimes it can even seem to be favouring something that to you appears to be completely wrong. But that is Wikipedia: those who contribute here are hopefully forming part of a civil society and in civil societies we talk things through. Although the Iyengar article is on my watchlist, it is not one that I have about which I great deal of knowledge, so it would be great if you could go to the article talk page and try to explain a bit more ... and provide some reliable sources to support your position.

Oh, and yes: Q is correct that we do not have individuals here as reviewers. This is, again, a process of consensus: if most people are happy and they are complying with out policies and guidelines etc then that is just fine. Decisions about what is or is not correct when it comes to content matters are something that no single person can make. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Qwyrxian and User:Sitush, thanks for your comments. I do have references to explain my minor edits. But I do have them in books (a hard copies). How do I cite them. I don't have these references in Google Books or elsewhere - so providing URLs is a problem. Please adivse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukukv (talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:86.147.247.205 at Tau Epsilon Phi

User:86.147.247.205 is disruptively editing on Tau Epsilon Phi again. They already were warned earlier today about editing they did in this article. Now, they've removed important content (Hasenberg's name) from the Legal section and were asked to discuss it in the current talk page discussion and get consensus, but they refused and removed the content again.[1] They also have added several templates to the article. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Still not disruptive yet; one more set of changes like that and I'll ask for page protection. The templates are fine, as long as the matter is also discussed on talk, so they can stay for a few days while we work on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

86.147.247.205 is at it again. They've reverted again. I just posted this comment and this comment on the talk page. 86 is out of control. If this type of behavior doesn't deserve a block, nothing does. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to notify me here each time it happens. I'm watching the article; I'll see it eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Just frustrated. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. 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) 22:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR Rule Tau Epsilon Phi

You are hereby being warned of serious violation of the 3RR rule for Tau Epsilon Phi. There were more then 3 reverts for the same article in a 24 hour period. I suggest you take a break and have a cool down period. This is reccomended, especially if you are emotionally involved. You are hereby warned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspiringArtist (talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

AspringArtist, your harassment of this administrator, and others, will catch up to you. Trust me. Bogus warnings, particularly when they are issued by a very disruptive edtior, will not be tolerated for long. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tau Epsilon Phi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ----Special:Contributions/Aspiring Artist (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So...why did you just leave me two warnings? I haven't edited the article in between. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

AspringArtist did it solely to harass and annoy you. No other reason at all. Btw, he simply copied the warning I sent him and pasted it here in your talk page. In fact, if you want a laugh, click on the talk link in his signature. It's my IP and talk page because he even copied my signature. LMAO. He didn't even change the date and time. Wow. How is he not in a long time out yet? --76.189.101.221 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, just so you know... he apparently sent this bogus warning to you in retaliation for this comment you posted on his talk page 2 minutes earlier. You posted yours at 02:19 1 Dec 2012. AA then posted this bogus warning here on your talk page at 02:21 1 Dec 2012, and you can see how he changed my signature to his. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock Puppets

Qwyrxian you are indeed no doubt IP 76. I am compiling the list of articles where you have conducted conversations with yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspiringArtist (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be an awesome trick if it were true, given that WHOIS results indicate that the IP address is to"serve Road Runner residential customers out of the Columbus, OH, Herndon, VA and Raleigh, NC RDCs" and it is well known that I am in Japan. I'd love for you to compile such evidence, because it will be amusing...ludicrous even. And it also implies that this is what you yourself are doing. I have a guess about which other accounts you're editing under, but I'm not certain enough to file at the moment.

Oh, which reminds me, if you want to report me for using multiple accounts, please go to WP:SPI and follow the instructions there. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I heard a great line from an administrator a few weeks ago: Beware the boomerang! I hope AspiringArtist learns about it. Aspring, when you initiate that report, please don't forget to let me know. It will be quite entertaining, I assure you. And Q, I'm almost sure of at least two accounts he's using. He made a slip-up which I believe has given it away. ;) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm pretty sure I know 3 accounts AA has edited under. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal College, Colombo

Could we please sort out this naming issue and finalize the lead so that we could finish it off. Do you think we need to get arbitration/mediation on this matter ? Cossde (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Pks1142

I'm really sorry that you blocked User:Pks1142, it wasn't my intention at all. I wanted him to learn from his mistakes and not to attack anybody, but alas, it seems the PA thing is going on. From an administrative point of view, can you suggest how I can help him to better himself? I even suggested WP:ADOPT but kinda clueless since things turned out sour. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you can adopt users who don't understand many of our more complex rules, like notability, sourcing, image copyright, etc. But I don't think there's any way to "help" someone who is using direct, unequivocal attacks like Pks did. This is not a borderline case, where some people would think his phrasing is strong but okay. He directly and clearly attacked you, and failed to stop after you told him to. The reason we (admins) block people is to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, and directly attacking a fellow user is pure disruption. My best hope for this situation is that 2 days away will help the editor calm down and take a different approach...but my experience tells me that that is unlikely. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok I see your point and why you had to do it, but feels bad nevertheless. Hope he learns from it. I would also like to know that I was accused of sockpuppetry for editing through my IP address, although I have already clarified that it is mine only and mistakenly I was logged off. Is there any way I can make sure that I am never logged out of Wikipedia and such problems never arise? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

One way is that if you're working from your own computer (not a public one), you can set it to keep you logged in for 180 days...that keeps you safe for half a year (unless you clean your cookies or something similar). Second, whenever you edit without being logged in, there should be a light yellow box at the top of the page telling you that. That should help you notice. But, beyond that, it's definitely not sockpuppetry to edit while mistakenly logged out. Heck, it can even be legitimate to edit on purpose logged out, as long as you're not doing it to evade scrutiny (like to stack votes in an AfD, or to get past 3RR). So, no sock problems on that event. There's more of an issue of protection for you, since now people can connect you to a specific IP/geolocation. I don't know why he also suspects you of being the same account as GeekVampire; we'll have to see if he provides evidence later. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay I will notice that yellow box always thanks for making me understand that. As for linking me with GleekVampire, the reason is probably because of this I presume? I don't know. Anyways, thanks for what you have done Qwyrxian, you have a good day and happy holidays. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please Help

I Really Need Your Help On Actor Jack O'Connell's Page He Is Half Irish And He Himself Said That,I Also Gave That Link On The Talk Page Of Jack But No One Is Listening To Me And They Even Locked The Article Despite My Valid Links About His Being Irish.Please Change Jack's Nationality To Irish-British Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.251.159 (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I already explained to you above why that information cannot go in the lead. See WP:OPENPARA, which states:

3. Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);

In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

I'm sorry if you don't like that policy, but that's our rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Do What you want !

Qwyrxian, do what you want in Jubail. I will not do anything. By Whitetararaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitetararaj (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Need help on amity page

Dear qwyrxian

I need your help. On the amity university page a lot of wrong things are being written about the founder of amity. He is a living person and such wrong allegations are really damaging. There are absolutely no warrants or notices against him. On the talk page I had uploaded a copy of original documents from the german authorities confirming this. I really need your help in this. Thank you. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing it now. I've explained on the article's talk page why. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. it is also mentioned in the first paragraph. It will be very kind if that can also be removed. 121.241.125.226 (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. You are absolutely right that this issue has nothing to do with Amity as this was a civil case between two international companies in the late 1990s.

I would request your help in more issue. Wifione keeps adding that Amity does not have aicte approval. Then goes on to say that it is not required. It is very clear as per law ( the judgement is available on the amity site ) that a university does not require aicte approval. Thus to say that amity does not have aicte approval or that it was was removed is absolutely absurd. Wifione is linking to an article where some foreign journalist is mentioning that approval was withdrawn from amity. The sad fact is that just because a journalist with less knowledge writes something wrong, can you use it as a base to continue saying wrong things especially when the law is so clear. Why does no page of any other University not say that they don't have aicte approval even though they don't need it? Rahulpandey1 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Prem Chopra

Whatever information I had provided and you had reverted were all true. Proof - http://www.koimoi.com/bollywood-news/happy-birthday-prem-chopra/ and Prem Chopra's own website. I summarised from there only.Greatwords1 (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place which is looked into by everyone for information. I ahd picked up all information from these two sites and also provied references for Uma being name of wife of Chopra.Now by reverting - the whole lot of information has been rendered a waste. Greatwords1 (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you got the information from those sources, then you can add it, but you need to do two things. First, you have to actually cite the source in the article. Information about how to do so can be found at HELP:Citations. If you have questions, I would be happy to help. Second, you must add the information neutrally. For example, you described a movie as a "box-office flop". You can't describe a movie that way. If it really didn't do well, you need a source to verify that and you need to use more neutral words (something like "which was not successful at the box-office" or "which had poor sales"). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you have said you can help me. Why dont u help me out? I stand by the article which I had put. Only issue is except for these two websites other sites do not have any information. So as a reference only these 2 sites I have.Each line I had put has reference point only in this line. I suggest now you modify the article keeping the version which you reverted as the base. Otherwise Keep the same article as it was in my version and mention these two sites as reference. Can I do that?Greatwords1 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I went in to do that, but when I did, I looked more closely at the koimoi source, it does not appear to meet WP:RS. As such, it cannot be used as a source for that article. As for his website, we can use that to verify some information...but his website has all sorts of information on it. I'm not going to dig through all of it looking for the right place to look. What specifically came from that website, and exactly which page on the website did it come from? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats what I was saying - most of the information regarding which he regards as his best, films with Rajesh Khanna, his wife Uma, when he was in TOI, his debut and rest which I had written were all in my own words - so as to avoid copyrights issue and were taken from the 3 sites. but you reverted it. I had summarised from these sites.I had made my reaserach from these sites. So I suggest solution is putting my version with referecne being the 3 sites!Ptherwise wikipedia will give incomplete information to the present day media and internet users.Greatwords1 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't do that unless you are a lot more specific. We need to place specific citations at the end of each sentence that you are supporting--not just add some sources at the end of the article. For each sentence you added, you need to provide one or more full citations. For the newspaper article, I need to know the title, author, date of publication, and newspaper for the article. For the website, I need to know the exact URL (not the URL for the whole site), the title of the page, the author if one is listed, the date of publication if one is listed, and the date you accessed the information; this info must be provided separately for each part of the website you took it from. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

specific citations at the end of each sentence - agreed but in this case as only 3 articles are available online...so only option is to give the same reference for each senetnece....like a,b,c,d.....main reference are koimoi and website....Greatwords1 (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm not explaining this well, but I need more information. First, we cannot use the koimoi source, because it doesn't meet WP:RS. So I would need to know what came from that source, because we can't include it. Second, I need to know exactly where the info came from on his website. There are many different pages there. It didn't come from all of them. Each piece of information must have come from one place. I need to know which information came from which part. Does that make sense? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I can provide reference from these 3 sites alone as not much data about actor is available online. But for each senetence I will have to provide reference from tha same source. If you do not agree..may be the article will have to remain as ugly and with negligible amount of data as avaible right now. Wikipedia is looked upto by many viewers but if such reverts keep happening then not much deatils public can get from wiki!!!

You had asked why the names of whom daughters had married is written....thats cause they both are popular actors and mentioning them as son-in-laws makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatwords1 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Greatwords, lets take this in two steps. Do you understand that you may not use the koimoi site as a reference? That information cannnot be taken from it and added to Wikipedia? That this is because koimoi does not appear to meet WP:RS, which are our guidelines on reliable sources? Thus, I need to know what information came from koimoi, because I cannot add that information to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

from your message it seems nothing can be done to provide info to the readers properly as far as this article is concerned. but i can assure you the information written in koimoi is from his webiste only. the prem chopra webiste is his own website - run by his family members and by Prem himself.Greatwords1 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Tau Epsilon Phi

The User IP76 is repeatedly deleting my content even completely new content. Could you assist with this as I am sure his not permitted to do this.

Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opthamologist (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow the rules and quit re-entering previously posted points and cluttering the page. Your points have already been made loud and clear. You were clearly educated on how to edit the original posting by using striking, but chose to ignore it. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

He is blocking my content again.#--Opthamologist (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop disrupting the talk page with your constant repeats of previously-posted content and personal attacks. And shopping for an admin to whine to is violation that can get you blocked from editing. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reformatted the conversation at Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi‎ slightly, and I have redacted the comments of one or more contributors. If you disagree with any changes I have made, please feel free to correct them. I would have just hatted off the whole thing, but there were valid discussion points mixed in. I also split the edit request off so that the reviewing admin can address the request, as none of the following comments were about that request. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI regarding IP 76.189.126.40

Your name came up in a quote so I feel it's only reasonable to drop you this ANI notice:

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You've been asked previously to stop your harassment. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? No one has asked me to stop harassment. I'm confused...The last 76 editor I remember generally approved of my editing on that page. If you are changing IP addresses because of dynamic IP assignment, you're going to have to clarify which previous IP addresses you've edited under. This, in fact, is a requirement and not a violation of WP:OUTING. I need to know how many different people I'm talking to. But, in any event, I'm not harassing anyone--you are removing talk page posts in violation of policy. You need to stop that. But now it will be up to WP:ANI to decide. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning - harassment

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. --76.189.126.40 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? How am I harassing you? Perhaps you should post the response to the ANI thread rather than here, so that others can review my actions. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Amity University.
Message added 13:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wifione ^Message 13:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Block request.

I'd like to recommend a block on the user that you'll find at the bottom of my talk page.

He went right to name calling and threats of violence when I reverted an edit he made.

I realize I don't have a perfect record around here, but I have never went to these extremes.

Vjmlhds 04:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. However, the user is clearly on a dynamic IP address (since they didn't make any edits at that address that you reverted), so if the person comes back, let someone know right away. You can get a very fast response by starting a new thread at WP:ANI (I'm happy to do it, but as you can see I was away from Wikipedia for a number of hours). In addition, our guidance on WP:Threats of violence recommends that all threats be reported to emergency@wikipedia.org; I've already done that for you here. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can you please look into this article ? Few users repetitively removing the references. Vellupillesob (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is currently fully protected. You need to discuss the references (and anything else that's being fought about) on the article's talk page. If the already involved editors cannot agree, you'll need to follow dispute resolution to get outside input. If you need help getting that process started, feel free to let me know; you need to start the conversation with other involved editors first, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

reply

you are mistaken... Scéal_Nua retired pleasantly... while at first it was unpleasant dealing with the Wikipedia community, he got to voice his opinion, which was right and true and made the community look terribly bad, which was pleasant. While the Wikipedia community claims to have "blocked" Scéal_Nua, they are mistaken, for Scéal_Nua had changed his mind about an unblock request and decided to retire before the final decision was made to indefinitely block is account. Scéal_Nua retired, period. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoriadorMexica (talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

He is blocked as a sock of you. That was the final result of the sockpuppet investigation. If Sceal Nua wishes to contest that, they may request an unblock. Until such time, we will not be taking your word on the matter. Do not remove the tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

reply

oooooooo.... ha ha ha ha! you actually made threats that you would block me? ha ha ha! dude! do you honestly think I care? you are so funny! just to show you how little you intimidate me, i am going to remove the tag if i can... go ahead and block me if you want, you nancy.

Well, I've protected the page so that only admins can edit it, so, I've removed the temptation. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Dynamic IP user pages can be deleted by CSD G7?

Just wondering, really. Under that reasoning, any user could ask to have any unused userpage deleted, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The CSD requestor, BTW, s using a script to mass CSD tag.MSJapan (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right that user pages are only deleted in special circumstances; in each of these cases, though, the creation was basically in error. In most of them, someone had tagged the page with a "suspected sock" tag, but then the tagger had removed the tag soon thereafter. In all of the cases, the only edits were the addition of one edit, the removal by the same editor, and the bot requesting deletion. In general, the only reason for an IP address to have a user page is for a sockpuppet tag (with a few exceptions for long-term, static ip editors who choose to maintain a user page) or something similar, so there was no loss here. But I would have deleted a named account with the same history as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Amity Page

Dear Qwyrxian,

I have added two points on the Amity University talk page. I would really request you to go through them and help. Wifione for some reason has always been uploading negative things against the university by wrongly interpreting things and writing in a way that harms the university and the students. many thanks. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't attack the contributor--focus on the content. I saw your post there, and I haven't decided yet whether or not I agree with you. I'll respond there if I come to a personal decision; else, if no one responds, you can remove it yourself (give it at least a few days, first, though, please). And if someone else responds, you'll need to discuss it with them in good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Himansh Kohli and Prem Chopra

See in himansh kohli case had provided atleast 18 links to show he is famous already in India as a TV star. But still the page was deleted. In Prem Chopra case - if reverts were not done then people would have benifited from the article I had written on them. See as it as we could have put tag that "article needs more citation and you can help". This way I would have put all those information and with the 3 references. Atleast help out Prem Chopra article. By reverting you are robbing the wiki readers from worthwhile information.Greatwords1 (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Greatwords, you're really starting to irritate me. One of the sources you provided is not a reliable source. It cannot be used on Wikipedia. This is not debatable. For the other source, you keep refusing to give me enough information to help you. It's not my fault that you won't try to help Wikipedia. I'm not interested in reading all of Chopra website to find the information you want to add--that's your responsibility. If you don't want to do that, then I can't help you. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

And on Himansh Kohli: first of all, I had absolutely nothing to do with the article being deleted: i didn't delete it, I didn't nominate it for deletion, and I didn't even put a !vote in the deletion discussion. What I did do, before the article was deleted, was remove all of the "sources" that were there that do not meet WP:RS. And this brings is back to my previous paragraph. I think that you simply aren't understanding this. Just because something is listed as a source does not mean it is acceptable. We have a set of guidelines that govern which sources are or are not reliable. And the sources I removed on the Kohli article were not reliable. Blogs, fansite, forums, etc. are basically never reliable. I'm sorry if you don't like these rules, but they are pretty core to the way Wikipedia works. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok again

These conceited talks and personal attacks needs to stop by User:Pks1142, calling me deaf and agenda pushing against me. Is it so so difficult to comment on a content without commenting or attacking another contributor? I will wait for your opinion. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, I left a warning template as is required for NPA, which was of course removed, including User:Sitush's explanation regarding NPA. This more and more confirms me your initial doubt that the user does not want to learn from mistakes. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the user retracted the warning, blocking now would be frowned upon by many in the community. But I've made it clear that the next such event will result in a block, much longer than last time. As for the AfD, don't worry about xyr comments--the only thing that will matter is whether or not the subject meets WP:NSONGS. If xe comments there again about anything other than that fact, just ignore it, because it doesn't matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your apt undertaking of the situation. I hope Pks1142 learns his lesson, but alas, I'm losing faith with the recurrent themes over and over again. Let's hope it wporks out for him. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, me too. Pks seems intent on being as rude as possible without actually breaking the rules. Maybe that will change once they understand that we really do mean that (most) people have to be civil on WP. But, if not, we'll block the editor and there will be no loss. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian. Have you forgotten about WP:Involved and WP:COI? As the blocking admin you have a conflict regarding the issue. I advise that you let an uninvolved admin take care of the situation with Pks. Caden ^cool 23:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, regarding what situation? WP:INVOLVED does not prevent admins from engaging in continuing administrative actions against an editor whom they have engaged in past administrative actions against. Otherwise, an admin would only be able to block an editor/person once, and that certainly doesn't make sense. If you're referring to my comment on the AfD, note that my comment is intended to focus the discussion, to get Pks (and/or others) focused on the only question that matters: notability. In effect, I am simply teaching (or reminding, for older editors) the rules under which AfD's proceed. Pks's comments on that AfD are not helpful, because they do not have any relationship to the grounds on which we make AfD decisions. In fact, you could say that my comment is intended to help Pks, because, as currently written, he's not done anything to prevent the article from being deleted; if he really wants it to remain, notability needs to be established. Note also, as I said there, that the song may well be notable, and I haven't even looked at the article itself yet (nor do I intend to), so I'm not actually weighing on the merits of the case. Was there some other comment I missed that I shouldn't have made? Finally, COI certainly has nothing to do with the issue: WP:COI is refering to editors who have a conflict of interest based upon outside concerns, such as being related to the subject of an article or being an employee of the subject of an article. Since we aren't even talking about the article itself, COI certainly doesn't apply (nor, in fact, do I have a COI with respect to any musician). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You blocked him once before. You're threatening to do so again. You are involved. You're involved with the entire situation involving both editors (Pks and IndianBio). Blocking the same user again looks bad, that's why I'm asking you to let another uninvolved admin take over. Caden ^cool 00:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is, as I explained to you, entirely wrong. Please read this section from WP:INVOLVED:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

Administrators, include myself, routinely block the same editor or IP address 2, 3, 4 times. Nothing in either policy nor in common sense prevents that. If an editor breaks the rules, and I block him/her, and then they break the same rules again, then I'm, in fact, the best person to review and consider reblocking. This has always already been established practice on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD close

Can you please close WP:Articles for deletion/Death of Bal Thackeray as no one is closing the AFD since one week Forgot to put name (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look about midway down the page, User:Riley Huntley relisted the debate. This is an option open to AfD closers; the AfD then stays open for one more week. It's generally done either when there is not a clear consensus, or when the number of comments is very small. So, this AfD should be closed on 10 January. Technically this particular user should not have done this relisting, but that's a trivial matter, and now that it has been relisted, it should stay open until the 10th. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric C. Anderson question

Hi there, Qwyrxian. Recently you helped me update and expand the Eric C. Anderson article, about which thanks again. Related to that, today I received a somewhat unusual question from the client (I'm working with the communications team at Space Adventures) about the Personal life section. Specifically, they have asked if it is possible to remove the clause stating that his wife is "a former concert pianist born in Russia". Their reasoning, quoted verbatim: "She says that the information is dated and does not wish to share personal items on Wikipedia." The information comes from a USA Today profile, and I don't think they're contesting the claim itself (not to mention they'd approved its inclusion previously). I let them know that since it's both true and verified that I couldn't promise there would be consensus to do so. But I can also see why she asks: she's not a public person herself, and both details are about her in the past, not currently. She's also not the subject of the article, so perhaps that's a factor. I said I would ask. What do you think? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Riley Huntley's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Cheers, Riley 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Images

Please do something as this user:Kbabusr modified images with a pace unneccasarily without even specifying valid reasons.Take action as soon as possible.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 10:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The notoriuos wiki troll ( Iaaasi) returned

Hello!

The well known chauvinist romanian wiki-troll User:Iaaasi returned (with a new croatian fake identity) He is now active alias user: Irji2012 He is often active in Hungarian-related aricles, he enjoy edit-warring deleting good sources and sentences from important articles, and he like to break the rules of wiki even 3 revert rule. Can you arrange about this notorious wiki-troll? Thank you! Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.49.97 (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't handle Iaaasi issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

image deletion

In these file File:Nayagan-1.jpg, File:First look Thuppakki.jpg, File:Billa2early.jpg and File:Vishwaroopam poster.jpg, the previous versions are obviously non-free, and are not used. pls delete them can u? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but I am really really not good at handle images and copyright. The best thing for you to do is to tag them for deletion; note, though, that being non-free isn't inherently enough for deletion; I note, for instance, that the first two are being used in an article. Now, that's not enough to guarantee that they stay, since WP:NFCC has tons of restrictions, but just being non-free is not guaranteed deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking about copyright or copy-left here. Since u r an admin, Just deleting an image shouldn't be hard. That's all I'm telling u 2 do. Btw, pls delete the old versions. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And what I'm saying is that, first, the images need to be tagged. Second, I would never delete anything (article, image, template, etc.) without being certain it violates our policies. I know our image policy well enough to know that it is acceptable to use movie posters, but I'm unclear on exactly what the circumstances are when they can or can't be used. I could learn, but I really have so little interest in images that I usually avoid them except in unambiguous cases, usually related to living people. Even then, I pretty much never do the deletions myself, instead tagging them for review by another admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Then sorry to disturb. I'll find someone else. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI mention

You've been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doncram_on_Indic_communities. - Sitush (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalker

How talk page stalker works as you noticed a comment on my talk page recently.Is it for syspo's only.Thanx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 17:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"Talk page stalker" is just a term we use for an editor who watches other editor's talk pages. I assume that you know about watchlists, right? For me, any time I interact with another user, I leave their talk page on my watchlist. Sometimes I see conversations between that person and a third user, and I feel like I have something to offer, so I jump in with a comment. I use that template ({{tps}}) so that both people know why suddenly a new user is suddenly talking in the conversation. So, you can use it, too, whenever you come into the middle of another conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you can read a humorous essay about talk page stalkers at WP:TPS. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Need Help Please

Some One Again Changed The Nationality Of Actor Jack O'Connell To british From Irish-British And Locked The Page,Could You Please Change His Nationality To Irish-British,Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.228.142 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop bringing this request, it's never going to happen, because you're version is a violation of our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: BrBrLeJa

BrBrLeJa (talk · contribs) removed valid content (credited writers for a TV episode) from a page here, he continued while logged out here and here. I issued a warning here and am now notifying you as you suggested on my talk page. Soon after a new use was created Scream4Lover1 who resumed removing the info [2] and who also left me this on my talk page. I, of course, suspect a sock particularly as BrBrLeJa removed the sock master tag from his page. Any help would be appreciated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the first thing you have to do is stop reverting on the article—you've gone far past WP:3RR, which is grounds for being blocked. You cannot edit-war to preserve a version of an article you like. This is true even if you are right. The only exceptions to 3RR are things like stopping vandalism, which very much is not the case here. I'm going to put an official warning on your page for administrative purposes. Meanwhile, I will look into things in more detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've already warned that editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka‎

Could you restore the indefinite move (sysop)-protection from the article Sri Lanka‎. I think you removed it by accident. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I don't fully protect pages all that often, and forgot about needing to handle the page and move protections separately. I've re-protected now. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

He's back!

Though u blocked User:Kbabusr from editing for some time, he is again back to doing what was considered wrong. I guess he's no different from The Joker, who every time when goes to prison (Arkham Asylum), quickly escapes and returns to crime without being redeemed. So I guess he should again be blocked, or be given an even worse punishment. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'm not sure that you are correct at ANI - see User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke/Archive_2#Topic_ban. I know it is broadly construed but he'd probably be ok if he edited a modern demographics section or some such thing. Or is your point to turn one of his old arguments against him, ie: that caste is now considered a historic construct? - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And where would he pull sources from? Sure, if YK added a verified name of a living person to List of Reddys, he'd be safe. But, given the very state of the field, I'd argue that well over 80% of it falls directly within his topic ban, and another 10% probably does. For me, anything older than about 20 or 30 years is "history"; broadly interpreted, I might go even shallower. Obviously, I wouldn't attempt to enforce a ban on a questionable point, and, last time I checked, YK was staying solidly away from the ban...but this tactic is a common one in other disputed areas. The one that springs most to mind is British Isles. It was routinely the case there that people would get topic banned, but then would continue to monitor the area and take every opportunity they had to find a way to "remove" the "opposition". There were even routinely times where a non-banned editor would "offer" to get banned themselves so long as one of the "enemy" was also removed. And, of course, they'd themselves stay active within the topic via either sockpuppetry or meatpupetry (which, of course, is almost certainly occurring within this topic here, too, including one of the people commenting in the ANI thread in question). Luckily, in this case, a number of uninvolved admins have already cautioned YK that he's rapidly reaching the end of the line w.r.t. seeking your removal, which is good. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Having read your response, I understand your point. We both know that there is a subtext to the goings-on but I could see exactly what the response at ANI would be from Yogesh. This is where ANI fails: either we (all "sides") end up writing TLDR comments or we run a high risk of being politicked, whether favourably or otherwise. That said, I've had a rather limited involvement in RfC and ArbCom stuff & find it impossible to cope with the weird formatting system are imposed there, whereby each contributor only makes statements in their own section. If I get RSI then looking at those two venues will be a contributory factor!

As inevitable as it seems likely to be, I don't want to see Yogesh unable to add to this project: he is wayward and obstinate, and he more often or not fails to understand the very policies etc that he cites, but there is some good in there. Alas, and for reasons that I've never been able to track down on-wiki, it seems frequently to be the case that newly registered accounts latch on to him and they tend to end up either being burned-out or procedurally stymied. It is very odd that such new contributors should find themselves involved quite so drastically and, yes, it gives rise to suspicions of meatpuppetry or even block evasion etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). 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) 22:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Levdr1lostpassword

I would like to request a block for User:Levdr1lostpassword.

He has some serious ownership issues with articles especially regarding Cleveland TV and radio station articles.

He's always quick to pounce whenever I edit an article regarding those topics. Even just little stuff like when a DJ is fired or mentioning that a station carries some baseball games.

He always seems to want to pounce on me and give me holier-than-thou lectures about wiki policy.

I think he feels that he and he alone is the only expert on these topics, and the attitude is really off-putting.

He has also gone after other users the same way.

Don't get me wrong...he doesn't vandalize the articles, or threatens people, but he needs to lose the condesending attitude, and maybe a block would do him some good.

Thank you

Vjmlhds 04:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Coudl you please provide diffs, or at least tell me what articles you're talking about? Looking at your history, the only recent case I see where the two of you have edited the same article is WAKS. And there, either one of you could have helped solve the matter by going to Talk:WAKS. Simply putting up competing edit summaries is not discussion. Both of you should have, after reverting each other, gone to the talk page and discussed the matter. But beyond that, I see no incivility or other problems. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I'm saying i need more information from you so I know what to look for. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me backtrack a tad...maybe a block is too much, but he does have a bit of a "gatekeeper" mentatlity when it comes to certain pages...as if he's the grand poobah of what can and can't go into an article. He likes throwing things like WP:Notability around, when those things are often left to interpretation. I.E. how is it not notable that a radio station carrys some MLB games? WMMS airs a number of Indians games per year as a backup for flagship WTAM, but Levdr always gets on a high horse about not including it in the article. It's like he, and only he can make judgements on what goes into "his pet articles". That in my opinion is bad faith, and whatever it takes, he needs to lighten up a little. Vjmlhds 23:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the matter with him, either on an article talk page or his user talk page? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

User Vjmlhds habitually adds, modifies, or removes content without providing reliable sources to justify such changes. When confronted (usually his talk page or the article's talk page), his response is often along the lines of "but it's true", willfully neglecting WP:VERIFY. A recent example involves Joe Banner, where Vjmlhds added the title "President" of the Cleveland Browns to Mr. Banner's entry. He failed to add a source. He was also wrong – Mr. Banner was hired as "CEO" of the team, and when asked directly if he will hire a President, Banner said "a CEO is more than enough". Vjmlhds makes edits like these daily. I have tried talking to him on his talk page, on my talk page, and on article talk pages. He frequently ignores talk page guidelines, and he frequently ignores basic Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Often he tries to force through his view without regard to discussion or consensus. I suppose I could have started a discussion at the WAKS talk page, but increasingly, I find discussions with Vjmlhds futile. How many times can you tell someone they need to verify content w/ reliable sources? As for the issue with the Cleveland Indians, there is already a discussion on the WMMS talk page (Talk:WMMS#Cavs/Tribe). Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I was, in fact, worried that this might be the case, as it matches similar concerns I've had from other places. Vjmhlds, I've explained policies to you before, too, and had you keep pushing on as if those didn't relate to you. When an editor who happens to watch a group of articles insists that other editors follow policy on those, that's not WP:OWNERSHIP, that's following policy. And if a variety of editors keep telling you that you're not following policy, then perhaps, you know, it's true. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Personal Supercomputer

I would ask you to reconsider your 'Undid revision 526789857 by Jordanbimi'. You lumped his edit under "supercomputers". I think that is wrong. It appears he was attempting to communicate that you can now get in a small package or Personal Supercomputer computing power that far surpasses what was a state of the art super computer in 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rackmount-guy (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

First, the user didn't draw that connection--all they did was to drop information about something not directly related to that page. But, even if they had, it still wouldn't be okay unless a reliable source had already made that connection. Drawing our own conclusions, by connecting two different topics, is considered to be original research, which is expressly forbidden. So, if there is a reliable source that compares old room-size supercomputers with personal supercomputers, we could summarize said source and include the info. But without that, we can't include it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User:WWEJobber

I would like to request a block for User:WWEJobber.

He has repeatedly put misleading information in the WWE roster article. He stubbornly insists on listing Deam Ambrose, Seth Rollins, and Roman Reigns as developmental wrestlers even though they have been promoted to the main roster, and are now highly promoted performers. Also, he refuses to list wrestler Johnny Curtis under his new name of Fandango. WWE has been airining promotional vignettes for the new character, and Curtis has been wrestling under this new name on the live event circuit.

He has been told numerous times by me and other users to stop doing these things, yet he insists on continuing. Again, there may be some ownership issues here.

Thank You.

Vjmlhds 23:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vjmlhds, as a word from the wise, it is probably better not to keep going to the same person when you are seeking a block. If the alleged culprit is edit warring or has broken the three revert rule then you can appeal to WP:AN3. Qwyrxian may disagree with me here but I find that you'll gain more traction by being seen to appeal at a venue where you really do not know who might take a look at it. Going back to the same person time and again can put them in an awkward position because, sooner or later, there will be suggestions that the admin (however well-intentioned) is somehow in cahoots with you.

In any event, regardless of where you go, you really do need to start providing some diffs: we're most of us trying to do a fair amount of stuff here in whatever time we have available and so wasting the time of others by asking them to play detective can become a bit tiresome. No offence intended, obviously, but maybe explore some options? - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

VJmlhds, you claiming that another editor has ownership issues on that article is the pot calling the kettle black. Just like I recommended above, you need to talk about the issues. If I could, I'd put both of you on a 1RR restriction. That would mean that you could not revert on the article more than once in 24 hours. While I cannot enforce that, you both should strongly consider it. Basically, if you add info, and he removes it, you no longer attempt to add the info, and instead start talking about it on the talk page. The same thing is true if he adds info: if you revert it, he then goes and discusses it on the talk page. I'm going to check the article now and see if it needs to be edit protected or if, in fact, either of you crossed the line into edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, your edit summaries are there are bordering on breaking WP:CIVIL. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)