User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 → Archive 50

PLEASE DELETE MY USER PAGE

PLEASE DELETE MY USER PAGE Deleted7Username 16:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's blank now, your name has been changed to Deleted7username. If you want to prevent yourself from logging in, just change the password to random letters. We can't actually "delete" your account, but at this point, your name is gone as are your messages there. Please note that if you are willing to work with other editors, you're welcome to stay. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Earth100

He's continuing to make unsourced edits. He made this change ([1]), acknowledging on his talk page that he couldn't even read the source that he was allegedly fixing the information from. And then I thought all was well, since he apologized and reverted his edit. Then about an hour after making the reversion, he made this edit. That page had other issues as well, as an IP editor had come in and added a bunch of unsourced information which I also removed. At this point, I think it's clear that he is not going to heed advice to slow down in editing or get a mentor / ask question before making edits. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. 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) 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Wasifwasif's talk page.
Message added 10:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wasif (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sue Perkins

Actually revisions do not make the article worse at all, and its not flowery language at all its correct terminology to use. As an ongoing article about a living person using such terminology as continues and long standing are wholly appropriate. If you actually look at the article it lacks any real citations, in the main body, uses very poor structure. On the friend and creative partner issue go and have a look online and you will find that those terms very appropriate to use and are used frequently to describe the nature of a professional and personal relationship. There is also every need to use correct terminology like Re-Commissioned instead of just merely highlighting a series has a third or fourth series. Use of such words actually make the article a better more professional read. Another example "Periodically" instead of "on occasions" those changes actually structure the article better and make it flow for the reader, as it was very disjointed. Also you stated about Neutral point of view issue, if you can demonstrate that for example a statement such as "Perkins successful television series." With for instance viewing figures from BARB or critically acclaimed reviews and offset it with other reviews of a more negative nature. The NPOV issues are wholly addressed in line with the policy. Thank you for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchhousefantatic‎ (talk • contribs)

I'll deal with this tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Great Job

great job dude Makarandg (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, The article Madurai_Nayak_Dynasty has got vandalized left and right. Sentences provided verbatim from sources under references are changed. The vandalism comes from two or three people, who IMO are posting under different IPs from different places. The most frequent alteration they make is to change the word Balija into Kamma everywhere in the article (including sources). But the recent vandalism from User:Narayana Samy Nayak takes the cake -- he deleted entire sections from the article.

The vandalism has come frequently from the following IPs: 101.62.33.222, 101.63.193.131, 183.90.103.163, 183.90.103.147, 183.90.103.132, 183.90.103.182, 65.255.37.213, 2.50.19.198 and 125.17.145.49. This has been going on for far too long, at least since the past 2 years. Kindly view the edit logs. It is difficult to track changes each time. Even the dates and years are changed without providing references. This page definitely needs to be protected so that only editors who previously worked on the article can edit it.

Please enforce page protection. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hi, I set right vandalized portions of the article as best as i could. Some of it is from 2011. Please advice which one is better -- page protection or sockpupper report for these User IDs / IP addresses: Sridhargu, Narayana Samy Nayak, 220.255.1.168, 220.255.1.167, 220.255.1.168, 220.255.1.99, 220.255.1.130, 220.255.1.123, 220.255.1.159, 220.255.1.120, 24.115.209.166, 218.186.16.251, 122.174.115.183, 122.166.11.107, 122.164.160.241, 122.174.1.99, 122.174.10.251, 122.166.11.107, 101.62.33.222, 101.63.193.131, 183.90.103.163, 183.90.103.147, 183.90.103.132, 183.90.103.182, 65.255.37.213, 2.50.19.198 and 125.17.145.49. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
Haven't we discussed before that you may not call good faith edits vandalism, and that doing so is grounds for a block as a personal attack? An easy way that I can tell that this isn't vandalism is because I can't see much difference between what you've done and what the other editors did. Yes, I know it's different, but neither is obviously better. I trust you're acting in good faith, so I assume you're reverting for the best, but vandalism is almost always obvious. An SPI won't do anything, because checkusers never connect IP addresses and named accounts for privacy reasons. You could ask for page protection, but you likely wouldn't get it because the problems aren't frequent enough, nor is it obvious that this isn't just a content dispute. The best thing is to keep monitoring the article (keep it on your watchlist), and when you see problems, fix them. While you're at it, you may want to go through the article and either tagging or removing unsourced information, as there appears to be quite a lot of it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Re

Qwyrxian, I suggest you take a look at the article's edit log just once before you pronounce. If you can't see a difference between my edits and what the spammers did, i suggest you look up the page (of each book) from which sentences have been provided in the References Section.

And yeah, i understand NPA well, so no need to keep mentioning a block each time you get a chance (please its silly). Am speaking of frequent spam of this kind; and deletion of entire sections of this kind. These spammers wont discuss on talk page. They have even changed sentences (which i had provided) from books under the References Section like this How long and how frequent is considered "frequent enough" spam on wiki?

The article was already well written but largely without references, before i worked on it. I only added some parts to the article (including dates or years of some rulers). I also provided references for preexisting content whereever i could. Currently am looking for good sources for the Iyengar article and not focussing on this article. If you are disputing neutrality and claiming puffery exists, then i suggest you please provide examples of it in the talk page so others can take a cue and work on the article based on what you say. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Help!

Yikes, this is pov pushing but the article is semi-protected and I can do nothing about it.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
ta. I am dreading what my watchlist is going to look like!--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Fordham University entry

Thanks so much for what you are trying to do. I don't have the time to dedicate to the article, or any others for that matter, but there has been a lot of work on this page over the years, and at least two serious attempts to improve the article class status. The current round of edits is reverting much of that work, and it is largely due to one editor. I defer to your Wiki status and experience as, while I have been here a number of years now, I am not proficient in the methods and protocols for dealing with problematic editors. The repeated arbitrary reversals seemingly based on opinon by a particular editor seems worthy of sanction, but I am not sure how that would proceed. Shoreranger (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you

getting my emails? Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think I've responded to both. Basically, I just haven't summoned up the effort required to pull together all of the diffs needed to make a case. But I expect I should get to it w/in the next three days or so. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Geoliteka

hello! I am not sure this is the right place to write, but i could not find relevant pages sorry. Could you please kindly explain why you haevg removed links to GEOLITEKA (http://geoliteka.weebly.com/) - former Im Books from pages re. Tamar Injia, Ali and Nino - Literary Robbery! etc. Thank you in advance for your explanation. Irene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.31.45 (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia's guideline on external links is very strict. You can read the policy at WP:EL. In this case, the key is that nothing on that page, or on any of the linked pages that I could see, mention the Ali and Nino-Literary Robbery! book. If the book had a separate page on the Geoliteka site, and if that page contained unique information that for some reason we couldn't put in the article itself, then we might link to it. But we don't link to the publisher just because they are the publisher. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Dear Qwyrxian, Thank you for reference. I read policy, incorporated within the text my notes and I would appreciate further explanation on the topic:

1) citation from WP:EL policy: “Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. SORRY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS ONE, WILL BE HAPPY TO USE THEM ONLY OUTSIDE OF ARTICLE IN THE FUTURE. 2) citation from WP:EL policy: “Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy”. MY LINK DRIVES READER TO THE PLACE WHERE S/HE CAN ACTUALLY FIND THE BOOK “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!” (THIS IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY PLACE ON THE WEB WHERE IT IS AVAILABLE). THIS SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF WIKI POLICY (SEE QUOTING FROM WIKI POLICY IN QUOTATION MARKS): LINK “INCLUDES FURTHER RESEARCH THAT IS ACCURATE AND ON-TOPIC, INFORMATION THAT COULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE FOR REASONS SUCH AS .... AMOUNT OF DETAIL” 3) citation from WP:EL policy: “Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any”. SO FAR, http://geoliteka.weebly.com/index.html IS THE ONLY OFFICIAL WEBSITE ON THE SUBJECT – ROBBERY OF ROBAKIDZE’S WORK ‘SNAKE’S SKIN’ BY AUTHOR OF ‘ALI AND NINO’ (WHOEVER S/HE WAS). THIS IS THE A SINGLE VIRTUAL SPACE, WHERE READER CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT BY READING THE BOOK “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!”. 4) citation from WP:EL policy: "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. I SATISFY BOTH REQUIREMENTS: 1) I AN AUTHOR/CREATOR OF ARTICLES “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!”, “TAMAR INJIA”, AND “SNAKE’S SKIN”. 2) THE LINKED WEBSITE WAS CREATED SOLELY FOR PROMOTING THE DISCOVERY OF PROF. INJIA. HOWEVER, OVER TIME OUR INTERESTS GOT WIDER AND WE ADDED OTHER TRANSLATED WORKD OF GEORGIAN WRITERS. STILL, WE ARE FOCUDING ON WORKS OD ROBAKIDZE AND SECOND EDITION OF THE BOOK “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!” IS IN PROGRESS (PLEASE READ LAST PARA AT THIS PAGE: http://geoliteka.weebly.com/alinino---literary-robbery.html) THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CLARIFICATIONS AND HELP. IRENE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.31.45 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments help clarify that, in fact, this link can definitely not be used anywhere you have added it. The only legitimate place that a link of that type would be allowed would be if there were a Wikipedia article for Geoliteka. That "official page" thing is for companies, people, organizations, and the like. But there isn't even a page for the Ali and Nino book on your website! So it very much cannot be linked. Please do not re-add it. Furthermore, people should pretty much never add links to companies or organizations with which they have a conflict of interest. If you continue to attempt to add that link as you have been, I may have to request that your account be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Qwyrxian, FIRST of all, your THREAT "to block my account" is not appreciated at all especially given the fact that you do not have a solid reason to believe I am going to do it (I have done this only TWICE: first time without knowing "your rules" and second time was before I realized and figured out how to navigate and use this dialogue option). Such approach only reflects your insecurity and lack of self-confidence, nothing to say about being destructive rather than constructive. SECONDLY, your responses are very superficial, they lack logical reasoning nothing to say about the fact that you do not provide the solid arguments yourself in response to mine (e.g. specific quotes from WP). THIRDLY, you respond to the questions I pose selectively, e.g. never heard from you regarding reasons why the previous link (imbooks.weebly.com) was allowed on wiki and updated link (geoliteka.weebly.com) with the same content, but different URL was not. Oh, yes, unless they have changed since my last post. FINALLY, because of all abovementioned, I would like to kindly ask you to provide me with contact information (or put me in touch with) either your peer or supervisor to resolve this issue. Thank you. Best, Irene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.31.45 (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I would never request the block if you didn't add the link; I was simply informing you that trying to do so even after you've been told not to is not a good road to go down.
As for what exactly is wrong with the link, I'm not sure how I can explain again. When I clicked on the link, the target page did not, in any way, shape, or form, mention the Ali & Nino book. I took a little effort to look around on my own, and I can't find any mention of that book anywhere on that website. So, let me ask you: why would we link to a site that had no information related to the page in question? It simply doesn't make sense. If someone followed your link to learn more about the Ali and Nino book...they couldn't! It has exactly as much information as linking to a website chosen entirely at random. That's why it can't be linked. If there were a page specifically on the book, we could consider it, but then it would be questionable. So if you can show me exactly what page it is that discusses that book on your web page, then I will take the matter to our noticeboard for discussing external links. That's the place editors go to talk together about whether or not a particular link is useful on a particular page.
As for my peer or supervisor, I don't have any. In fact, no one on Wikipedia does. We're all just people editing the encyclopedia together. Some people (like myself) are administrators, but that just means that we have a few extra tools like the ability to protect pages and block users. But that doesn't make us more "powerful" when deciding a content dispute. However, one thing that we do have is the fact that users who've been here for a long time, who have good knowledge of site policies and precedents, often advise new editors. We also have a process called dispute resolution that we can use when we have disputes; but first you're going to have to do the bare minimum of showing me where the Ali & Nino book is discussed on that site, because if there is no mention of it there, then there is absolutely no chance of that article being linked on that book's page.
Finally, though, your point about the imbooks site was correct (indirectly), in that that link shouldn't have been there either. I've now removed it. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

The Admin's Barnstar
You're outstanding! (And I don't mean doing something silly in the rain.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Why thank you! And to what do I owe this great pleasure? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You work your buns off. You make good decisions. You don't get frazzled. You are thoughtful. You will post me millions of dollars. You handle difficult cases. You are patient. You are polite.
Don't bother to re-read the above. Just let it sink in. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
"You will post me millions of dollars" - have you moved to Nigeria? BTW, I agree with Anna, as is usually the case. No need for a bribe, although I wouldn't refuse one: it would take the meaning of the Wikipedia cabal to another level.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It felt a little more "These are not the droids you're looking for" to me. And that's odd, because I thought it was the Illuminati who used mind control, not the Cabal. Fnord. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Dang. You blew the deal. Okay. Maybe I can still get him to become my wiki-zombie-slave, just like Jimbo did to all of us. "Yes masterrrrrrr...we will toil day and night...we will build your encyclopedia..." :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No kidding. Some of my friends in real life think I'm somewhere between insane and stupid, doing all this free labor. Of course, they never have any good ideas about where I can get paid to summarize what other people have already written. Or where I can get paid to spend time tracking down and blocking people who want to do the same thing, but badly. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I totally know what you mean. Here in China, the very, very first thing they ask is "Are you getting paid?" When I answer "no", they look at my like I'm bonkers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
And me! But in my case I was receiving those looks for around 40 years before Wikipedia existed, so perhaps the causal point is not proven.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your encouraging words and copy edit/moving article created by me. Rayabhari (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome—you deserve the praise! Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed regarding a minor difference of opinion in interpreting a few sources -- Iyengar article

In the main article the IP(Sitush) has included a line under common origins - "all three of them(Nathamuni, Ramanuja & Nammalvar) are tamils", for which he has provided a citation(pg 65, 80, 84 of the source). However, pages 65 & 84 do not say anything about them being tamils, while pg.80 is not available for viewing. See here:[2].
However i argued that it may not be the case, and provided these two sources. See here:[3]. According to this source "Nathamuni belonged to a domiciled North Indian fmaily of the Chola country". According to the second source [4] "there were affiliations between south indian shaivism and vaishnavism and the forms of these two sects are practiced in Kashmir and other parts of North. Saints and scholars like Tirumular & Nathamuni belonged to the North". Hence, considering these two sources i removed that line and left a note in the talk page. However he said something like i was misquoting it and "if he is from the tamil region, it means he's tamil". I don't agree to it. First of all, i don't know where his source mentions them all to be tamils. Secondly my first source says "Nathamuni belonged to a domiciled north indian family of the chola country", which means he had north indian origins but his family was domiciled in the region. However, "Tamils" would refer to people who have ethnic origins in Tamil Nadu. According to my second source, Nathamuni is North Indian. Please analyze them and leave a note here, or in the article's talk page(under the heading "Provided other sources in the place: same info+ additional data with sources"). Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I give up.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hari, first of all, your argument seems to be bollocks to me (can I borrow that word for a second, Sitush?). Someone who lived in Tamil Nadu isn't a Tamil? Sure, if someone moves there, but if one is born there...but even if you're possibly correct, you're providing no evidence that you're correct, you're merely opening up another theory. So we have Sitush's source that say "A is true" and we have your sources that say "Well, if we look at this in a certain way, then B is true"...then we write "A is true". And if I look at it even more carefully (what you wrote, not the sources)...are you trying to make an argument that because 1 specific person is or isn't from an area that you can then draw a conclusion about a whole group? Again, that's just not acceptable. You seem to be hellbent on finding sources and picking out any possibility to push a certain view. I have to admit I have no idea what viewpoint it is you're trying to push, because I have not gone through all of these sources and articles and don't even know what the big deal is.
More importantly, don't try to resolve a topic dispute by bringing in one specific other editor. Resolve it through dispute resolution. In this case, if it's just the 2 of you arguing, use WP:3O...although the matter may be too complex for 3O, so an RfC may be better. Or maybe, just maybe, you need to step away from this subject. Again, even though I don't know exactly what it is, you seem to be absolutely insistent on trying to prove a specific idea based upon extraordinary leaps in logic, through using the slimmest possible evidence to suggest that some other interpretation besides the obvious one may be try. In other words, I believe that you already think you know the TRUTH and that your job is to make Wikipedia represent that. That simply will not lead to success here. You have an advantage in that very very few Wikipedia editors care about the subject you're editing in...heck most of them don't even begin to understand why these things matter...but inevitably, Truth-seekers always run into problems here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, i'm not a truth seeker here. It seems you didn't look into the sources. I'm reposting the links/evidence - [5], [6].
Sitush's source does not say a thing about their birth origins. Diff of his response - [7]. He believes he's right as the three vaishnava saints were born in the region & had lived there. But my sources explicitly mention that one of them(Nathamuni) was born into a north indian family. I'm not drawing a conclusion about the whole community. It's not about the community in general. But he cannot mention the three of them to be tamils when his source says no such thing. It's just his interpretation that seems to be the problem. The contents of my source are not even contradictory to the one that he's citing. That being the case, i'd like to point out an example for your understanding -
Let us consider the hypothetical situation of "a Punjabi family residing in Tamil Nadu for 100 years". Usually, the youngest/fifth generation members are likely to have no knowledge of the Punjabi language, and tamil's likely to be their default first language. However, under the vague field "mother tongue"(in their birth certificate), either they mention Punjabi as their language or the government expects them to self-identify as punjabis, regardless of their knowledge of Punjabi and/or what they speak at home. Examples like "If you are born in the U.S., you're a natural born citizen, worthy of the demonym AMERICAN" are not applicable everywhere. A person of Indian origin born in "Southampton, Long Island, NY, US" is likely to be called a Hamptonite, New Yorker & an American. However, similar clauses are not used in the Indian gov't census. His talk page response "he was born in the tamil region" cannot be a valid arguement(the political setup in the 11th century was different though). Although this example is an exact copy of the one i posted in the IP user's(sitush's) talk page, i don't intend to spam it but i'm re-posting it here for your understanding of the scenario.
I'll be seeking DR and this isn't going to be my only complaint as there are other minor issues that need to be resolved. Thanks you. Hari7478 (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm only somewhat understanding the discussion (especially, I'm not understanding why it matters so much)...but would it solve the problem if we said, instead, "all three of them(Nathamuni, Ramanuja & Nammalvar) were from Tamil Nadu"? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I've voiced my concerns in talk:Iyengar, under the discussion - "common origins section". Hari7478 (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

173.89.153.66 …yet *again*

He goes right to the same article and makes the same changes. At this point he can only be considered a Pain for Pain's Sake. We have to repeatedly block him on the KP Wikia too. -- ZigZagStudios (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

3 months block this time. I'll be expecting your call at the end of May :). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you once again. Sounds like a date! -- ZigZagStudios (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread

The ANI thread is getting a bit long. Also, two editors who frequently support Msoamu have (along with him) launched what amounts to about half a dozen personal attacks on me across several talk pages over the past two days or so. Do you have any ideas how the ANI thread could be closed out and we can move on? Or about the behavior which I am currently facing? I'd like to say it doesn't bother me personally, but more than one of these attacks have accused me of supporting violent extremism (yes, deleting articles about topics they like equates to violent extremism) and comments like that could have real life ramifications should I ever be outed. I don't think any of it fits the criteria for an RfC though, as it hasn't reached that point I guess. Any advice would be much appreciated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The ANI will stay open until an admin decides that it's been long enough, or until a no one comments for 36 hours. You could theoretically call for it to be closed early, but I recommend against it as it likely won't help.
However, you actually probably don't want it closed, because it's the best way to explore the personal attacks. There seems to me to be a reasonable chance for this to WP:BOOMERANG back on Msoamu, if you show that there's a problem. I recommend opening up a separate sub-thread (use level 3 headers) at the end of the current thread, and provide some diffs that show how you've been attacked. Try to keep it to a paragraph or two--massive walls of text rarely get much attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
See, this is why asking for advice was good. I was originally planning to not get involved at all. You're absolutely sure making a three level header and posting some brief words about what I feel are personal attacks would help? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it may help, and likely won't cause any harm, if:
  1. You're brief.
  2. You state your concerns seriously but without malice (i.e., don't attack the other editors, simply raise the fact that you're personally feeling attacked).
  3. Pick only the best diffs. If one of them said you're irritating, or stubborn, or biased, or something like that, don't list it. Instead, focus on, for example, where they compare you or your edits to violent extremism. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I tried my best to fight against my long-winded nature. I hope it's brief enough. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Qwyrxian, I'd like to point out that I did a summary of what I saw from the dispute, both on my talk page, and copied into the ANI thread. That may or may not help you, but it's kinda buried in amongst the walls of text. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that this keeps taking more of your time, but I posted a comment on the ANI thread. Given that Hassanfarooqi and Msoamu have logged in and made a few edits, I believe they're trying to lay low until the issue just "goes away." That would disappoint me as I would like to see some sort of action taken for all the personal attacks. Basically, I'm pushing for more feedback, preferably from other admins as well. I would really like this to be resolved - Ibn Arabi and especially Talk:Barelvi both seem to be on hold until this issue is finished. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Taejo

Hi!

Regarding the family of Taejo, the mess you recently edited/removed was supposed to be the ancestry chart. I don't really know how it became the jumbled mess that it came our, but I swear it's not intentional. I made an earlier one in Princess Noguk's page and another one in Empress Myeongseong's page because the "Family" section was a horrible cluttered mess; and they were based on the Ancestry of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Please do reply soon, so I can bring up on the solution on how to fix it... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, you made an earlier revert of the family section that was earlier than my 18 February edit, and frankly I'm a bit upset about that because that edit was an up-to-date revision and mainly based on Taejo's Korean wiki-page. Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
On the chart, I can't even begin to guess what's wrong, as I haven't bothered to learn the intricacies of that type of templating; looking at the recent edits though it looks like you've got it. On the revert to the older info; sorry about that. I was worried that the bug was somewhere buried in the mess...and I was also worried that this was a continuation of disruptive edits by the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party. Feel free to remake those; it's probably easiest to go back to the history that has the version you want, copy out the Family section, and paste it into the current version. I'll let you do it because I'd be worried I'm grabbing the wrong thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, no hard feelings, I actually found out what was wrong in it a few minutes after I left my last message. XP
Ah, so that's the reason for the revert. "Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party", pffsh~, yeah right, more like North Korean hackers under direct orders from Kim Jeong-eun, that despot. (...instead of using MC or the official version, I used RR so that I can insult him freely.) XD Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Raju question

Qwyrxian, you undid my edits in the Raju article claiming that they are unsourced. If you had clicked on the link to these, you would see all the sources that you need to know that they are not my personal opinions. I didn't provided any source links partly because the details are found on those individual pages. All the geneologies of those dynasties are provided in those wiki pages. Are you saying this is not good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.29.198 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If the info were sourced on those pages, that would be okay...but it's not. Andhra Ikshvaku doesn't even mention Raju except in the categories (which should be removed since it's unsourced). Pericchedi mentions people named Raju, but nothing specifically tying two castes together. Some of the others do claim to be related to the Raju, but none of them contain the explicit claim that you added--that those dynasties are the closest connected to the Raju. So unless you can source that, you can't add it. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I am finding myself having to revert the anon IP all over the place. I am pretty sure it is Mylaptops, who has been blocked and was previously - among other thinfs - Redaloes. The Raju/Kshatriya etc POV is certainly similar but CU is a non-starter. - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
They also seem to be crossing paths with Harshavvarma but that account also has not edited for a while, so a CU might be stale. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, on an IP, the only surefire way is to find linguistic queues...or just treat the person as a new editor and deal with the actual current problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patancheru, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dasara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Bigg

Speedy deletion nomination of The last mr. bigg: He still performs, he Perfored at Natalac Birthaday bash 2012 @Applebottoms, and just cause an Artist hasn't created NEW MUSIC, but still performs his hit songs doesnt mean He doesnt exist, 2nd The song Poppin my Collar has his chorus and every other artist is noted for their contributions except him and he is also featured on three other songs on the same album how is this over looked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yameka (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We're not saying he doesn't exist, we're saying that he isn't notable. On the Poppin my Collar, the article used to explicitly say he's uncredited; because of lack of evidence, I even removed his mention there. Please take a look at WP:BAND, and let me know which point he qualifies under. If he doesn't, then he can't have a WP article. This isn't saying anything bad about him as an artist, it's just saying he doesn't meet our notability criteria; that's not unusual, as 99% of all bands/musicians ever don't. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Neologism

Can you please give citation that it is a neologism and not in common usage? It is commonly used in the media.(Lowkeyvision (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC))

There really won't be a reference to say that. For example, if I make up the word "oiwfjeow", and it gets used in some news articles, but not many, no one is going to say "the neologism oiwfjeow". However, we do have a reference saying that the word was only created in 2010, and we have our own experience of having difficulty to find the word used many times. But I can kind of see your point. I think we should discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Bigg / The Last Mr. Bigg article and Poppin my collar

Ok, First off "Mr. Bigg" / "The Last Mr. Bigg" "only if you knew" his debut album was number 9 on billboard on april 27th 2002 and reached Number 7 on may 4th in and steadily stayed at Number 7 eight more weeks in 2002 on Billboard - http://www.billboard.com/artist/311876/mr-bigg The part saying he wasn't credited on the song was wrong even then and wrong now, it's simply not true...He is in the Video also, plus on two other songs from that same 3 6 mafia album. I originally assumed He was originally part of the Group in which, That is something I can't prove but everything else i can...but here even on the Album version Poppin my Collar - You see Mr. Bigg Publishing (BMI) and D. Pears as a writer http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=2982953Yameka (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The billboard info is key here, and may be enough to make an article; I'll have to make sure that chart is one that WP uses. I'll take a look into this later today. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, at this point, I'm going to restore the article, add the billboard information, then take it to WP:AFD. This will give you and other editors 1 week to discuss the matter and add any sources you can find. I actually don't think the person is notable enough, as the chart you've found is a marginal chart that only measures catalog sales (not radio play), and there doesn't seem to be any indication of actual coverage of the person (which is required per our general notability guidelines). However, I believe that it's a close enough call that it deserves to have the week and a wider community discussion than just the call of 2 editors (including me).
However, the Poppin my Collar info isn't good enough. That picture isn't a reliable source, and even if it were, it simply verifies that a publishing company using this person's name (who is probably the same person, but not necessarily) was the publisher. That doesn't mean he wrote the song, or that he was directly involved in it. Being in the video is helpful if you can verify it (looking at the video and saying "I see him" is not verification), and even if you can, that still doesn't verify that he did anything other than appear in the video. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Dude this is a picture of Natalac and Mr. Bigg working together in 2005 so please add back the associated acts..Every song isn't going to be a million dollar seller but they been biz mates for almost 10 years http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Natalac,_Mr._Bigg,_and_Big_A_in_the_year_2005.jpgYameka (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
A picture that two people happened to be in the same room together does not verify that they are associated acts. Don't worry, most editors misunderstand that field, but it is mainly used for someone who appears in two separate groups (like when a singer in a band also has a solo career). They would need to have released multiple albums together, or have toured together many times, or otherwise have some sort of clear, sourced connection. Any such connection would have to be discussed in the article at length. In any event, don't worry about such a triviality--that article is very likely going to be deleted unless you can find reliable sources that discuss Mr. Gigg in detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Narayana Samy Nayak

Not sure whatz wrong with this user -- he goes and deletes chunks of material, or adds so and so were kamma in a disruptive manner. Involved in no talk page activity, no references, even goes and deletes History of Andhra Pradesh template. Please keep on eye on him. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I've reblocked for 2 weeks (the user was blocked for a week before), and the next time will be indefinite per the caste discretionary sanctions. I don't think I have any of his targets on my watchlist, so if he pops back up again after 2 weeks, feel free to let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Qwyrxian. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Disclosing your identity.

Why? There is no rule that states you must disclose your identity, and I choose not to. I doubt you would want to do the same, even of you have more than one username. Senor Taichi (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOCK says that you may not use more than one account except for very special purposes. If you are using this account to evade scrutiny, to votestack, to avoid blocks or bans, or whatever, then that's not allowed. I do have more than one username, and it's declared on my userpage. I'm not asking you to provide your real life identity, just the names of the other WP accounts you've edited under. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I have one from early 2008, Hendry Little. I decided to start from scratch, so I hope that quenches your curiosity. --Senor Taichi (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You haven't edited Wikipedia in 5 years? Not even anonymously? Is this intended to be a WP:CLEANSTART account (meaning you cannot return to any of the topics you used to edit) or just a new account. If it's the latter, you do need to formally link the accounts (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
A quick look at the history of List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes, along with the issue currently being disputed on the talk page, shows that Senior Taichi has also edited as an IP recently. That's not a big deal--it's reasonable to believe that the person used to have an account, gave up WP in 2008, but occasionally edited as an IP, then when he ran into trouble on an article decided to re-register. I'm not saying I actually believe the user is Hendry Little, merely that it's a plausible sequence of events. However, if you are said person, you may want to review some of our policies, as there is no question that your suggested addition to that page is a violation of WP:OR. It's certainly the case that WP is a lot more strict (or tries to be more strict) about requiring that all acts of interpretation be verified by independent sources. In this case, you're interpreting the similarity in the two names to imply a parody; I actually think that you're "right" in the sense that it probably is a parody, but that you're wrong in that the info cannot be included in WP without a source stating it's a parody. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If this is the case then he is using an autoconfirmed account to bypass the semi-protected state I requested the article to be put in after he kept hopping IPs to add this information. I would say that this is a violation of the sockpuppet policy then.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Iyengar#New_sources_on_Genetics_-_Seeking_approval.2Fconsensus_for_its_inclusion_in_the_main_article.
Message added Hari7478 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please validate it. The other users are mum on it. The source is being used in other wiki pages. Although reliably sourced, it has been reverted due to heated discussions on genetics in the past. Hari7478 (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Natalac / Nat (rapper)

just read your reply and answered them to the best of my ability...so could you pick the articles you say are note worthy and place them...thank you Sir/or maamYameka (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment please

I saw you commented earlier on Talk:Saffron terror. Would you care to comment again? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. 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) 04:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop

worrying about the deletion of the attack page that you mentioned at WP:AN. You would have been highly negligent if you'd let it stand; what you did was the only responsible thing. Thank you! Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not worried so much as trying (when I can) to not take "power"/"authority" that admins aren't actually supposed to have. Normally, WP:BLPCRIME requires the judgment of the community, but I agree that it would have been irresponsible to leave it up while the community made said judgment, as I can't imagine them making any other. But I did have a little niggling of doubt, because I've been on the opposite side of community consensus before on WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT issues, which are fairly similar. Thus I figured at least having an admin or too take a look at the deleted text should alleviate some doubt. Thanks for the encouragement! Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Publication date vs. Access date

Per this discussion. Nightscream (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's just really weird. Why would we care about Chicago? It's not nearly as relevant a style guide as APA or MLA. I don't consider that discussion definitive in any way: a help desk question is guidance, but not community consensus. Mind you, I wouldn't even consider reverting you here, as the difference is trivial. But you should tone down your edit summaries a bit—the INTERNET SHOUTING is very offputting, especially since you make it sound like it should be obvious to all editors. I also don't think you should remove the accessdates when someone else has added them in (why lose information? what's the harm?), though it should be fine if you don't add them yourself. Like I said, though, I do think that adding publication dates is always good when available. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

K A Paul

Thanks. I should have pointed out I've copied that to BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Escalation

Hey man. Things have been escalated by Msoamu, Shabiha and Hassanfarooqi during the last six hours or so. I am now clearly being accused of belonging to a "terrorist organization," in addition to still constantly being ascribed to ideologies (namely Salafism and Wahhabism) which I have expressly said I don't agree with and fear personal/professional repercussions should my IP address ever be tied to such accusations. The timing of all these accusations really leads me to believe that this is not only coordinated among them, but specifically in reaction to my personal concerns. I would really like something done about this as soon as possible, whatever it is. I don't want to feel that I am putting myself at risk simply by logging in to Wikipedia. Some of the info is at WP:ANI. As a disclosure, I am also posting this appeal to other respected editors who were involved - I feel this is a time-sensitive issue and want to increase the chances of someone intervening as soon as possible. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm about to go to bed, and can't think well enough to give this a fair consideration. Meanwhile, the "belonging to a terrorist org"--any new diffs (that is, somethign that's come up in the last 6 hours)? Qwyrxian (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
As you may have seen, I warned Hassanfarooqi last night, and when I saw that she/he had repeated the attack, I blocked for 3 days this morning. Msoamu hasn't edited since 27 February, and I don't see anything especially problematic from Shabiha (the ANI comments themselves are borderline). Am I missing anything? Perhaps a block will help everyone understand that this behavior is not acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the escalation issue is related yet separate from the conduct/content discussion at ANI, but given that a number of personal remarks took place from Msoamu and Shabiha as well during the same day on several talk pages, and given my fear that what Hassanfarooqi can have real-world repercussions for me, I feared that it was a coordinated effort against me personally - I think I exposed myself earlier by mentioning that Msoamu's original accusations that I am a jihadist about a month ago could have real-world repercussions and I basically gave out ammunition, figuratively speaking. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
If you are facing real life danger--whether it be physical danger, economic danger, or whatever—just walk away. If you need to, WP:VANISH. Seriously, Wikipedia is not worth it. It depends a lot on your situation; I know a lot of editors who have "safe" job and family situations, who deal with POV pushing and sockpuppeteering and all sorts of bad things, and they can because there's not really a lot bad that can happen to them. But if you are not in that kind of situation, Wikipedia simply isn't worth it. Yes, it's great, yes, it's terrible if POV pushers win, but there are other editors who can come along later who can fix things. And even if they don't...ultimately, you have to consider your own situation to be more important than there being some biased information on the internet. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is a great site - I love editing here. Unfortunately, now that this guy is once again accusing me of being on a "jihad" and implying that I'm a terrorist, that option might be on the table; I don't want to be put on some government watch list. It's depressing that it's come to this. I'll watch ANI a bit more, but I will take what you've suggested into consideration as well. Thanks a bunch, man. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Memon people

If you have the time then I would appreciate a review of recent activity at Memon people. I slashed it, someone has objected and within minutes, when they came close to 3RR, an IP turned up. I am not convinced that the named user is as new as appears from their talk page - they appear to be knowledgable about policy etc.

I'm probably not going to be doing much this next couple of days so the war will fizzle out anyway. But I used rollback on the IP because it seemed pretty blatant to me. That may have been a mis-use of rollback, albeit intended in good faith: it is late, I am tired and I probably should have not resumed editing after taking my meds a couple of hours ago. Feel free to revert me and give me a, erm, bollocking, Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I know not everyone agrees, but I read the rollback rules to say that it's misuse only if you don't leave an edit summary. Which, now that I look again, you didn't. So, make sure you use the embedded Twinkle rollback and leave an edit summary each time. And if you're going to cross 3RR (you didn't, but if), you may want to limit yourself to only the BLP-violating portions. Personally, I wouldn't cross 3RR to remove BLP violations when the content isn't negative/contentious, but you could probably get away with it.
As you can see on Lowkeyvision's talk page, that IP address is their's. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary/Primary sources

Hello. You had asked for secondary sources that give context to multiple studies and a broad picture, w.r.t the info on genetics that were reverted. Actually, they are secondary sources citing the following primary sources(4 of them) -- Stoneking et al. 1997; Kidd et al. 1998; Majumder et al. 1999a,b; Basu et al. 2003. The numbers alongside the branching, in Fig.1, correspond to the genetic distance between two branches/groups/clusters. Inferences such as "since the populations are known to be endogamous, similarities of allele frequenxy profiles are expected to reflect their common ancestry" have been mentioned by the authors(w.r.t Fig.1). Speaking of Fig.2(where iyengars are closely clustered with european americans), the author says "the caste populations are genetically in between caucasoid & mongoloid"(vanniyar and pallan close to mongoloid, while iyengars are in the same cluster as european americans - a close cluster in this case, as the numbers alongside the branching shows distances with other groups. Even Iyers who were previously closer to iyengars seem to be a little farther than european americans who are in the same close-cluster as iyengars). What i'm trying to say is, this secondary source uses multiple studies giving a broader picture than the cited primary sources. Link-[8]. Hari7478 (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Kanthimathi is not a secondary source. It's just another genetic study. The fact that they also look at other genetic samples just means the got multiple sources of data. A secondary source, in a scientific sense, refers to a review article, which is an article that itself contains no novel research, and rather just reviews prior literature. I want some indication that someone besides these researchers doing tiny genetic tests on tiny populations actually think these studies mean anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes & No. The primary part is their study on heterozygosity. Take a closer look. The parts that i'm looking into are just borrowed from other(earlier) works and discussed, thereby giving a broader picture. Fig.1 & the section "Genomic affinities under Results(pg.4)" are the works of Basu et al. 2003, while Fig.2(Iyengar & European-American) is a cognate of 4 different works(Stoneking et al. 1997; Kidd et al. 1998; Majumder et al. 1999a,b; Basu et al. 2003). Fig.1 has been discussed in detail while there's an overview of Fig.2. Both of these illustrative representations are discussed in detail(especially Fig.1), although the two are not their primary work at all. Please take a closer look. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hari, if you don't understand the basic format of research papers, I don't think you should be trying to use them as sources. That research paper, like all research papers, refers to previous work. This is a literature review, and a critical part of placing a new study in the context of older studies. Again: every scientific research paper, and most non-scientific research papers, do this. That does not make them review articles. Read the last paragraph before Materials and Methods, and then read the whole Materials and Methods section: this is a new, primary study. I'm done with this matter. If you want to keep wasting time on it, either start an RfC or some other form of WP:DR, but to me this is exceedingly obvious and I can't see how you could convince me otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Cinema Of Andhra Pradesh

Requesting you to lock the article from being edited until the RFC is done. RTPking (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A better solution would be for you to stop edit warring. You're the one who removed that in the first place. You can't remove something, then declare that everyone else has to go to the talk page to undo you. I recommend you stop immediately, before I or someone else blocks you for edit warring against multiple different editors. Additionally, that section isn't linked to the RfC; any decision to protect it would be unrelated to the duration of the RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not intend to edit war unfortunately I have edited the article a lot before I came to see your message here. I would like to bring it to your attention that when there is no consensus whether which industry is second largest in India, why does Tamil film industry get to mention that it is the second largest while Cinema of Andhra Pradesh does not get to mention it, I added information stating it is largest in terms of annual film production alone as per your mention on RFC conclusion.

Please see here Tamil Film Industry, the citation provided states that Telugu films industry is second in 2011 yet the article says it is the second largest in india. RTPking (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My close on the RfC said that you need to discuss further what specific details could be included, not that you could go ahead and unilaterally choose your own. Part of your edits seem acceptable, and I will reinstate the removal of the non-RS, but please discuss the rest on the talk page. Do be careful about becoming tendentious.
As for the Tamil film industry, I've opened a talk page discussion there about the inconsistency. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Please help with the article editing since I have been undone, I have provided good sources like Govt. Of Tamil Nadu and Govt. of Andhra Pradesh yet my edits have been undone on Dubbed films section - please help. I will not edit the article until you think it will not be considered as edit warring. RTPking (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting you to see these Diffs:

Thanks RTPking (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You've just explicitly asked me to WP:TAGTEAM to help you edit war. I suggest you rethink your approach. In any event, I am not taking sides in this matter--I'm still acting as a neutral admin. At this point, yes, you should stop editing the article. Discuss the matter on the talk pages. I'm monitoring them as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

But I have added information with good sources, also using the term regularly in the first line of dubbed films section violates WP:NPOV, dont you think ?RTPking (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The dead link states as he claims that the State govt. has increased taxes while, the govt. link (working) which I provided says against this sentence showing the taxes are the same. RTPking (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

RTPking, please listen carefully. Even if you are right, edit warring is never acceptable. Asking a second user to make edits on your behalf is arguably even worse, because then you're not only edit warring but trying to circumvent the rules against edit warring. Any more behavior in that regard and you are going to end up blocked. Second, trying to convince me of the merits of your edits won't help, because I'm not interested in the content dispute itself--only in making sure everyone follows the rules. You need to convince other editors...and you need to do it through more discussion and less reverting. It may be that one or more of these matters will need to be taken to mediation, but I don't think that you've quite exhausted the opportunity to discus the matter on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your efforts

The Working Man's Barnstar
For the amount of time I see you both on noticeboards and talk pages trying to sort out the messes other people make. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

To IP editor

Don't copy articles on to my talk page. Don't make random accusations that make no sense. Please either cooperate, follow WP's rules, or just go away. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

I am much obliged for your neutral and objective decision in this case.Thank You very much.I request you to kindly watch some Islam related pages like Barelvi Sufi Salafi Wahabi if you have time. Shabiha (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't responded to this before. To be honest, I'm not really inclined to start watching a bunch of high volume pages. I'm going to be decreasing my amount of WP activity in the next few months, and need to keep focused on the things that are most important to me. However, if there are any specific problems, feel free to let me know, and I will either look into it or help you figure out a helpful step. I appreciate your kind words about the decision. I do believe that all of the participants in that dispute can work productively on WP, despite their differences, as long as they're willing to talk to each other civilly and learn a bit about other WP rules. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian/Archive_44&oldid=1148818448"