User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 7

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 1

←

Archive 5

Request to mentor a student

Hi, I'm a Campus Ambassador in the Public Policy Initiative and found your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Online Ambassadors and was wondering whether you'd be up for mentoring User:vince.b.green, one of the students for Prof Gen's Environmental Policy class. I'll watch this page. Thanks! Dcoetzee 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to, although, unfortunately, I just came down with the flu yesterday. So it's going to be at least a day, if not a few, before I can provide any sort of competent help. I don't know how fast xe needs to get up and running, so if you need someone ASAP, you may want to try a different ambassador and I'll pick up the next "round". Qwyrxian (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that :-( I'll let you recover and find someone else for now. Get well soon! Dcoetzee 21:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm improving, so if you have another one come up, please let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 1, 28 January 2011

This is the second issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.

Userboxes and profiles - Add an ambassador userbox to your page, and make sure you've added your mentor profile!
Be a coordinating ambassador - Pick and class and make sure no students fall through the cracks.
New screencasts - Short videos on watchlists and a number of other topics may be useful to students.
Updates from Campus Ambassadors - Ambassadors are starting to report on classroom experiences, both on-wiki and on the Google Group.
Other news - There's a new on-wiki application for being an Online Ambassador, and Editing Friday #2 is today!
Things you can do - This is just a sample; if you're eager for something to do, there's plenty more.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

Rabbi Pinto - Help... Its 1 user who only exists for this account... and all my items are factual... its why I ask for help ? Babasalichai (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto I read and appreciate your comments to me. I use the other users talk page to discuss changes he doesnt respond - i go to the subjects talk page, he doesnt respond, and he edits my changes all the time. Simple balance... your comments and assistance are appreciated. 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So please help me here ? Other editors made changes in between me and the other individual and he went back to his originals - how can that be ok ? Babasalichai (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments simply want balance. If there's a better or clearer place to communicate let me know, but the others wont respond on any talk page. Balance and objectivity thats all. Babasalichai (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point, both Dianaa and I have responded to you. I suggest trying to respond to our comments and concerns first; worry about User:Beobjectiveplease later; while it would help if xe communicated, it's not critical right now, as both Dianaa and I seem to agree with xyr point, and we are communicating. So please don't insert either of those two phrases ("Some people think..." and "he is controversial...") without first discussing the issue on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not post controversial or some people thing without 1st discussing - Fair enough. I posted some comments on the talk page in a few places and appreciate your feedback. Babasalichai (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

yet again beobjective has posted information in spite of our dialogue its bullying. He doesnt respond to comments and doesnt accept consensus. In fact dianna and you had made earlier edits which seemed to be a compromise and he continually changes them back. Babasalichai (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The way to fix that is not to keep fighting back--it's to warn the user clearly, then, if they continue reverting, report them for edit warring, which I will do if he continues to edit war. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

So will you now edit back that Pinto hosted the fundraiser as I had there ? Its factual and he removed it. Its frustrating to communicate he doesnt respond and then you tell me I am 3RR... I am communicating and tried to he doesnt respond. So surely Pinto fundraising involvement should be there its not in dispute..he made changes despite you and dianna comments. Help. Babasalichai (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am arguably at 3 reverts for today, so I can't make any more changes at the moment. But even if I could, I shouldn't. This is still part of you wanting to go too fast. There are at least 4 editors currently active on this page. It is not correct to, as soon as 2 people seem to somewhat agree, immediately jump back to editing. Instead, why don't we work slowly, and try and see if we can come up with a consensus wording that everyone agrees. See, the problem is that you're too concerned with how the article looks right now. But that really doesn't matter--what matters is, in the long term, what the article looks like. Lets keep talking, work things out, and figure out what should or shouldn't be in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

And thats fair assuming beobjective adheres to the same rules - the 4 include me and him....and he still doesnt add info or reply and should be blocked immediately ? Babasalichai (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your assistance and wont make or suggest more changes without content.... That said can you change the biased sources and review suggestions for clarity on the page.... Appreciate your involvement as the other didnt dialogue he just bullied and made changes.Babasalichai (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Can You take a look....

.....at this persistent edit warrior. Thanks --82.46.199.25 (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so there's nothing I can do about it. However, it looks like another admin has followed up on that report. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

A few things to discuss

1. Is there a source to proves that British Actor Dominic_Keating who played Malcolm_Reed on Star_Trek:_Enterprise that he was born in 1962? He looks like he was born in 1965. Is there a verified source for this? 2. Wikipedia might want mention that Dustin_Diamond who starred on Saved_by_the_Bell was in a porn movie according to IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1328912/ 3. Would it be ok to add a photo for British Canadian author Martyn_Godfrey since he is dead from this link: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/g/martyn-godfrey/? 4. Wikipedia might want to put The_oc under the Category:Serial_drama_television_series. Just a suggestion. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, is there? Do you have a source that says he is born in 1965? There's no ref in the article at all; Memory Alpha says 1962--they're a wiki, too, so they aren't necessarily reliable, although I've heard that for Star Trek stuff they're considered to generally be accurate.
I see that you've added that to the article, but I'm going to have to revert that. imdb is never a reliable source, as they are an open wiki, and are known for having inaccurate information. Since being in a porn movie is arguably a negative thing, we'll need better evidence than that.
Probably, yes. While we can only have free files (pictures) for living people, we can use non-free files for non-living people, as long as it fits under our WP:Fair use policy. I'm not very familiar with image policy, but I believe that you should be able to upload that normally, giving a fair use argument. The main thing I know you have to do is ensure that the quality is not too high.
As for that, I have never seen The OC, so have no idea if it fits in the category. I recommend that you either just add it, and see what happens, or you go to Talk:The O.C. and discuss the issue there. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, Neptunekh2, you really have to stop asking the same question on 3 different talk pages. I went ahead and checked to see if you had, so I was able to cut off duplicated work, but if, for example, I had answered all of these, then found out that you had already got them answered elsewhere, I would have been pretty unhappy. I understand that this may be difficult for you, but if you don't change, eventually people may stop answering your questions entirely. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If Qwyrxian doesn't mind I'll just comment on Neptunekh2's first question. DK is famously tight lipped about his exact age. I don't think I've seen any official mention of it or of his year of birth (and I've read pretty much every interview I can get my hands on). Quite where the 1962 date comes from, I'm not certain. Maybe a fan managed to feed him Guinness until he told them ;). If you're really interested you could try e-mailing Linsey from DK empire but I doubt any response would be considered a RS for here. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Application

No problem! I completely understand! The easiest way to withdraw is just to edit out the field on Requests, correct? Silivrenion (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Another editor (Soap) made a modification to the RfA itself to "close" it, showing that you had withdrawn. Thanks for understanding! Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aarix3

Which editor do you mean? I vaguely recall the behavior but that name doesn't sound right and I can't find the block in my log. Do you mean October 2009 or 2010? Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I misspelled the name; it's Aariix3 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant Xyr. That's some other guy's unused doppelganger account. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. User:Aarix3 made about a dozen edits in the last month, with about 6 in the last day. In Aariix3's block log, there's an entry of you blocking him/her on 11 October 2010 for 3 months for "repeatedly posting false information". I don't see anything on his/her talk page saying that Aariix3 is a doppleganger, and there is no userpage. What am I missing? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you were using "Xyr" as a non-gendered possessive pronoun—I thought you meant an actual user account with that name, which we have. Sorry. In that case, I think what I had blocked Aariix3 for in October was repeatedly posting info about the Quito metro system, which doesn't yet exist, apparently. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I see! Yeah, I swap back and forth between different gender neutral pronouns. At this point, it sounds like the edits may be different, but I'll try to keep monitoring that editor to see if s/he is confused or is actually trying to be factually incorrect. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto 2

Isnt it not permitted for users to make legal threats ? Both diannna and beobjective please both do regularly, and they dont have logic, neither of them. They claim a source isnt legit when its against them but very legit in other circumstances. There's no logic behind their arguments other than to cite libel. Babasalichai (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither have ever made legal threats, although Beobjectiveplease was close. A legal threat is when you say "Don't say that, because otherwise I will sue you." Mentioning things like "libel" is a borderline issue, because sometimes people use the word in a legal way, and sometimes in a casual way. That's why I warned Beobjectiveplease about the word, so that he wouldn't use it again, as I didn't feel like he was seriously using the word in the legal way. What Dianaa has been trying to explain to you, on the other hand, is our policy on biographies of living people. That policy says a number of things, but, in short, says that statements about living people need to be sourced, that unsourced statements that are contentious or negative should be immediately removed, and that we should use only the highest quality sources for negative statements about living people. This policy exists for two reasons: 1) Because negative statements can do real harm to living people, and ethically we should try to avoid doing so when we can, and 2) Unsourced negative statements can be a cause for a libel suit by the real person, so Wikipedia needs to remove those immediately. So, for example, we can make factual claims, like "Person X was found guilty of murdering two people," as long as we can prove that with facts. Similarly, we can include some negative opinions, as long as they are attributed and come from very good sources, like, "In an interview on such and such day, person X was described as 'very lazy' by his coach." But we cannot include vague, unclear statements about living people from questionable sources. That's why, for instance, the Real Deal article that mentions a very vague, unclear connection to some undefined underworld is totally inappropriate for a BLP.

When Dianna mentioned that she was "protecting Wikipedia from a lawsuit" (paraphrase), she wasn't making a legal threat, she was trying to explain policy to you in a simple way. I strongly recommend that you read some of our policies, in fact. I recommend starting with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS.

Also, I want to clarify something else you say. You say "there's no logic behind their arguments other than to cite libel." That is completely false. There are many different reasons, based in several different Wikipedia policies and guidelines why much of what you want to add should not be added. Yes, I agree that there is stuff there now that should come out, and, slowly, we're working on it. You need to stop worrying about other editors, and focus on edits. When I have time, I will try to look at some more of your concerns on the Talk page, but it's probably going to be a little while. Meanwhile, please re-read what has been written by me and Dianaa--if you think all she's saying is "libel, libel", then you're not understanding her words. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok fair enough if there's somehting more clear I can do i will. Its biased now and should change. Babasalichai (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, here is an exchange I had with Baba --

I disagree and have stated so over and over again. I will wait for others to offer their input. --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You disagree but have trouble with the truth and honesty and being reliable as it shows. You said hundreds of rabbis supported it and cant show any. Sherlo's commentary will be added, and Pintos' family history too shall be removed, and his underworld involvement shall be added. Compromise is good.

Sometimes, a discussion is futile. This person is a one-sided voice and has no desire to legitimately compromise. He should be blocked altogether, along with his sockpuppets. Perhaps Diannaa will agree? --Beobjectiveplease (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry beobjective but everything you say is inaccurate and there are no sockpuppets. You cant ban someone from discussing issues and cant bully on Wiki. You cant even decide if sources are legitimate - if its good you say yes and if its not, then no. We have already agreed the red phone to gd should be removed and also the reference to 80 business people and the money. Thats agreed. Now, Pinto's family theres no reliable sources should be removed - Underworld I provided sources should be added. Qwyrxian as you requested provided further background is on talk page on Sherlo. Hes a very relevant Rabbi and important. Babasalichai (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And how do you propose to legitimately compromise ? Whats your proposal ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If you reread your comments from today you will see a number of suggestions you made have been accepted by numerous people and should be made to the page... Babasalichai (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Babaasalichai, a problem. You said, "We have already agreed the red phone to gd should be removed and also the reference to 80 business people and the money. Thats agreed." No, that's not true. I happen to agree with those plans, but just because you have 1 editor who agrees with you does not mean the issue is suddenly decided. First, Dianaa mentioned being on the fence about the red phone. Second, even if it was a situation where just 2 editors agreed and 1 disagreed, that does not mean we immediately make the change. Wikipedia isn't about voting, it's about achieving consensus. That means we need to continue to discuss the issue. If we really can't reach a solid consensus, then sometimes voting substitutes (badly) for consensus, but that is the least desirable approach.

And to both of you, you should probably stop talking about "compromise." It's not a matter of "I give in on this issue, while you give in on this issue." It's about finding the best possible edits for the article. If, between our small group, we can't agree, then there are steps we can take in dispute resolution to try to see what other editors think. But we're still at the very early stages of discussion, so lets keep talking. I think we are making progress, although we're definitely trying to tackle too many things at once. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I feel like the goalposts keep being moved. Answered and addressed all of your questions on Sherlo and now its not important ? he's a major Rabbi of course its relevant. Babasalichai (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we ask for dispute resolution ? Dianaa hasnt accepted 1 non amazing positive item on Pinto and keeps making up reasons. Its biased and she is biased. Babasalichai (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Dianaa (and I, and Beobjectiveplease) have specifically accepted or based each point based on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You think the article is biased, because you want to fill it with unverified claims that do not meet our reliable sources guidelines (especially as interpreted through BLP). Please note that dispute resolution does not start with a general "this person is biased" issue. The first step of dispute resolution is almost always a request for comment, which is where an editor raises a specific question to the community and general to see if anyone else has input; an alternative first step would be if we had a question that a specific noticeboard could help us with. For example, if we couldn't agree whether or not a source is reliable, we would go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask there. But if you try to open a charge that Dianaa is a biased editor, given your history of biased editing on the article, I guarantee you will not only fail, your claim will very likely bounce back on you. Stop focusing on other editors. Focus on providing quality sources. For example, on Sherlo, you still haven't provided any of the evidence you need to provide--you keep providing links to articles he's written or quoted in. You need to show very conclusively that his opinion matters (i.e., you need an explicit statement that his opinion matters). WP:NPOV says that we cannot include opinions if we can't show that they are important opinions; nothing you have provided so far gives proof that Sherlo's opinion is considered important enough for inclusion.

Keep working on the article. And seriously, calm down. You're trying to solve every single thing all at once, and it's too much. There's no deadline--we can work carefully through each part, step by step. We are making progress; we're close to agreement on removing the red phone comment, for example, and we've nearly reached consensus on a number of other issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You want to tell me theres not puffery in the articles ? Revered sage ? Prominent ? Influence ? Rabbi to the stars ? These are all words that dont fit in a bio. Sources dont even fit for the family and other stuff they claim is valid. Babasalichai (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say there isn't puffery. I haven't even started to look into that issue yet. We really can't tackle everything at once--or, at least, I can't. Some of those words do fit, especially, for instance "rabbi to the stars", although others may not. It's no different than, for example, how Michael Jackson is clearly described as being called the "King of Pop." If an opinion is widely held, we are supposed to represent that opinion. We need, of course, to be careful to source opinions and make sure they meet WP:DUE. But, again, the big message is, we will deal with all of the relevant points, step by step. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not widely held - 1 or 2 papers wouldnt characterize widely held. That said you asked for Sherlo details showing he's prominent. Now all his criticism is relevant right ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commented at the article. I strongly recommend that you do not comment right now--let Dianaa and beobjectiveplease give their feedback in light of this new information. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And how can we start to resolve the other issues which remain ? Babasalichai (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Babasalichai (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

How can we start to resolve some of the issues being debated ? Some of them are clear ? Babasalichai (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Which ones do you think are clear? The only thing that seems even close to clear to me is the red phone comment, and, even for that, I see two different suggestions about what to do after we remove it (Anna Frodesiak recommends removing the whole paragraph, Beobjectiveplease recommends adding in some other info instead). Oh, right, and the removal of the partisan news source (although not the removal of any info, since that is verified by other reliable sources). So, I guess I can make an edit request on the partisan source. Is there something else you think is clear?

A Year without Rain Platinum in Chile & Kiss & tell Gold in Argentina

Can you please edit the Selena Gomez page and Put the Platinum certificacion on Chile. I've been trying to find the certification on the site but I don't know why.

this is the site but they don't seem to have a database http://www.ifpichile.cl/actividades.html

Anyways ISn't it realiable seeing her holding the Platinum Record they gave her when she was there? I think it is.

http://selena-fan.org/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=42373&fullsize=1

also in the Argentina Page they don't have a database. But Kiss & Tell went gold

http://www.ciudad.com.ar/musica/77864/selena-gomez-me-encantaria-grabar-un-tema-con-el-grupo-aventura

You can see it on the first picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.90.1 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that isn't reliable. For one, the first is just a fan site, so we can't even verify that the picture is her. Second, just because she's holding something that looks like a gold album we can't tell what that picture really is of. However, you don't need the info to come from a database--a newspaper report would be fine, even one in Spanish. IS that what the second is? I can't tell if that is a newspaper, or personal site, or what. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the second one is a spanish newspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.90.1 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And this is a site from Chile, a news site that talks about the Platinum in Chile http://enterartenoticias.blogspot.com/2011/02/selena-gomez-recibe-disco-de-platino.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.90.1 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That site from Chile isn't a news site, it's a blog, so it doesn't meet the reliable sources guidelines. The article in the Argentinian newspaper though is fine; I'll add that to her page in a few moments. Thanks for finding that source; if you do find an RS for Chile, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, a problem; since I can't really read Spanish, I'm having difficulty figuring out which album by Gomez that Argentina news article is about. Dos it say there somewhere? As a side note, the info will go on the article of the album, not on Gomez's main page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it says she recieved the Gold Record on the captation , and you can tell It's kiss & Tell cause of the picture, on the newspaper they don't say it clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.90.1 (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also does this Site useful for the Chile rhing? http://www.apocalipsisfm.cl/cms2/?p=626 it's actually a site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.90.1 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable interpreting that the album is Kiss and Tell by identifying it from the picture. But, on the other hand, I don't edit music articles very much. What I recommend doing is going to Talk:Selena Gomez and asking there--while the information will be added to the album pages, the Gomez's page probably has more watchers. For one, you might find more Spanish speaking editors there who can read the sources you're providing. Also, they may be more or less comfortable making the ID of the picture than I am. Sorry I'm not more helpful--since music is a bit outside of my area of focus, I tend to be cautious when adding information. Let me know if that doesn't work, and I'll try to do more research. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: reflist on babieca.com

Your welcome. Been adding stuff in where/when I can GT (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nose

こんにちはQwyrxianさん、元気ですか？User:LEVINIです。先ほど記事をNOSEからOlfactory systemへ移動させたんです。これで良いでしょうか。これがよけれべ、ほかのSENSORY　SYSTEMSのすべてに、このような記事を挿入します。よろしく。

すいません。私は日本語を少しいだけ話せます．英語でいいですか？ The information you added to Nose is correct information, I think, but it doesn't belong in nose. Instead, that information belongs in Olfactory system. In fact, that information is already correctly in Olfactory system. Compare, for example Eye, Human eye, and Visual system. Only Visual system contains information about the neural pathways from eye to brain; eye does not. So, in the same way, nose should not have that information. Another way of saying it is that Nose is the article that is only about the organ called the "nose", and not all of the parts it connects to. Olfactory system, on the other hand, is the larger bodily system that includes many different organs, so it makes sense to have the neural pathway there. Does that answer you question? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Qwyrxian. Fortunately English is my mother tongue. I lived in Japan and worked for Japanese companies for a long time, hence the Japanese. I moved the info to the Olfactory_system. Which I think is better also. I want to make a step by step list, that is easier to understand, I'll be changing the list a bit to make it more precise. I've done the same type of list for all the other senses but don't want to add those lists unless this one is acceptable. If you don't think such a list is necessary, I have no problem with such a decision. If you think it's ok, I'll add the other lists to the other senses. よろしく

Don't mean to interrupt, but you probably would want to polish it a bit. The list at this stage doesn't really meet the standards of scientific communication. Even if you are a working neurophysiologist or medical doctor, it's still worthwhile to check on a few textbooks and see how they usually present these concepts. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar, although thinking about it from a stylistic perspective rather than a scientific one. It seems to me that there might be a better way to present the information, such as in a table. That table might have the name of each organ/sub-organ that the signal passes through, the function of that system, something else? Bobthefish2 is right that a textbook might give us an idea, although we do have to be careful not to copy the textbook. If you don't know how to make such a table (or don't want to go to the effort to do so, as tables aren't the easiest thing in the world on WP), I think it's okay to add the information anyway, under the "incremental improvement" idea (you add it, someone else improves it, etc.). The information should also be sourced, if possible. In this case, either a standard human anatomy guide or even a college/graduate level textbook should suffice. It's not strictly necessary, but it's preferable.

Now, it is possible that, after you add it, other editors may remove it. The big question for me would be whether or not that info is already in the articles in prose form, in which case it could be argued that prose form is better than table for mfor an encyclopedic article. That would be up to interested editors at each article. Maybe you could roll it out at each article, one at a time, and then wait for a while and see if anyone responds. I'm not too much of a science editor, so I don't know standard style and format conventions on those articles so well. I hope this helps. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick glance at the rest of the neurophysiology-related pages tells me that there isn't much of a professional standard set on the topic in general (for example, the Dopaminergic_pathway has barely anything and it's a very important topic in the field). In other words, looking to other wiki-pages will probably not give a good idea of what styles to use (in case anyone was wondering about that).

Since this is intended to be a step-by-step description of a mechanism, having an accompanying flowchart with labels would be helpful. An example figure can look somewhat like this (albeit with more details and higher quality).

Personally, I'd suggest the section to take the form:

Some introductory glob or overview... yadda yadda yadda (Figure 1).

(1) The first step

Some descriptions. Link to sub-article if necessary.

(2) The second step

Some descriptions. Link to sub-article if necessary.

... and so on.

In terms of actual content, I can't really help you there since my expertise is not in physiology. Since User:Qwyrxian seems to know the olfactory system well, I guess he can help you with the details. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That format sounds good to me. As for the Olfactory system, the only reason I edit Nose is because it used to have a bunch of prejudicial statements which could have been interpreted as anti-Semitic, along with a bunch of unsourced claims that I removed. :) That's me--rampant editor of all sorts of things I know almost nothing about. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the feed back. I'm actually making a new detailed flow chart using Sherif-drawplus, but it's the first time I've every used such a thing and finding it really tedious. But i am persisting. I'll put the list into a nice box and see how that goes. And try and make it sound a little more professional. Leveni 21feb2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leveni (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bob

Enough is enough. There is a combative atmosphere on the talk page and people are being driven away by Bob's attitude. I'm sure you hoped it wouldn't come to this, but we can't move forward until he leaves, is banned from the pages or starts acting in mature way. Sorry, simply hoping he'll be nice won't work. I've filed a report at Wikiquette alerts, and it would help if you could add your comments there, as I have named you per your messages on Bob's talk page. John Smith's (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

thouron

why are you changing it back? i am putting in useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidcontributer (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks

Hebrew Christian: Yes, I'm quite aware of it all, as you may know. I wasn't involved in this whole deal at all, until I saw the multiple back-and-forths; maybe you could act as a mediator as well. I don't know much about the topic, and as a layman, I ask myself "wtf?"... 'cause I'm really curious what the difference here might be. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; I only spotted it because Dekn (mistakenly) added the edit semi-protected request. I'd like to see what both Dekn and the other editors do next; ideally, dialogue would be worthwhile. Do you know where the discussion was held that caused the other editors to merge in the first place? I don't even see it on the redirect's target. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it got archived; this has been going on for a month or more. Talk:Messianic_Judaism/Archive_20#Newly_updated_Wikipedia_article_.22Hebrew_Christian.22 Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, a mess, that. I will admit, it's a bit odd for that conversation to have occured at Talk:Messianic Judaism. I, personally, am not seeing the POV problems their pointing out, although maybe its subtle or maybe those problems were fixed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

José Sócrates

What makes you believe this piece of text is a sourced statement? "The Portuguese wikipedia page is still hard to edit and there are no references at all to the face oculta investigation and scandal.http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_S%C3%B3crates" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouramoor (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them

This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Patna

Thank you,For posting a reply on the page i requested. I hope,i am not troubling you a lot. sorry for deleting the request i made on your page. Actually, i noticed it was posted under another topic.Anyway, thank you again,for replying me.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know if you need any more help. BTW, when you want to make a new section, you have two choices. First, instead of clicking "Edit", if you click new section, it will automatically set you up in a new place, with a small entry box at the top for a section title. In case you're editing more than one section, the way to make a new edit is just to put the title of the section with 2 equal signs on each side, which looks like ==This is my new section== when you type it. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

groups of students in need of mentors

Hey Qwyrxian. One of the classes working with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, Jonathan Obar's Media and Telecommunication Policy, is working in small groups and would like us to assign a mentor to each group (rather than having students request the mentors they'd like, as other classes are doing).

I invite you to sign on as the mentor for one or more groups, especially if any of the topics catch your interest. To sign up, go to the course page and add yourself as "Mentor: you" in the section for that group. They students and/or professor or campus ambassadors should be cleaning things up soon to list all the usernames for each group and add a few more groups. Once you know who the students are in the group, you can leave them each a quick introduction to let them know you'll be mentoring their group.

Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added myself to mentor the Media Access Project group. They don't have usernames yet, so I can't contact them directly, but I'll check back in for when they do. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Concern from another user

I have no idea how to respond to a "talk page" is this how? I don't really think it's acceptable that the bot targeted all of those pages for deletion. A few of them have been around for years, and as for the others, I was only trying to contribute to the Architecture portal... I'm not really sure how to make an argument to a robot...? Any suggestions? User:Chadillaccc (talk)

Basically, except you need to put new comments at the bottom of the page, and don't pipe your name to the name of another user (instead, just put four tildas at the end of your message to automatically sign). Regarding those deletion discussions, it was not done by a robot--only human editors can tag a page for deletion. In the case of those lists, it looks like it was User:Fram who nominated them for deletion. In order to participate in the deletion discussion, what you need to do is go to one of the articles, and look in the top box that says. There's a link that says "this article's entry". Go there, and explains why Fram nominated these for deletion. The basic idea is that these lists don't meet our notability guidelines for lists. That is, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not designed to have an article about every single different topic, instead restricting it to those that are notable. At that discussion, Fram gives a full reason. You can discuss there if you disagree, although note that you may want to read the notability policy first to have an idea of the criteria being used to judge whether or not the lists should be articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From a vandal

Why did you delete my edit? Have you even VISITED Hawaii, let alone my home town of Paia? I don't appreciate when a gaijin Gestapo comes marching around especially with things they don't know about such as the situation of where I live. Despicable!--64.75.183.226 (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted your edit because your edit was vandalism, per WP:VANDAL. Thanks for playing. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You got called a Nazi! Adminship can't be far behind.... ;0 --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that how the career path goes around here? I suppose at some point I shall have to pick up the bucket...As a side note, if you look at the IP's contribution history, you'll see that the vandalism I deleted was at least slightly more creative than the usual junk. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are funny. Oops, I meant to say they are wicked vandalistic edits, so sorry. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Patna

Hi, when/if you have a moment could you just try connecting to any of the first three websites mentioned in External links on the Patna article please? They're all national/provincial government websites. I marked them as dead because I could not connect to them. Someone else (who possibly may live in India) has untagged them because they are accessible to him/her.

I am a little concerned about reliance on these particular links, which are also used inline. I understand WP:AGF but there have been several statements made in the article which were in fact not supported by their citations. I think that in most cases this has been due to an imperfect command of the English language, although my command of Urdu etc is absolutely zero & so I'm wary of getting too mired in this. The problem is that if the sources cannot be checked by people outside India, and who possess a reasonable grasp of the subtleties of the English language, then the outcome of AGF could possibly be further mis-statements of fact.

I know India blocks some non-Indian sites but was not aware of the country blocking access to their own sites from outside. The errors I have been getting are sometimes 404s and sometimes server timeouts. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I took out all but 2 EL, per WP:EL (see the edit summary). I'll try to look at the rest of the info later; you're right, non-English links are tough to deal with, because we allow them, but it's hard when we can't check the edits. Post on the article talk page which inline links you're worried about, and I'll try to take a look in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will put a note on the talk page later today if the relevant linked sites do not suddenly start to work. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

prejudices

Hi, Qwyrxian!

Thank you for your comment below my post at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. In my reply there I explained my inclination to {{u|username}} template as a technical necessity helping to avoid typos… meanwhile I guess that this drawback is not the actual cause of 'prejudices' :))). Formula of my 'general deficiency' sounds like this: "Laconism is not my virtue". That is what may annoy most.

Anyway (if you really had the patience to read that text to the end) — is it really true that there is "little actionable material in that complaint"? Cherurbino (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I just now scanned what you wrote there, along with the ANI report, and I'm inclined to agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise. This is doubly true because xe has a lot of experience working with areas of Wikipedia that draw constant and painful disputes, and regularly moderates them. In fact, FPOS is usually more aggressive than many other admins in attempting to rein in POV pushers, and the fact that he didn't do anything is quite telling to me. Furthermore, I don't agree with some of your key assertions in your complaint to DonaldDuck that, implicitly, he had to defer to you first, raising questions and concerns prior to making changes to the article. In any event, if DD is now talking on the talk page, then it's time to do that: talk. We don't "take action" against editors simply because they disagree about content; and making bold changes to an article is acceptable so long as one is willing to discuss afterward if others object. One thing I can recommend, having been on the inside of highly disputed articles as well: don't try to tackle everything at once. Take care of one point at a time, figure it out, then move on. Try to pick out the things that you think are most in need of changing, and start a discussion on those. If the two of you can't decide among yourselves, use one of the many dispute resolution methods we have, like asking for a third opinion, asking for help at a relevant Wikiproject, or getting advice from a relevant noticeboard like WP:NORN or RSN. But don't jump to ANI just because you're disagreeing; ANI is essentially a place of next-to-last resort, and you're barely at the first step. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

About Libya

I prefer to answer here rather than on the article Talk page, since I realize my intervention is not really relevant as directly concerns the article content but is a more general reflexion about what policies are good or wrong.

I quote your intervention, followed by my answer

"While Berber1's choice of words above leave something to be desired his/her sentiment is dead on. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. We do not need to get this right right now. We don't need to be continually combing through the papers/other sources, waiting to spring on the moment when we can confidently say "Now, right now, the sources switched ever so slightly into saying the old government is illegitimate and the rebels will form a new one." Our job is never to try to capture the state of "truth" right now, especially in a situation like this one that is changing moment by moment. When the situation becomes totally clear, then we can make changes. At some point it will almost inevitably become correct for us to remove the flag, leaving it blank until a full government is formed, then eventually we'll be able to add in a new flag. But Wikipedia should always be lagging far behind both "new media" and the traditional media." Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your position seems wise, but I disagree though. The fact that a situation is "not clear" is not a reason per se to leave articles in a flawed state - to which could be added that situations happen to remain "not clear" for a long time, see Ivory Coast for two months now, or Afghanistan around 2000, or Spain during the Civil War... The "NPOV" rule is a primordial policy - as soon as two non marginal opinions coexist, we cannot say "we do not know the truth" as a reason to give precedence to the older one. As you rightly write, our job is not to capture a state of "truth" ; but it is our job to glue together all the current hypotheses about what the "truth" could be, as synthetically as we can manage it. French Tourist (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your help, I now know more about Wikipedia then I ever have... you're the only regular user that LISTENED to what I had to say! I'm sorry that I forgot to log in. 67.83.217.67 (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I removed your username above only because it's usually better not to link your IP with your username openly (although it's in the history if someone really wants it). Please ask if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft RfC

Are you going to start one for Bob after Tenmei's has finished? John Smith's (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the nature of Bob's actions make other routes more appropriate. After the most recent comment (that I saw), I issued what I consider to be a "final warning" for personal attacks. Personal attacks are clear, unacceptable violations of WP:CIVIL, and, as such, can and should be dealt with more directly, either through an uninvolved admin, or through ANI. Essentially, for me, WQA served the same purpose that an RFCU should: to point out clearly to the editor in question that his behavior is not in line with community standards, that uninvolved people looking at the situation see the same type of problems, and that he should change his approach. Bob seems to have rejected this advice; as such, I think we are at the point where he needs to either decide to start acting within community norms, or to be blocked for impeding our ability to collaborate. Personally, I prefer the former, but I also understand if he is unable or unwilling to make the switch to our style of interaction. His playfulness I can live with, and even his sarcasm can be managed, but there are times where, in my opinion, he has clearly crossed the line into behavior that is not tolerable.

So, ultimately, I don't think an RFC/U will cause his to change his behavior if WQA did not. If you see another instance of a personal attack, or really obvious and unacceptable incivility, then I think it's time to move directly to a forum which has the tools necessary to prevent further disruption. You are welcome to either raise the issue yourself, or, if you prefer, I can do it. One point of fair warning: as you've probably read in a variety of places, Bobthefish2 has leveled charges that you've been equally incivil. The only time I personally recall that was your comment about Webster's dictionary, but Bob claims its on-going. In any forum in which this might be raised, it is always the case that your own behavior will incur additional scrutiny. Personally, I don't think your incivilities rise to the same level as Bob's, but Bob claims I've either come to the discussion late or I've willifully ignored your infractions. So, even though I don't think you have anything to worry about, I don't want you to be upset if your behavior is scrutinized. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't really say as I would have a trouble with someone commenting on my editing behaviour. I think Bob's latest comment on the NPOV thread was "unhelpful" to say the least. But realistically what can be done? An ANI thread would be a bit much just for being rude, don't you think? I think a RFCU would be required before arbitration could be considered. John Smith's (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian you deserve a barn-star for reminding our British friend that he is also subjected to scrutiny in such a RFC/U [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs)

(ec, this is responding to John Smith) Yes, that was the one I gave him a final warning for, regarding personal attacks. Personal attacks are actionable, although how actionable depends on the circumstances, intensity, and frequency of the attack. I would consider another statement on that level to deserve either a visit to an admin or a thread on ANI. It's a very fine line for me, and, of course, different editors would draw that line quite differently. And, yes, you are correct that it is usually preferable to use RFCUs prior to requesting arbitration; but for me, the goal isn't arbitration, but to just stop the disruption (everyone's). I mean, in a certain sense, arbitration might be beneficial because I think it would be helpful to have the topic under general sanctions, but I don't really see us at that point. However, as I said to Bob above, if someone else prepares an RFCU, I will do my best to read it fairly and respond appropriately. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are your edits so unreliable?

I was recently viewing a discussion page where you said to someone "please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Youtube is almost never a reliable source; the only time we would ever use Youtube would be if it were the official channel for a news organization, a documentary project, etc. Note that the above user who talks about asking Jason Statham--even that wouldn't be a reliable source, because we would have no way to verify that the person speaking is Statham. I know this all sounds strange, but it's the way Wikipedia works. You have to get a source that meets the reliable sources guideline in order to make this change". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I then looked at what you personaly classed as a "reliable source" wich was an article from sombody in the United States in a small part of Seattle. I fail to see how that would be the most reliable source around,some American in a small part of Seattle writing an article on a very small British film,wich back then nobody would of even heard of the film or cast (many people in Britain are still unaware of the cast let alone over in America)

People have supplied much more reliable links with actual written interviews with Jason Statham present,but it would seem that you just ignore them for some strange reason?

I have since been in touch with Wikipedia and they took a look at Jason Stathams discussion page and your actions and said that your editing work was unreliable and that the other links provided (Youtube video included) were a good source and a much more reliable source and that i should make contact with you personaly first to see if you would take note and rectify the error?

If not i have to report back to Wikipedia for them to take appropriate action.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs Kippling (talk • contribs) 02:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about the term "reliable source". On Wikipedia, this term has a very specific meaning, as defined in the reliable sources guidelines. Youtube links never qualify as reliable sources except in the very special cases where the video is posted on the official channel of a news site, production company, or other similar site. The problem is that we don't have any way to verify the authenticity of other videos, so, as a blanket policy, they are not allowed.

As for the other links, I never saw them, because I don't actually watch or regularly edit the Jason Statham page. In fact, I've never, even once, edited that article. I came to that page only to respond to the one specific edit request, which only cited the youtube source. I don't control that page (in fact, no one does). Any other editor who does watch that page (of which, btw, there are 120) could have made the changes as well. Furthermore, I have to question your claim that you are "in touch with Wikipedia", since Wikipedia is basically just a collection of volunteers like myself. Perhaps you contacted an administrator, or the OTRS system? But if you had, the 1) would have told you that I never edited the page, 2) that youtube links don't meet WP:RS, and 3) had they somehow thought I had done something wrong, they would have come to me here on my talk page. So I'm a little concerned with the tone you're taking, which seems vaguely threatening and not honest (or, at least, not clear).

If I have time, I'll try to wade through the big long list of links that I see there and figure out if any of them meet WP:RS; if they do, I'll change the information on the page. If I don't get to it, you are certainly welcome to add a new {{editsemiprotected}} section to that talk page. Your best option is to use major newspaper or magazine articles, not videos, blogs, or fan sites. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at the page and the previous discussion, and, basically, it's a big mess--there are reliable sources that support both years. Perhaps the article should list both, I'm not sure. In any event, it's far more than I want to deal with, given the complexity of the issue and my complete lack of interest in the subject. I recommend you pare through your list and pull out only those that meet our WP:RS reliable sources guidelines. After that, post to the talk page and see if you can get consensus to list both years based on multiple sources. But first weed out all of the unreliable sources (any videos not published by the original content provider, any blogs, imdb or other user edited sources, etc.). Then the question will be to determine how to determine handle competing information. After you've started that discussion, you may want to bring the issue to WP:BLPN, which is our noticeboard for handling issues on articles about living people. I hope this helps, and sorry I can't do more, but it's beyond my field and I have a lot on my wiki-plate at the moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What next?

It appears the influx of outside opinion (User:Nlu and User:OhConfucious) helped bring some existing disputes to a close. Now, I believe we should decide what to do next. I hope you do realize from this that cooperation with certain editors are impossible and that some of them are willing to go out of their way to be obstructive. While I may appear to be vindictive in pressing the issue, I am also realistic enough to know that constructive efforts will not occur when these people are involved.

I agree with you that RFCU and ANI is going to be a lot of work, so I would like to see if you have any practical suggestions in dealing with these rogue editors. Or maybe we should just walk away and stop caring about this since the page's locked? Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to check today or tomorrow if we really do have consensus on the change to the Remin Ribao, and finalize the wording. If that is fine, then we can make an edit request and ask an admin to make the change. Then we can figure out what to do next on the article.

As far as those you call "rogue editors", if you want an RFCU, I think you need two things: a lot of diffs to show exact, specific behaviors that either violate or at least flout behavioral policies or guidelines. Second, you need evidence that the problem is ongoing right now. If we do get consensus on this change, especially if we get it without too much resistance from other editors, that's some evidence that the problem is being relieved. Not solved, certainly, but relieved. If the problem becomes current again, that would be the time if you still want to file an RFCU. ANI specifically requires a current problem--you would need to show that right now an admin needs to use one of their special buttons to solve some problem. We're definitely not at that state right now. AN (the Adminstrator's noticeboard, which is where banning or topic banning discussions would start) will usually require at least an RFCU first, as you'll need to show that the problem was attempted to be solved in other, less extreme ways, without success. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I guess this can wait until the next time they pull the same crap. I will post a thread on consensus of this matter some time in the near future. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have accused me of a WP:CIVIL violation in my talk page. While I generally pay little heed to warnings that I don't agree with, I consider it impudent to write a wall of complaints on someone's talk page when you did not appear to be interested in backing that with specific arguments or replying to any refutations.

Since you appear to be touchy about WP:CIVIL and lack of WP:AGF, I would like to remind you of the nature of the responses you've been receiving from certain individuals. If you deem my attitude to be questionable, then I consider your continual tolerance to the others' disposition towards you to be somewhat puzzling.

In any case, you are not obliged to elaborate on your accusations regarding my behaviour. In turn, I don't feel obliged to take this issue seriously when I don't find the arguments to be convincing. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I misread your response on your page. I thought that you were saying, "If you want to pursue this, then you better get all your diffs in order and lay them out." Since I essentially declined to pursue it--instead, I basically considered my message to your page to be a "final warning"--I thought that compiling the diffs was unnecessary. However, I will be happy to compile such a list when I have time. At the latest, I'll get to it on Sunday (my time). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Like you, I also consider this a waste of time. But since you wrote a large block of warning in such an angry tone, it appears to be a good idea for me to get this matter ironed out.

In general, I have a good sense of which conversations you are referring to and suspect it has much to do my alleged intolerance of dissenting opinions and criticisms of other peoples' assessments. It could also be related to Oda Mari's protests and refusal of commentary.

My position is that I haven't gone overboard with my attitude and that you have been careless or overtly naive in comprehending the nature of these exchanges. As courtesy, I provided what I consider as a refutation of your complaint about my allegedly rude response to John Smith's request of a summary.

Anyhow, take your time. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I wrote a reply to a point you made (which may or may not be off the mark). I thought it's worth mentioning since it's currently buried in some massive essays of philosophical English. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A large drop of imaginary sweat (anime-style) ran down my forehead when I read this and that. Thankfully, User:Nihonjoe excused the necessity of having to deal with this... at least for the near future. However, it may be an indication that you are up for more resistance in that RfC on PD. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up. I've removed that information from that article (not one that I was watching before), with (what is for me) a very strongly worded rebuke on the article talk page. I have about a dozen more things I want to say, but my bodily reactions (a feminist reading of the knowledge residing in my body) tells me that I better not say them now as I'm too angry. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know you are a woman. If you honestly are angry about this, you should take a step back and remind yourself that the people you are dealing with are just random people online. This thought can help to trivialize the meaning associated with the actions of other people. Alternative, you may find some harmless sarcasms, parodies, and puns to be exceptionally good sinks of negative emotions. I think my British friend agrees.

Anyhow, my original intent was not to trigger any sort of action from you, but rather I actually did find his efforts to be comical. In the end, he's making things easier for me. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm male, but a feminist (one of my fields of academic study as well). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, do you want to ask User:Tenmei again to reply whether or not he's conceding the PD matter? I've made such a request to him, but it appears he's unwilling to respond to my calls these days. Once that's settled, we can explore some possibilities on something you brought up if you are still interested. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I raised it on the article's talk page, which should be sufficient. If necessary, I'll start a new section and raise it again. I'm not quite sure what to do after that....sigh, sometimes it's painful actually trying to edit neutrally rather than be on a "side", because both "sides" get angry when I call them out on their problems.

Hmmm, I just realized that one thing I could do would be to raise the issue at WP:ORN. It's an interesting idea; going to multiple different noticeboards and asking the same question, hoping to get the answer you want from one of them is WP:FORUMSHOPPING...but I wonder if it still counts if I actually got the answer I wanted at the first one, and am trying to confirm that answer again at another? I'll think it over first. As for the other issue, I am continuing to prepare the RFC/U. It's not very pleasant work, because it only indirectly gets towards the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Plus, Tenmei has a lot of contributions, so searching through them to find the diffs I need takes a lot of time, plus the effort of organizing that info into a coherent summary of what I believe the problem is. I certainly hope that once I get it prepare and file it, that you'll certify it, as an RFC/U needs to be certified by at least 2 users in order to remain listed. No timeline, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... you can certainly view this being a two-sided contest, but I'll remind you that I have almost always been right on issues (so far). This includes the geographic tables, my complaints on User:John Smith's and User:Tenmei's edits, and this little PD matter. While I do chew on you (and anyone else) for writing things I find ridiculous (such as what you just wrote in Talk:Senkaku Islands), I generally don't consider that as personal (unless you decide to make it a common occurrence).

At the same time, I do take offense at some of labels being thrown at me... that approximately resembled:

Made up my mind on everything
Refused to take disagreements
Intimidated other users out of a discussion (for this, I wonder if you actually bothered to read what's going on before waving your angry finger at someone)

Since you are now in some serious disagreements with User:Phoenix7777 and User:Tenmei, it appears I wasn't such a megalomaniac after all... but rather I simply had the privilege of being exposed to them earlier.

As for User:Tenmei, I would agree that filing something against him is as painful as pulling teeth. So that's why I consider an RFC/U is unproductive. If you need something to start with, you can check my subpage B, but before you start, you should probably go back to the NPOV forum and look at User:Oda Mari's latest argument. If you want to go through with an RFCU, it helps to assert complete logical dominance on this issue first. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I've got what I wanted. Here's a sound rationale on why I don't think a RFC/U on our philosophical friend is useful. Suppose you disagree and would like to provide me with some form of counterargument, here are some guidelines I would like you to follow. Hope this helps.

I still believe in the system, though--the idea that, here, we give people the chance to alter their behavior prior to "throwing the book at them." I honestly believe that some people (not all, but some), will, when presented with clear community input, especially from uninvolved editors, make alterations in their behavior that makes collaboration possible. I've seen it happen, and I've seen it fail. It's the same reason why, whenever someone comes onto a page with a request already soundly rejected by the community (like removing images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, or asking to change the name from Liancourt Rocks to Dokdo, I give the person the benefit of the doubt and try to explain to them how our process works.

Even if I didn't agree with all of the above, however, I also know that, practically speaking, going to ANI with an issue like this before an RFC/U is filed is even more fruitless. It's too complex, too diffuse, involving too many different problems. I'm not even sure what administrative remedy I'd want to ask for, as I don't really think their is one until the problem is clearly delineated. At best, after becoming a big fat messy thread, the ANI editors would either tell us to file an RFC/U, or maybe an uninvolved admin would write a cautioning statement on Tenmei's talk page. But if I file an RFC/U, and other uninvolved editors point out that there is a problem, and Tenmei is advised to change, then, if the problem doesn't get better, then ANI becomes a much easier path. But, again, to clarify--I don't ever want to bring this up at ANI if I don't have to. I want Tenmei to keep participating, but to do so more collaboratively. This is exactly like how I didn't want you to stop participating, either, but I wanted you to be more civil (no matter what context you perceive warrants your incivility). I don't believe Wikipedia can succeed (in the long run), if our first thought is to throw out bans to stop editors who don't edit exactly the way we want them to. The very collaborative, ad hoc, chaotic nature of this project doesn't work under a strict regime. If there is any hope that we can solve this problem via discussion and advisement, then I choose to take that route. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Even though he has never been subjected to a RFC/U, he clearly has received enough warnings. Let's see...

Multiple individuals (including admins) told him to write in normal English -> Refused
An admin deleted his sorry excuse of a table in Foreign relations of Japan and told him the table is POV -> Moved the table to Counterargument and kept going
Numerous people told him his WP:SYN and WP:RS concerns are irrelevant -> WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT

The feeling I get from User:Tenmei is that he's not the type who listens. His zealous attitude towards the PD article and extremely POV tables is an indication that his POV-level is off the charts. To top it off, he has some very serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues and considers a lot of things to be baiting and conspiracies. With such a personality, I highly doubt he'd swallow some RFC/U and somehow become a good little User:Qwyrxian - come on let's be realistic.

Now, let's consider the utility side. Can you tell me what User:Tenmei had actually contributed? If my memory serves, almost every notable edit he made eventually had to be extensively cleaned up or deleted. If you ever find this page to be a chaotic mess, he's responsible for at least 1/2 of it.

With that said, I doubt you'd change your mind on this. But since a RFC/U preparation is basically the same as an ANI preparation, I suppose you can always decide differently at some point... such as after reading enough of his diffs. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw your note about Counterargument, and looked at the article, but I thought xe had just added the blank table to the middle. I didn't scroll down to see the replication of the SI documents table. I've reverted it. That is a blatant and unmistakable violation of WP:COATRACK. I'll reformat your addition to my rfcu draft, if you don't mind. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, do whatever you like with it.

By the way, I have pondered about writing an RFC/U about a fellow Briton for a while. I am afraid his WP:COMPETENCY it's becoming an issue (hopefully you don't consider that as a personal attack). While you may be sympathetic towards him due to my often dismissive attitude, he has been deliberately raising impotent arguments on a regular basis. This has gotten to the point that my threshold for incivility is being tested. If you are unconvinced of my concern about WP:COMPETENCY, I can provide you with a number of recent examples where he wrote gibberish and expected others to take him seriously.

In addition, I suspect he has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (some of which permeated to Tenmei). At one point, he accused me of edit-warring and conspiring to get pages locked (throughout all this, he was being very uncivil). Since he had refused to acknowledge or apologize for this offense, I don't consider the issue resolved.

Even though you might have issues with intolerance being shown towards the offending party, it is not good practice to use WP:CIVIL as an excuse let the offending party to go off to do more damage and potentially trigger more WP:CIVIL from others. Now, I don't necessarily need your support for the 2-editor requirement, but it would be nice to know where you stand. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the problems in John Smith's editing that you do. I definitely don't see any evidence of competence problems (you may want to re-read that essay; it's primarily for situations like when an editor speaks really poor English, or where they repeatedly fail to follow standard editing practices despite being told dozens of times, or the like). I also don't really see him treating this issue as a battleground. Now, maybe you interact with him on pages where I don't, or maybe your longer action has shown something that I haven't, but, aside from some recent (and provoked) low level incivility, I don't actually see a problem. Instead, I see an editor strongly defending a certain set of positions, but generally doing so within the grounds of policy. Again, I suppose I could be wrong, so I would certainly read anything you wrote fairly, and respond in a way I felt appropriate. I'm almost certain I could not certify an RFC/U, because I've never tried to solve any problem with him in the past, nor have I even seen one. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well well, are you certain you have not mis-clicked and thus had actually read some article other than WP:COMPETENCE. Here are some quotes to assist us in identifying whether or not we were on the same page:

Introduction: Where we very often see big controversies, though, is with editors who are disruptive while trying to help. This is where we sometimes see a harmful side effect of our (generally quite useful) notion of assuming good faith. Many editors have focused so much on this, that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well.
Some types of incompetence we commonly see here:
- Factual incompetence - The best good will is unavailing if basic understanding of the facts, of their mainstream interpretation and the cultural context are lacking.
- Bias-based incompetence - Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate. Try this first before going for a site ban, because some people can make valuable contributions in places other than their pet topic.
- Lack of technical expertise - Not usually a problem at all, as long as they don't delve into areas that require it. Not everyone needs the same skill set -- and as long as people operate only where they're capable, it's not a problem.
- Grudges - Some people get so upset over a past dispute that they look at everything through a lens of "So-and-so is a bad editor and is out to get me." Taken to extremes, this easily becomes quite disruptive. An enforced parole of "don't interact with this other editor" may be something to try in these cases.
- Lack of intelligence - Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works. They may still be able to do some easy jobs like copyediting, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much. [Too bad the description is not very literal]

Let me know if you still think the page's about language problems or issues with understanding WP standards. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I hadn't read that page as closely as I thought (it's not one that gets raised very often)--I was unaware of several of those. However, I'm not actually sure how they apply in this case; perhaps the best thing would be that if you want to pursue this, you create a draft or even a list of diffs in your userspace. However, one thing to be careful of--WP:COMPETENCE is only an essay. The only times I've seen it actually used as a guiding tool in determining a topic/site ban were in cases like I mentioned above. If your concern is biased based editing, I'd recommend going with WP:NPOV, or if it's things like grudges, try WP:CIVIL. Again, not saying any of this actually applies to John Smith, only that unless its very very clear that there's a problem, that an essay is not the main way to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RFCU

It appears I am right about Tenmei after all. Too bad I didn't know to check the ArbCom archives. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh... I get the impression that some are trying to spin the RFC/U into some discrimination of Tenmei's language skills. I definitely don't see that coming. Anyway, let's see what the mentors have to say. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I wrote up a response this morning, but decided I would hold off on posting it; I've already said quite a lot, so I think I want to let others talk first. I, of course, disagree that this is (entirely) a non-native English issue, but I'll wait and see what others think. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am interested to see how John Smith will try to use that WQA (his accusations were really about a few British jokes) to justify Tenmei's actions. In case you don't already know, our British friend was sanctioned by an ArbCom and two ANI's in the past for disruptive behaviour and appears to be a frequent filer of ANI. So, I'd assume he's quite expert at these things. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it. Again, the purpose of an RFCU (as I told Tenmei) is to get a bunch of editors together to help another editor see where there may or may not be problems in that editor's approach. I knew full well going in that your involvement would be criticized; I considered that irrelevant, which is why I made the comment on the talk that I did. Don't get caught up in trying to defend yourself; definitely be careful not to attack Tenmei or any other editors. You haven't so far, but you need to be extra careful to stay within the boundaries here. This RFCU is not about attacking Tenmei, it is not about laying the groundwork for sanctions...it is about problems that I/we think the user has that should be addressed so that everyone can work together better. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)