User talk:Qwyrxian

Professor Obar Concerns

Got a message about an hour ago from Professor Obar of the Media and Telecommunication Policy project and I think it is viewed best in full:

Can you please communicate to the online mentors that I DO NOT want them moving student material into the main space for them. This is a big problem. I have noticed that this has happened with a number of the projects already, for example, in the broadband.gov article and the media cross-ownership article. We need the students to be doing this on their own, of course so they can learn how to do it, and also so that I can grade what they've done. How am I supposed to follow student submissions if the data is associated with online mentors? A BIG PROBLEM ALREADY... please help me with this. None of you responded to my post about this on the discussion page. This is about to get out of hand. Jaobar (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

With that, of course, please only give instructions on how to move, don't do it for them. Please only let them know what to do and let them do it themselves. If they run into problems, provide further instructions. Do not it for them. This seems to be making a mess of Prof. Obar's grading system and I would like to avoid that. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Related question to the project: I noticed when posting the above that you live in Japan. I hope all is well where you are, but since there is things going on there that are FAR more important than Wikipedia, do you need someone else to take over your mentees or are you in a "safe section" of Japan that you can continue? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message; I think you can see by my earlier response to Prof. Obar's questions that I concur with allowing him control of the work until the project is complete. Regarding the earthquake, thank you for the concern, but yes, I am far away from the earthquake and wholly unaffected (in a direct sense, obviously we all are effected emotionally and care greatly for those directly involved). So I've got no problems remaining a mentor.

I haven't had access to WP for a couple of days (for wholly familial reasons), so I'll go check in on my mentees. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I just tell you of my relief that someone has broached the Japan issue with you? I've been aware for some time of your location but was too afraid of possibly causing upset to enquire as to your wellbeing etc. Look after yourself, and yours. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of concern. I don't think any editor would be upset to hear a nicely worded message of concern. Some editors will be like myself--far away with no direct effects; others may be facing rolling blackouts or more direct worries. Others, of course, may have friends and family in the effected area. But I've been very pleased to hear from all sorts of people, many of whom I only know a little bit (like here on WP) expressing their feelings of sympathy. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Very glad to hear you are doing well in your part of Japan. That makes me feel better that our worldwide community of Wikipedians are safe and sound. :) On the mentee-side of things, please let me know if I can be of assistance on anything. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed on Twitter that issued from the nuclear plant are beginning to move south toward the southern part of Japan (even making it, in VERY "miniscule" amounts, to the Washington State coast). With that said, if there comes a time, God forbid, that you have to pack up and take shelter elsewhere, like the US (or wherever your home country may be), please let me know and I will put someone in your spot so you can take care of things on your end and not worry (like it would be the last thing on your mind) about Wikipedia issues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Lighting this back up. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops--missed this one before. But anyway, are you kidding? Wikipedia's the first thing I think of, morning, noon, and night! Neither rain, nor sleet, nor snow, or something like that. But yes, if anything should make me unable to keep "ambassadoring", I'll certainly let you know here or by email. At the moment, my mentees haven't done very much, so other than a few suggestions, I'm waiting on them. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, same here, just kinda waitin'. Have been for awhile. First it was Spring Break, now, well, I am not really sure to be honest. Oh and the saying, it was originally "Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these courageous couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds" and was said some 2,500 years ago by a Greek historian, Herodotus. Though the modern day version is "Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds". But really neither is the United States Postal Service's slogan, they don't have one at all. :) Gotta love Google, that and USPS.com. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

...and apparently there was just a 6.3 earthquake off Iwaki on Honshu, according to the Twitter-wires (as I like to call them). That is freaky timing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 3, 21 March 2011 This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Where the courses are - A brief summary of how each of the 31 Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. Feel free to add more detail. Tracking students' articles - Make sure students' articles are tagged with {{WAP assignment}} on the talk pages, and have the newly improved Article Feedback Tool active. Education portal in progress - Wikimedia staff have started work on an outreach portal for information about teaching with and about Wikipedia. Please help develop it! Online Ambassadors logistics - If you don't have a Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, now's your chance to get one! (Also, some other more mundane, but important, details.) Steering committee preparing proposals - Look for discussions about two major proposals about the future ambassador program soon: the "Regional Ambassador" role, and elections for a new committee. Editing Friday returns - This Friday, join fellow ambassadors and others real-time collaboration on Wainwright Building.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Info_box_title

Would you maybe comment on my confusion in Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Info_box_title. I didn't remember the infobox title being "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" and was going to leave the change in. Do you remember when the title was set that way? Is the rule I quoted 'why' it is that way? It is hard to remember all the 'correct' choices everywhere. Like that China is more than the PRC. (sigh) Thanks. Shenme (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing--I hadn't seen that change. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I have a tendency to glaze over infoboxes except when I change gets made to them, so I never noticed the dual name. Your analysis of the guidelines is correct, so I went ahead and changed the article to match those guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Northeast Asia

Please take a look at the article and its history. There is an editor who doesn't follow the MoS and s/he won't listen my rationale. I think the article is an international article and it should use just Sea of Japan. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given the user a 3RR warning, and have put the page on my watch list. You are definitely correct that Sea of Japan is the correct name for this article; if the user wants to change that, xe'll need a site-wide agreement to change the naming conventions. I'll also try to check on on the editor's contribution list every so often to make sure they don't try to spread the change to other pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

HelpOthers.org

We're rather surprised, and amused, to see this response. HelpOthers.org is one of the leading websites for random acts of kindness, spreading over a million "smile cards" in over 100 countries, with tens of thousands of published stories and members. It has been featured on CNN, and there are many press stories like Science of Mind's Raising Kindness Karma and videos on Global Oneness Project that speak of its history. Please let us know if you need anything else from us to reinstate the listing.

Thanks!

--Bummiggity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bummiggity (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I glanced at the CNN report and that does appear to support the claim. The problem is that Youtube videos aren't reliable sources, and also there are copyright issues in linking to them (unless they are posted on an "official" channel, which that is not). I'll look around later today and try to find something we can use to verify that claim and re-add HelpOthers.org. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...I can't find anything. Do you, by any chance, have a full citation for the CNN report? We would need the name of the program along with the original airdate (and time, if available). If you have that, I would be happy to extract a suitable phrase from the CNN article to include in the Random acts of kindness page. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. How about an article that was featured in Science of Mind titled Raising Kindness Karma? [1] Thanks again for all your help!

No, that doesn't help, because (unless I'm just missing it), that article doesn't actually discuss HelpOthers.org. It mentions their name in a footnote as the place to get Smile cards; the rest of the article is about other groups and other websites. I do think the best thing would be to get the key citation info for the CNN report. Again, all we need is the name of the program and the original airdate, and we could then add that as a reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the citation info from CNN [2]. Let me know if you need anything else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bummiggity (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That is perfect, thank you! I will add it to the page right now. As a side note, if you had, or in the future get, one or two more reliable sources that comment on your website, we could actually develop a full article on HelpOthers.org. To have an independent article, we need to show that the site is fully notable per the notability guidelines for web content, which is usually done by showing that the site "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". So if you find another citation, or another one arises in the future, let me know, and I'd be happy to help work through that process with you as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Legitimate discussion"

Why do you consider the images sub-page "illegitimate"? And if you read the note on the sub-page, you'll see it says not to go over old issues again, not that anyone pays attention to that. So if old issues don't go there, and new issues don't go there, what should go there? The idea that discussions about "images" should go on the "discussions about images" page doesn't seem too difficult.—Chowbok ☠ 23:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the attempt to relegate the discussion to the subpage is just a very obvious attempt to hide the issue in a way that makes it impossible to make changes. Are you saying that if we get consensus on that subpage that we can then go ahead and make the changes to the article? No, of course that wouldn't happen--we'd be told we don't have real consensus, which is reasonable. Talk:Muhammad has over 1200 watchers, while Talk:Muhammad/images has less than 150. This conversation is fundamentally different from the normal "get rid of the images" one. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I'm not attempting to bury the discussion, and you have no reason to accuse me of such. The conversation has been on the main page for a week, everybody knows about it by now.—Chowbok ☠ 00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't accusing you--I was accusing the system, of which you are merely acting as a part. In any event, I won't revert it any more--I'll take the discussion to the other page, get consensus there, and move ahead with whatever decision that consensus reaches. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding International Education Center Wikipage

Hi Qwyrxian

Sorry for my previous oversight in editing the Wikipedia page for International Education Center. I have already paraphrased the text and re-included it in the Wikipedia page. Please kindly advise me if there is anything that needs change.

Besides the History section, I also plan to add an Infobox to the page. I think that it is also necessary to move this Wikipedia page to a new page named International Education College to reflect the change of the institution name. Do you recommend the move?

Thank you

Victorleezhiyu (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The name change is definitely correct, as is the addition of the infobox. I'll go take a look at the history section in detail now. Thanks very much for working on this article! Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a bunch of edits to remove unnecessary details and copy edit. Let me know if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thai representatives (cont.)

Added references to the article, names in Thai for verification purposes. Basically the broadest references I found. --John KB (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Those look helpful. I commented on Talk:Miss Thailand Universe that I think the merges can proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

I fear Ludwigs2's approach has derailed the issue. No one's listening once one goes anywhere near WP:NOTCENSORED. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. The list you just put up, step by step, is a good attempt to force the conversation back. I'll take a look at each of them later and try to provide my feedback. I do see that a couple of other editors may be inclined at least to move forward on the Ka'ba picture, which is certainly a step in the right direction. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Kimchi

The fermentation issue is done and decided. Please do not attempt to change the consensus phrasing about fermentation without first getting a new consensus on the article's talk page. I understand that you didn't agree with that decision, but you cannot just revert/alter it just because you don't agree with it. Please note that you will need to provide new evidence to show that somehow our previous decision was wrong or misguided. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus when there's no consensus. Dispute resolution instructs periodic edit attempts. Don't take it personally. Also, could you refrain from shadowing my edits? Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Kimchi is on my watchlist, and will remain there as long as I am active Wikipedian. As for shadowing your edits...well, I do admit that, upon seeing you suddenly return to the settled issue on Kimchi, I wondered whether you had been inactive since last year or simply hadn't been on that page, so I checked your contributions. However, the only other place I reverted you on Korean cuisine has also been on my watchlist for a while. And even though I think you're wrong on Korean cuisine, I won't revert your change there again unless there seems to be a consensus of other editors to maintain the prior phrasing, as it isn't that important to me. As a side note, I wasn't actually using the other wikipage as evidence, I was using them as a short cut to the other evidence. Those pages site clear, reliable sources stating that some of the people who lived in Korean a long time ago were semi-nomadic (=semi-sedentary). But, again, it's not that important to me. Also, I don't intend to follow you around Wikipedia. Since some of the areas we edit overlap, it may well be that you'll see me responding to your edits again, but that's not through any particular interest in you.

However, regarding Kimchi, you're wrong if you state there was no consensus--there was consensus except for two editors (if I remember correctly) of you and one other editor. Note that consensus doesn't not mean 100% of people need to agree. If you wish to change the phrasing on fermentation, you'll need to present new evidence on the article's talk page to demonstrate why consensus should change. Until such time as you can show that change, please do not start an edit war on the article page. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Images removed

Hi I would like to know how can i put the images? I uploaded an image to Pooja Chopra and seems like you have removed it, just wanted to tell u that thats our own image and the images are provided by Pooja Chopra miss india itself, kindly clarify! or how can i put the same images back! kimozyssKimozyss (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If the images were taken as a part of the Miss India competition, then those images belong to whatever corporation runs Miss India, and thus cannot be used here. If there were taken by Chopra herself (or someone working with her), then they belong to her; in that case, they could be donated to Wikipedia. If you personally own those pictures, please follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note, though, that if the pictures were taken by a modeling agency, by a television show, a newspaper, etc.--i.e., anyone other than Chopra herself, then it is the picture taker that holds the copyright. Only the copyright holder may donate the pictures. So, for example Chopra cannot donate pictures of herself that were taken by someone else. Check out that linked page, and feel free to ask me again if you have questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A thought

I had noticed a comment from you, and I wish I would have seen it in time to comment. You stated "I'm not just exaggerating when I say that I really don't understand why you would walk away after a failed RfA" and I understand your sentiments. I'd like to show a statement I made which is just as true: "I had heard of this, but did not understand" which references leaving after RfA. But I do understand now, and it is a problem. At least IMO. Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I do believe you (and Dusti, and others) who say that they feel so put upon, so beaten down, that they feel like leaving. But, while I believe it, I don't understand it. Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough. I mean, I do get sad and unhappy when my actions on WP are misunderstood or misconstrued. But I can't imagine walking away from the whole project because of that. I mean, I expect to file my own RfA, sooner or later, because I think the project needs admins to survive so it's incumbent on those of us who have the time/inclination to use the tools to pick them up. I fully expect that my behavior will be scrutinized and criticized. I may well fail, possibly more than once. But I actually can't imagine what anyone could say to me that would make me want to stop editing altogether. Again, though, I haven't been through it, so maybe my problem is simply one of lack of imagination. I do agree with everyone that the atmosphere at RFA should be changed, although, I also don't know how we would do so while still allowing community input. I wish that whatever it is that upsets people so much could be altered, but part of my problem is that I don't even see what it is that's upsetting people. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for protection

moved from my user pageQwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a request for protection concerning a series of paragraphs that I had included in the King of the Hill article. This request seems to have been overlooked or refused without directing any correspondence directly to me. I can not understand why the observations concerning the inclusion Asians in the King of the Hill television series is perceived as subjective or irrelevant when it is all based on fact.No one can deny that Judge included a large number of Asians in his series. Why then is this deemed interpretive if it is included in the article? Wikipedia is censoring the topic of race, but not censoring the topics of sexual orientation, political orientation or other easily verifiable facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs)

There are multiple reasons why. First, it's not actually possible to "protect" individual paragraphs in an article (articles are either protected as a whole or not protected at all). Second, protection is never done simply because one editor thinks something is a good idea (i.e., because they wrote something they think should be in the 'pedia)--it's done to stop vandalism, or because there is a dispute that cannot be handled in any other way. Third, if you read what I and 2 other editors wrote on Talk:King of the Hill, the problem is that you are fundamentally misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. It is never acceptable to draw our own conclusions about the subjects we write about. Doing so is called original research, and is always forbidden in Wikipedia articles. No one is censoring Wikipedia. Rather, we are saying that if reliable sources have already drawn the conclusions you're talking about, then cite those sources, summarize what they say, and include that information (as long as it isn't giving the topic undue weight). Does that make sense? You even say above that these are your "observations". Wikipedia doesn't report observations--it reports what other, reliable sources have observed. Please feel free to ask for more information about this either here or on the article's page if you don't understand.

Finally, please note that if you want to talk to other editors, you should do so on the person's talk page, not their user page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

You state that I am borderline because I have attacked other editors. I would like to have some support of this before I proceed to make a complaint. I am aware of having defended my position. There is only one other editor involved in this scenario - that is yourself. I exclude the anonymous person who deleted my contributions. If you feel that you have been attacked please inform me briefly of how, when and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous person is an editor just like any other. Wikipedia explicitly allows people to edit anonymously. Also, User:TechnoSymbiosis has responded on that talk page. Furthermore, on Mike Judge, User:Materialscientist reverted you, and thus could also be considered a part of your potential attack. What I am calling your attack is your claim, shown in this series of edits, that you, "accuse you all of race-related discrimination with the goal or ignoring, excluding and marginalizing." You are directly stating that those responding and/or removing the OR you added are engaging in discrimination. Some editors could easily read this as a personal attack, especially since we are following one of Wikipedia's most basic principles. Now, you may well have not been aware of our requirements that people be civil and not attack others, so as long as you don't continue to make such claims disparaging the motives of others, you're fine. Just to repeat this one more time: if you find valid, reliable sources that have similar information, you may summarize them and include them in the article. For example, look at South Park#Criticism and controversy for an example of how this type of sourced criticism appears in a current article about a cartoon. Thus, no one is discriminating here at all. All we are requiring is the same thing required of every Wikipedia editor--to not provide your own interpretation, but to only summarize what other sources have said.

Just to clarify, I'm not particularly offended or upset by your words--very rarely does what others on Wikipedia say bother me all that much. I'm just letting you know that you need to be careful to stop that kind of criticism. One very helpful phrase you may hear in various places and in various forms on WP is "Discuss edits, not editors". So, don't accuse us all of discriminatory practices--instead, focus on the content itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

kimozyss

I dont understand whats wrong in the text i have edited? all the articles i have used are cited proper, can you pls explain!! And may i know your denomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimozyss (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NPOV. We may not make statements of praise of Chopra (or any other article subjects)--for example, your sentence, "She came, she saw, she conquered" is completely the wrong tone for a Wikipedia article. We need to state neutrally and factually what we did. I did remove one source you added that could possibly be re-added, about the charities she's currently working with; we'd probably need to make a new section that discusses her charity work separately (because it isn't directly related to those beauty competitions).

A number of other things you added were unsourced (for example, "he got some of the loudest applause for bravely taking on the contest despite of a broken ankle"), others are simply not relevant to her encyclopedia story (the names and details of her personal trainer and wardrobe consultant). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop deleting Heine's updated page!!

Hello, please, stop deleting the new version of Heine's page.

You say: "Please discuss this on talk--when you make a bold change, and someone reverts it, you must discuss the issue on the talk page"

It has been discussed in the talk page, but you just deleted it.

Several people have worked on the new version and it has been submitted in the TalkPage. Please also see in the TalkPage the list of errors that still appeared in the old version.

The new version has been updated and corrected, several notable references have been added. No important, true and accurate elements of the old version have been deleted. Only the structure has changed! It's not forbidden by Wikipedia's policy to change the structure of an article and it is highly recommended to add notable references and information corresponding to an artist's evolution, which is the case here. Cute-snoopy (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the new version. All I'm saying is that per standard editing practice, if a bold change is made to an article, and then reverted, then next step is to go to the article's talk page and then discuss the proposed change. This process is called Bold, revert, delete. So it may well be that your new version is better, but you need to get consensus on the talk page to make the change. That's all. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:King of the Hill

I just wanted to thank you again for defending me on Talk:King of the Hill. I'm about at my wits end with that....user, so your cool head is a welcome presence. Have a good day. 70.242.1.148 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I keep trying to bring xem over to seeing the WP point of view, but if you look at xyr talk page, it's pretty clear that xe has given up hope on Wikipedia. Hey, maybe Afropedia could work...? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pygmy goats

You said...

"The harm in providing a link is that it is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSPAM. Note that WP:SPAM doesn't require that the website that is promoted be commercial; links to charities, personal websites, and commercial sites are all equally spam. External links must meet the criteria laid out in WP:EL. The very fact that your reason for wanting to keep it in is because you got hits off of it is the evidence that it's spam. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)"

My reason for wanting to keep it in is because I get hits from it and messages from people who say I enjoy my site - therefore the reason I enjoy getting hits is because I enjoy the fact that others are benefiting from my site and are enjoying it themselves.

Who wrote these Wikipedia WP policies and guidelines? I can accept that you may wish to curtail links to commercial sites, and possibly links to unreliable personal websites. But to curtail links to charities seems a bit OTT.

Also, I'm sure most of the "external links" I've seen on Wikipedia articles should be removed under these rules. For example, what about the link to the Pygmy Goat Club? Surely that's a commercial site, as you have to pay to be a member of the club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.153.192 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are almost all written based on community consensus; in other words, it's the overall judgment of the community that we don't want such links. Take a look at WP:EL (the guideline on external links)--you'll note that it explicitly states that fan sites are almost never eligible to be external links. I'll take a look at the site you mention, it may need to go as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Those links are borderline. The one time organizations can be on pages like this is if they are widely recognized as the national association related to the topic. Those links maybe should go, and if you remove them, I won't object. But I'm a little hesitant to remove them myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

Ronn Torossian page folks have linked to a supposed sockpuppet. That wouldnt permit all negative material to be sourced nor inaccurate statements to be made. You made your opinions regarding fairness on Pinto page would think you'd continue there. Would you mind reviewing page ? --greenbay1313 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Greenbay has been forum and admin shopping this issue, and as a result there are a good number of complaints about this same issue in many places. Because the issue is mainly a BLP issue, I've been directing any discussion to Wikipedia:BLPN#Ronn Torossian 2. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 20:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm going to pass on this one. I'm already watching 5W, Pinto, and one other whose name escapes me that just went up for AfD. I don't want to devote all of my Wiki time to issues related to a New York publicity firm. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Vadalism.

It is not blatant vandalism and it is common practice each year to show a little looseness to such humour. If Jimbo wales was against it I am sure he will intervene, else, please dont revert changes to other peoples talk pages, I will quite happily war the issue.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. It is much appreciated. Gscshoyru (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-addition to former employees lists

Hello Qwyrxian, I've just taken note that both the WCAU and KYW-TV articles have once again had substantial lists of former employees names added to them by an editor who has been contacted by both of us in the past regarding this editing practice. Once again, many of the names that were re-added do not have either a pre-existing article associated with them or a reliable reference attached. Today, the editor has affixed a single overarching linked reference to an 'ancient' Geocities site, that appears to me to have been self published by someone at some point in time. In my opinion this is insufficient to substantiate their presence in the article, although I do believe the material is being offered in good faith. I wonder if you could possibly have a look at this situation and offer your position. I've also taken note that the editor who re-added this material has comments from both of us in the past appearing on their talk page that are specifically related to this editing practice. Thank you for your time cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's add the KDNL-TV to that list as well, where another editor is implying in their edit summary that, "common knowledge" should be a sufficient grounds to substantiate the re-addition of the unreferenced list material. I'll follow this up later tonight or tomorrow as well. thanks again cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear in this latter case, despite what the editor claims in their edit summary, no other television stations in our category "Television stations in St. Louis, Missouri" contain this type of unreferenced former employee lists without pre-existing articles to back them up. I just checked. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted them all w/explanation, and added KDNL-TV to my watchlist. I'll be away for much of the day or longer, but will check back in eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and effort here. I think much of this sort of stuff is easily attributable to some editors who simply don't understand what our referencing requirements are actually all about. Others....I'm not so sure about. :) thanks again cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

yw. The more I think about it in contexts like this, the more I realize that, compared to basically everything else on the internet that allows open-editing (blogs, comments on news articles, etc.), Wikipedia is really...weird! I mean, there really is no other place where "anyone can edit" that also says, "but if you edit, you have to verify everything you write, you have to be neutral, you can't put in your own thoughts, etc." I can totally understand why some people simply don't "get" what we're trying to do here. Most of them drive-by once in a while, while others (especially in "fringe" topics and hot POV areas) insist on staying and trying to push what they think is "True" despite being told why their "truth" can't stay here in the way they want. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(butt) like with Paravar, you mean? Thanks for your support on that, btw. - Sitush (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That's a tough one for me to even understand, as an American (ex-American?). I mean, intellectually, I can kind-of wrap my brain around the concept of castes/tribes/sects, and why it might, in theory, matter what the exact "ranking" of these groups are/was...but it still, emotionally, feels odd to me to get so worked up about exactly what job a certain group of people several hundred to thousand years ago held. Then again, one of my article focuses is on a body of water, the very name of which causes great consternation among some countries, along with some islands, completely uninhabited and mostly uninhabitable, the ownership of which has come near to fundamentally disrupting the relationship between two of the worlds biggest economies. And so it goes, I guess. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

10 wikipedia edits

I'm looking at adding a page on the website overclockers.com, a website I'm a member of, to wikipedia for another assignment we have in TC 210. Here's what I have so far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darklavalizard/overclockers I'm just wondering what else I need, other than a few more sentences and more sources to make sure it doesn't get deleted from wikipedia? Any other suggestions you can make, in regards to having an article based on a website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklavalizard (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A great question, and the answer actually also applies to Media Access Project. All stand-alone articles on Wikipedia must be about notable subjects]]. We have a bunch of different ways of measuring notability, but the one that is common to all articles is called the General Notability Guideline. You can read the details on that page, but the basic idea is that, to be considered notable, the subject must have been the subject of detailed discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources. In the article you made on overclockers, there are no independent references--just a link to the subject's page. This means that, as written, the article would definitely deleted as soon as you added it to main space. It would actually be speedily deleted, meaning it would deleted in a matter of hours, because it doesn't even assert why the website is "important" (a lower barrier than "notable").

So, in order for that article to go live, you're going to need to find independent, reliable sources that discuss the site. Most likely what you'll be looking for are articles in computing magazines, either in print or online. Note that the sources will have to do more than just list the site as one among many--the discussion about the site needs to be "detailed" (it doesn't have to be the subject of the whole article, just more than a passing mention). Note also that self-published sites, like blogs and online forums, aren't reliable sources in almost all cases. If the site has a high Alexa rating, that can also help, but it's not enough without sources. One place to look for help may be WP:WEB, which is the specific notability guidelines for websites.

All of the above also applies to the MAP article. At the moment its also lacking the sources it needs to be a stand alone article. That needs to be remedied in order for that article to survive. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian (Part 2)

From reviewing your work you are a very fair editor can you review please ? 1: Where is statement Torossian is an active supporter of Israel - They appear to be clients, so lead should be removed ? 2: The Forward states something different regarding Our Jerusalem than does the other source on page jerusalem Post to which should be changed: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. 3: Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9] If Allen speaks about firm, why on Torossian's personal page ? 4: Torossian is active in supporting pro-Israeli causes, especially those associated with the Israeli right wing. ( THEY ARE CLIENTS - ANY SOURCES SAY OTHERWISE ?)& same goes with christian supporters of Israel - These are clients.

And the article seems to be biased & doesnt mention he has worked for Foreign Ministry and Tourism Ministry of Israel and Likud Party: [4]. has also represented Israel Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback He has also trained Israeli government officials for media appearances. http://www.prweekus.com/israel-branding-effort-aims-to-humanize-nations-image/article/56167/ Appreciate your interest and commentary. greenbay1313 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Current source eleven, [3], clearly states that Torossian himself is a supporter of Israel, and it clearly distinguishes his work as a promoter from his independent actions/opinions. Furthermore, the Post article you yourself point to says, "'I aspired, and still do aspire, to help the Jewish community in any way I can, whether spiritual or material,' he says", where "he" is Torossian. Thus, it seems abundantly clear to me that Torossian is "an active supporter of Israeli causes". Your third point looks potentially relevant, I may raise it on the talk page. As for his work in the government, the jewishweek source doesn't say he worked for them, it just quotes him (with no rationale as to why it is quoting him. And the last source not only may not be RS, it doesn't mention Torossian (if anywhere, it goes on the 5W page). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the commentary. Supporting the Jewish community doesnt necessarily mean the Israel community. He seems to be a religious man, it could be with Rabbis or cultural we cant infer that is Israel, correct ? Can change it to Jewish, but is he noteable for that. Seperate, Israel commentary should certainly add the prominent clients rather than simple fringe and criticisim: This article states he has worked for Olmert & Netanyahu should be included: http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback (Ronn Torossian, the CEO of 5W Public Relations who has been a publicist for Netanyahu and Olmert...) This article states "he does boast a tight working relationship with the Christian Right, as well as many members of the Israeli political echelon, including the Tourism and Foreign ministries, members of Knesset and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat".. Jerusalem Mayor Barkat with Torossian: [4] - [5] - [6] Chairman of Kadima (liberal political party in Israel - in 5W and available on Youtube with Torossian: [7] Thank you very much. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I also ask that you review The Jewish Week story where Torossian comments on Netanyahu - he didnt criticize him for restarting peace talks he criticized for giving back West Bank and said at end he would vote for him. Keep in context and the facts are misleading. read the story. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is in Japan, so he might not get to things quickly (I do believe it is mid-afternoon there), plus of course all that is going on there. If you don't see a response within say 12 hours, please consider asking at the the help desk. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Source 11 in the current article explicitly Torossian (not 5WPR) with claims of support for Israel; that, coupled with the Post article, makes this clearly more than a support of a religion. As for the other part, I'm going to stick with just one issue, for right now. The more you talk here, the more you remind me of a blocked sockpuppeteer, and the less inclined I am to read what you have to say. One of that editor's problems (in case it wasn't you) was that despite being asked over and over again to work on one thing at a time, took every mention of help, every point of discussion, and piled on seventeen more different and unrelated issues. The only reason I raised the one issue on Torossian's talk page as it did seem to be questionable based on WP:BLP to me, although it's a borderline issue that will require some editorial consensus. That doesn't mean I'm going to take up every point you have. While I routinely edit pages on topics which I know nothing about nor even care much about, I have such an active lack of care about a PR firm or its founder that it's unlikely that I'm going to crash into that article combing over every detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S., to Neutralhomer: one of the benefits of my job is that for long periods of time (including right now, probably up through the end of this week, maybe more), I get to sit around waiting for something to do. It's one of those jobs where I have days where I'm lucky to even get time for a lunch break, and others where I get to indulge in my Wikipedia addiction for most of the day. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough for now appreciate you spending the time. That issue is clear no one accused him personally of involvement at the time or since then. Belongs on company page not his lets stick to the 1 issue for now. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian:Now that is the kind of job I would like. :) Crazy one minute, relaxing the next. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I did anything to upset you. You stated that 2 mistakes were on the page would you mind correcting them as you stated you would. I didnt mean to upset you and wont bother you with any other issues but these are real concerns on a BLP and should be corrected immediately according to Wikipedia. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

greenbay1313 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I stated that that sentence seems to be a problem, although I'm not 100% certain it is. I asked on the article's talk page. So far people seem to favor taking it out, but I felt it could wait until at least 24 hours have passed. I'll check back in on the talk page tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 13:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: My user page

Re your message: No problem. =) He won't be bothering you anymore. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)