User talk:Qwyrxian

Wrapping up the Senkaku Island stuff

It's been a while since you first started the RfC. My impression is that it didn't resolve anything and failed to engage discussion on a few key issues (other than common/dual names). Since I am losing active interest in Wikipedia, I no longer have the drive to continue giving active support to cumbersome disputes like this (supposedly, previous editors who took part on similar debates had similarly lost their patience). How do you want to wrap this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the name, I intend to go to a US university library some time next week, and I was going to check a variety of current, high quality encyclopedias, almanacs, and other sources. I was then going to report those results to the talk page. Assuming that search is still inconclusive, I would argue that there is no consensus to change the name, and it should stay as is. This is an issue I expect Wikipedia to revisit again next year, and a few years after that, and so on. It may very well be that at some point in the future the correct choice is to change the name to a composite name, Pinnacle, or maybe even to Diaoyu, because it may well be that encyclopedic quality sources are trending towards the switch. But Wikipedia needs to follow that trend, not lead it, or, for that matter, be in the middle of it.

As for the other issues, I have not followed them quite so closely, especially regarding the newspaper article and other points on Senkaku Islands dispute. My personal recommendation would be to try dropping back to semi- or no protection, and just seeing what happens. The very fact that the issue isn't currently in the news means that it's more likely that editing will be more calm and productive. Should another edit war re-arise, I'd say that would be a clear indication that it needs re-protecting.

This is all just my opinion, of course. I mean, well, the first part about "no consensus for a move" comes much closer to just an analysis of the comments made so far, but the rest is open to the discussion of others.

I hope that this issue, itself, hasn't put you off WP. The truth is that some issues, especially those that reflect real world disputes, are and will always be difficult and time consuming to edit. That's simply the nature of an open, consensus based project. And our topic isn't nearly as contentious as something like Historicity of Jesus or British Isles or Macedonia. Perhaps you may find your interest growing again if you spend some time away from the project.

In any event, maybe you want to try making some "summarizing" remarks on Talk:Senkaku Islands that at establish your position, maybe even point out where you think we went wrong, if you think we did. The only other real option would be to enter mediation, but if you're growing uninterested in the project, then I don't think that will work. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the debates, but I do find it a waste of time to have large blocks of my arguments ignored (and my impression is that I wasn't writing garbage at all). In a way WP works much more like politics than academia where a sizable party of interested individuals can effectively derail any type of discussion with whatever stupid excuses. I am willing to give mediation a try, but it will no doubt be a waste of time if it ultimately requires some sort of "consensus". Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I can see that you're still discussing this. It would be good if we could move forward. For the record, Bob, Wikipedia is built on consensus. There is no dispute resolution method that imposes an editing solution. That's the way it is. John Smith's (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, then I find it somewhat interesting that the original name change that occurred 4 years ago remained despite an obvious lack of consensus. By the way, I thought you dislike "wiki-stalking". Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO, one key concept in Qwyrxian's diff above deserves emphasis:

"... it may well be that encyclopedic quality sources are trending ... Wikipedia needs to follow that trend, not lead it ...."

(Note that the initially posted text is emphasized by a hyperlink, which helps to evaluate the words in context).

IMO, the wiki-term "consensus" is imprecise as it is used in the responsive comments of both Bobthefish2 and John Smith's. What does it mean? There is a difference between the consensus of editors who participate in a talk thread and the consensus of reliable sources which are surveyed at a given point in time. I have the impression that Qwyrxian is fundamentally interested in the consensus of published sources rather than in a mere straw poll of participants in our project. --Tenmei (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just left the info I was able to gather from a library search of atlases today. As to what Tenmei said; yes, consensus has a slippery meaning on Wikipedia. In fact, it's very intentionally not defined explicitly, because doing so would deny the flexibility that's needed on the project. As for the distinction between "consensus among editors" and "consensus among sources", while there appears to be a difference, I would argue there isn't really one. In the case of article names, we are required by policy/guidelines to try to make our article name match the name used in English sources. No local consensus can override that. If it was not clear what the sources were saying, then what we're looking for is a consensus of local editors (informed by RfCs, mediation if necessary, etc.) as to how to interpret those sources. The info I just got from atlases was pretty unambiguous, although I admit that the info we've gotten from news and Scholar searches has been less clear (although, I think clear enough). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus" probably comes in only when policies are not involved. In heavily disputed cases, whether or not there is a "consensus" is highly subjective. Some'd argue majority rule and others would argue near-unanimity.Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

'Jesus in Islam' title move

Dear Qwyrxian,

Happy New year and Christmas, Sorry to bother you on your page. It is now a month and I don't have a single reply on my questionnaire. Isn't it surprising? You all don't want me to harm more as somebody replied earlier to my talk page. I know that must be you?

But I want answer from Q at least. Could you answer my questionnaire to judge myself that where the difference in analysis is and where I stand, to carry on further if at all.--Md iet (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

May I expect reply please?--Md iet (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was delayed, but about 2 days ago I left you a reply on your talk page at the end of the section that contains the questionnaire. This is the diff of that response. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response. You are very right but I am still hard to get convince on logic of applicability of most common English name norm everywhere and not at all linking it and bothering about other aspects of article concerned whatsoever its importance. At present readers who can see its importance is not in position to get its claim. Anyway I have to wait and watch for right time as some of you suggested. Thanks again,--Md iet (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Egg

The cited article presents a study dealing only in differentiating egg types based on protein and fat. It is necessary state this fact and explicitly point out that other nutrients were not included in the study, since people not reading the article may be inclined to assume that other nutritional factors were also studied but simply not mentioned in the wikipedia sentence. Jeanpetr (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that your most recent edit is great. I had thought that your implied purpose in writing the (previous)additional sentences was to say that the method used (shell strength and white height) was fundamentally bad and thus the study's conclusions weren't worthwhile; even if that wasn't your intention, it was how the sentences read, thus adding an unacceptable POV to the article. However, your new version is a much more clear and neutral statement about what exactly the study measured, and so seems like a very good clarification to me. Apologies for not being able to suggest a clear alternative myself, since I haven't read the article in question. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dog Meat

I disagree that it was "amplifying POV" to add the word barbaric. The article is very unbalanced to say nothing more about the controversy besides that some people find it "offensive". - 76.115.44.78 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any citations to back up the claim that it is considered barbaric and/or highly offensive? Even saying that some people think it offensive really should have a cite, but at least it's likely enough that it can stay in without one; but to take the position that some find it barbaric really does require a citation. Furthermore, even if you had one, I'd argue the article still shouldn't use that term, unless a very large number of people (a majority, perhaps) would be willing to use such strong words (and that, I imagine, is both false and unverifiable). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? How much in that article needs citations? Or across wikipedia as a whole, but I digress. If you are reasonable enough to say that no citation is needed to say it is offensive then you are reasonable enough to see that people find it barbaric. I read your page and so obviously dog meat is a hot button for you probably because you live in asia and need everyone to know how worldly you are, but I shouldn't psycho-analyze. The article is BIASED towards your point of view (and your edits are telling). I noted you removed other items that don't jive with your oh so worldly sensibilities. And BTW, a quick search found many cit-able sources referring to eating dog as barbaric. If you are really an non-POV wiki-warrior you will incorporate them into the article. I'm just a random consumer trying to enhance the article. 76.115.44.78 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

First, please comment on edits, not the editor. Perhaps you need to take a look at WP:NPOV also, which talks about what we do to make articles neutral. You are very correct that a lot of WP needs more and better sources; that there are problems doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for excellence in every place we can. If you believe that other edits I made to the article are biased, you are welcome to raise those concerns on the articles talk page. Again, be sure to comment on the edits themselves, not on what you think my actual real-world point of view is. Finally, if a quick search found such sources, please suggest them on the article's talk page--as I said before, more sources are always welcome. Per standard editing practice, though, the burden of finding and adding sources always lies on the person who wants to add the information--yourself, in this case. For further discussion about this point, lets move to the article's talk page, so that other interested editors can also join the conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

S.E. Cupp

Before yesterday, I hadn't heard of S.E. Cupp or the ensuing edit war. I thought you graciously handled the olive branch to X883 (talk).

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. While I certainly get caught up in edit wars myself from time to time, I do my best to at least attempt to diffuse tensions whenever possible. This was a case where it seemed to me like one user simply didn't understand the way we work--not through any fault of xyr own, but just because we have a very specific way of doing things at times that takes time to get used to. I hope that we can keep a steady keel there going forward. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Irvington High School

I see that you did not find the information found on the page helpful regarding benchmarks. Students must complete a special benchmark project in each year. This sentence although grammatically correct makes me cringe every time i read it and is very poorly phrased, it reflects badly upon our schools reputation. As a current student of the school I am terribly offended by someone randomly going through and seemingly making quest not sound like a big deal it has even made its way to local news papers. It makes me wonder what makes you qualified to edit an article that you do not have the knowledge about maybe if you can show me where you get your information from. 20kshares (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I admit that that particular sentence is not phrase as well as it could be; I was concerned first and foremost with pulling out all of the promotional commentary, which sometimes leaves bare info. The other problem, as you correctly point out, is that I don't have info to work from. See, by Wikipedia's rules, any information which is in any article must be verified, usually by reliable sources. Technically speaking, I could remove that entire section from the article, because it contains no sources. However, I assumed that at least some of the pages editors (not the slew of vandals cropping up in the past few hours) are editing in good faith, so I assumed that the basic factual information is at least somewhat accurate. If I had more actual information, I would be happy to continue working on the article to make it better written, more clear, and more informational. For exampe, you mentioned that it has "made its way to local newspapers." Do you know which articles? Are archive copies of those articles on line, or do you have access to them that you could provide copies and/or quotations? An alternative source would be if the school has an official webpage or handout that describes the Benchmarks--that would be considered reliable as well. Ideally, we would want to go through the article and provide sources for everything, so if you have any such sources, please bring them up on the article's talk page. The one thing that we can't do, however, is to make the article non-neutral. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, Wikipedia requires all articles be neutral, which you can read at WP:NPOV. So that means we can't, for example, say that the Benchmarks are something like "a key guiding force in developing high quality students that are engaged in the world." That type of writing simply isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia.

So, in summary--let's keep working on this, together. It sounds like you have the knowledge of the school we need, while I have the knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines we need.

Okay, I just saw your most recent edits. Some of them are good, some are not. For instance, your addition of the sentence, "Given the strong tradition that the Irvington band program has, recent years have been a slight dismantlement" is not allowed, because it's not neutral. You can't make personal judgments about where the "brightest students" sit at lunch. Oh, never mind. I see you just added back in the claim that it's a university, which it obviously isn't, and you added the racism back in. Well, congrats, you trolled me and got me to waste a lot of time for no reason. Look forward to your block. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the article has been a hotbed of vandalism tonight. Does it need to be semi-protected? I was about ready to protect it to figure out where the last good version is, but I see that you reverted back to it a little while ago. Thank you for staying on top of things here! —C.Fred (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a request up for over 2 hours, waiting on admin action. I just asked a random admin now that I thought was currently online (User:Metropolitan90), but I may have been mistaken about that. If you know of any other admins currently available, feel free to contact them. I'm almost tempted to make an ANI thread, but it's still just vandalism--worst case, it gets another several dozen vandalism edits that need to be reverted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS

Thank you sincerely for updating me on this, I will be sure to not repeat the linking of years as I did in the Montpellier article.--74.131.142.157 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever edited Montpellier. I think maybe you're thinking of Temple University. In any event, I'm glad I could help--if you ever have any questions about Wikipedia, you're certainly welcome to ask here. There's only like a million and a half different guidelines and policies, and while I myself am still in the process of learning many of them, I'm happy to help where I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

Three lines indicate the express POV of Japan, the PRC and the ROC ... and "feasible region" is the intersection of disparate data sets which are undisputed in our article about the Senkaku Islands?

This edit here is consistent with proposed changes suggested by John Smith's in October 2010. Perhaps you will find time to review what I have done -- see also Talk:Senkaku Islands#Dual-name usage in text, captions and table.

See also Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Proposed section and table --Tenmei (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please compare tables at

• Senkaku Islands dispute#Geography
• Senkaku Islands#Geography

Also, please take note of Talk:Senkaku Islands#Qwyrxian's comment --Tenmei (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep this discussion on the article's talk page so that everyone can participate and the discussion doesn't become too diffuse. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. No. Your sentence is a conventional truism,; however, it is quite inapposite in the context our words create here. --Tenmei (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what? What I should have said is, is that it was perfectly acceptable and useful for you to bring the initial message to me, in essence notifying me (as a previous discussant) of the new edits you made. Now that I'm aware, I think it best if I respond there (as I have); otherwise, if reply to discuss the edits here, then someone like Bobthefish2 has to follow both the discussion on the article's talk page as well as the one here. By centralizing discussions about Senkaku Islands at Talk: Senkaku Islands we are more inclusive and, hopefully, coherent. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclusive, yes. Coherent, no.

The serial interspersed diffs in just one section create an impossible-to-unravel Gordian knot. This section purports to discuss your initial thoughts about my one edit; but the cumulative added distractions have rendered that effort moot. I can barely follow the thread, but I can't expect anyone unfamiliar with the issues to follow it. That's not good enough. Nor can I figure out where to respond to any part of it.

For now, I will address one process-related issue. You complain about graphics -- no, not good. You explain:

"Finally, could you please stop making graphs that you believe represent our dispute or conversation or argument? You need to understand that they are only helpful for you or someone else with experience in symbolic argument, which is not the majority of WP users (including myself)."

Even if you don't understand, and even if you are unfamiliar with visual reasoning -- even if you do not understand the American idiomatic phrase apples and oranges -- the graphic images demonstrate that my thoughtful attempt to contribute to a skewed discussion is not superficial. The graphics show that I have thought through the issues to such an extent that I am able to reformulate them in a visual format. Are you arguing that visualizing a problem is outside the scope of Wikipedia's core policies? No, surely not.

The fact is that I didn't create the "feasible region" graphic. I found it in the course of researching alternate ways of working through the serial difficulties in collaborative editing which have afflicted this article. I found this particular graphic explanation at Candidate solution. Even if you reject the graphic, you may not reject the term-of-art which is "candidate solution" ... or can you?

In other words, my contribution to this article is informed by specific research about the Senkaku Islands with very explicit citations and verifying support; and also my research has extended to the the difficult task of moving forward in a collaborative editing environment which is skewed as this one has been.

What rationale informs your rejection of explicit proof that I have invested time and thought in figuring out how to work together in a context of disingenuous editing. Explain it to me. Do you really reject the demonstration that I have worked through the problem of representing the issues visually.

Are you claiming that rhetoric requires you to endorse pretense and reject what is demonstrable and tangible? Do you also reject the phrases candidate solution and feasible region?

No ... and one more thing: You are not the only one who reads your talk page. What is a talk page for if not this? --Tenmei (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)