User talk:Qwyrxian

Assistance in Adding New Page

Hello there,

I've been a Wiki-Observer for a long time now and have finally started an ID so I can edit, I have been reading your edits which I think are fair and objective so I'd like to ask your help....

I am involved in the renewables (hence the name) industry and would like your assistance in adding a page regarding a new technology which gassifies a variety of Liquids.

It has no name yet.... could I name it after the company who developed it, similar to the Kværner-process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Kv.C3.A6rner-process

Thanks, Renewables1 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as what you name it, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia at all--that's something you/the company would decide. However, as far as making a page is concerned, we do have rules for what subjects can have pages. In this case, the most important one to consider is Notability. This requirement says that only notable subjects may have their own page. Notability can be established in a variety of ways, but, in general, it means that the topic has been discussed in several reliable sources which are independent of the subject itself. The fact that this process is not even named yet makes me guess that this is not the case. That is, in order to have its own page, this process must have been discussed in industry magazines, scientific journals, reliable newspapers, etc. If it has, then we can create the page, and you'll have to use the name that those reliable sources use. If it it has not yet been covered in reliable sources, then it can't have its own page.

So, if you can let me know whether or not you have those sources, then we can figure out where to go from here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I misspoke, right now I think we just need an entry in another page, another paragraph similar to the Kværner-process paragraph... we would again name it after the company who founded this new process and wanted to check with you first. Based on your response we can call with after the company. I'll collect my resources as and show you when I am done. Actually the 2nd week of February I am travelling to Italy with an Industry expert to confirm this new process Renewables1 (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Even to just appear on a page, you're going to need at least one reliable source. If this process has not been confirmed and covered in reliable sources yet, it is not eligible to be on Wikipedia, not even as part of another page. My guess, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Basically, the idea is that Wikipedia exists, as an encyclopedia, to collect information about things that other reliable sources have already determined to be "important." Now, this is not saying that it needs to be an earth-shattering new idea, but that it does have to have already appeared in print somewhere. That is, Wikipedia is not a place to release new information to the world; in our terminology, we say that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. For that, you want, as I mentioned before, a trade magazine, a scientific journal, etc. Is this a process that has already been covered in real world sources? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, point taken and understood. Do you consider a confirmation of this new technology on this website to be "important"? http://www.hydrogenambassadors.com/background/h2-market.php Renewables1 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies—I did see your message above earlier today, but then totally forgot about it. With a quick look over, I can't actually tell if that's a reliable source or not. I'll definitely take a look in closer detail tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In the Hydrogen industry there are very few people in the world with more experience and considered the reference for the industry than Arno Evers, thanks. Renewables1 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

After looking more closely, no, that site does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS. The reason is that as far as I can tell, that is a PR company. That means that anything they publish is inherently promotional, and thus cannot be assumed to show information reliably or accurately. We need some sort of source with a neutral editorial staff, like science journals, some conferences (if the presentations are vetted), trade journals, etc. While I certainly believe you when you say that he's very knowledgeable (many promoters and PR agents are), they aren't independent enough from their clients to be considered notable. So I think another source would be better. However, I am certainly no expert in the hydrogen industry, so we could certainly raise the question elsewhere. Probably the first place to start would be on the talk page of the article you think you want to add your info to. It will be easier to do that the relevant info appears on the Avers FAIR-PR site, since its always easier to speak with a real example than with generalizations. If we don't get a clear answer there, there are other places we can look, such asWP:RSN, which is the noticeboard where people discuss whether or not a given thing meets the reliable source guidelines, or we can look for a relevant Wikiproject, which is basically an informal place where editors with similar topic interests gather. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hello again my friend. Long time since the great dog meat battle of 2010.

I've been watching you quietly -- some might say stalking. You have future administrator written all over you. But for now, how about Ambassador? Catchy, huh? I'm talking about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, specifically the role of Online Ambassador. If you are interested, contact Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk)

All the best to you, and keep up the excellent work! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. I have been/am short on time today, but I took a quick glance at the program, and it looks like the sort of thing I'm definitely interested. In a few years, I'll actually be back to university teaching (hopefully), and am considering making Wikipedia a part of my curriculum as well. I'll look at the info in more detail in the next few days and likely sign up. Thanks for the invite! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Notification

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 1, 28 January 2011 This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program. Classes get active, students requesting mentors First mentor responsibilities Other news Things you can do

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Help on Ecuador page

I have noticed your editions/deletions recently and I should say, most of them are related to the way the Ecuador page has been set up. There is not a clear separation between references, notes, and citations; all supportive references, links, and more, are under the "references" section. I am adding some extra information to support what is being said in the main body under the same "references" section, at least until the page is cleaned up and we can separate between references from notes, citation and external links. The edition work I am performing cannot be done at once and sometimes I come back to redo certain things (to make them better and more accurate). Deleting portions without previous understanding of the subject, will make my task fruitless. For instance, currently, the Wikipedia Citing sources page, mentions that we can cite Wiki pages in other languages WITH English translation, therefore I will start adding those references on the References section too with a translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleprechaum (talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're saying. It looks like the majority of the article right now is supported by direct, inline references (the ideal style for articles). But part of what you've been adding was not supported by references. The last time I reverted, there were two main problems. The first was the change from "The earliest example" to "An interesting example." That is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, which requires that all articles be neutral in tone. Wikipedia can never make the judgment that something is "interesting", or any other word giving value to a particular point. Second, you added "Collahuazo may have been one of the last surviving Inca poets. who where obligated to express themselves using a foreign language" and "The history behind the drama...shares some similarities with the work of Collahuazo." But you didn't provide any new references to support that claim. As such, it appeared to be original research, which is strictly forbidden by WP:OR. So, I felt that with those two problems, I was not comfortable with your additions. The most recent set of additions, however, appear to be much more neutral and better sourced.

Finally, I believe you have misread the WP Citing sources page. Wiki pages, in any language, are not reliable sources. They are a good place to look for information, but you can't actually cite other Wikipages; instead, you have to cite the same citations that were in the other (original) langauge. You also need to give proper credit to the other Wiki if you copy the exact same wording.

I think that, overall, your drive to expand the culture and science sections of Ecuador are good and commendable. I just want to make sure that, as you do that, you follow all of our core policies. For my end, I will work harder to explain exactly why I make the changes that I do. If I see something in your forthcoming edits that needs changing, I'll be sure to explain it on the article's talk page. I hope that my explanation above helps clarify why I reverted where I did. Please, feel free to ask me at any time if you have questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Hey, it appears there are some accusations of edit-warring and personal attacks. I presume you are sick of all this recent bickering, but I thought you can probably add some weight to these complaints by properly helping these editors out with their templates and wiki-policy citations.

By the way, I kind of lost my temper in a recent post. It probably offended you, but this happens to anyone. If the tables were turned and we had a bunch of Chinese POV-pushers, I doubt you'd be much more patient than me. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethics of circumcision

You say quote "since they are performed routinely across the world in many countries" Please show me your reliable source that male circumcision is performed routinely in many countries. The practice is widely considered controversial, As the countries who do not routinely circumcise vastly outnumber those that do. For a country to be considered to partake "routinely circumcising" males it must be customary to a majority of the country's citizens themselves. Furthermore there are those who reside in countries who are perceived to "routinely circumcise" who find the ritual to be very controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drealgrin (talk • contribs) 05:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple math here: From the WHO report, which you can find as reference number 9 on Circumcision, 30% of men worldwide are circumcised. That means 70% are not. In order for something to be "mostly controversial," you would need evidence that nearly all of those parents of the other 70% consider it to be "controversial." If you look at Circumcision controversy, you'll see both positive and negative discussions of the issue. See, the issue here is that the burden of proof lie more heavily on those who would make the more extreme claim. There is no doubt that circumcision is at least sometimes controversial. I freely admit that. But you want to state the stronger claim that it is "mostly" controversial, thus, the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce evidence of that fact. If you could, for example, produce a survey that showed that a super-majority (note that "mostly" requires a substantially higher number than 50%) of people worldwide consider it controversial, and you can add that source to the article, then you are more than welcome to do so. Absent such documentation, you are making unverified claims, which can and should be removed per WP:V. And if you want to continue the discussion, please do so on the article's talk page, not my personal talk page, so that interested editors may join in the conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore an ethnocentric view is disingenuous to wikipedia's neutral pov policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drealgrin (talk • contribs) 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, please continue this discussion on the article talk page. This is something that all editors of the article should be involved in. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

a Sci Am Dec 2010 E8 article typo?

I put there a message for you. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

All of your points are well noted. My only contra-comment is that I was directed to "produce 'the preceding' at this locale". Thank you VERY MUCH for your input, I will 'revert' the matter to my source. As always, at your service - ~ Betaclamp (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Hi! I was wondering if you could edit the Alexandra Powers page. I found this article online that talk about her personal life: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,308844,00.html Would it be ok to use this article as a reference? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. I believe that the article (and, in general most articles on ew.com) meets our standards for reliable sources. However, you should stick as closely as you can to the factual parts of that article--so, information about her marriage, where she got her first break, etc. You don't really want to use the more substantial/subjective part of that article, so you don't want to use a phrase like "her Bible is the Beauty and the Beast" or "it makes her sad to take off her wedding ring. If you're not sure, you could try making a draft first in your userspace, and then I'd be happy to review your work. Let me know if you need help setting up a userspace copy. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I know that (reading another user's page) you have medical issues that make this difficult, but it would be better if you ask just one person for help. It could be very frustrating for other editors if you ask for their help, and then somebody else already helped you, so they did a lot of work that someone else already did. I know it may be hard, but you should try asking one person for help, then, if they don't respond in a few days, try someone else. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be helpful if you asked only one person, as folks do get annoyed as you'll have noticed. Also, as I've said on my talkpage, that article is 17 years old, so use with caution. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

I've partially reverted your change - I sorta see your point, but dangit, there's no template for what's needed, for this article, at this time, in the middle of an AfD. --Lexein (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no reason to fight about it at the moment; once the AfD is done (assuming it gets "no consensus" as I expect it will) then we can worry about the right wording. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation

Hi Qwyrxian. I posted a reply to your message at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Cumulative vs redundant reliable sources? 34 hours ago. I explained more about the citation I added. I am sure you misunderstood something about the citation because the Google book's preview is not available. Regards, ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see your comment in the midst of everything else that happened. Regarding the value of the citation, remember, I'm not actually arguing it shouldn't be in the article. Rather, I'm arguing that you need consensus to add it, whereas you're arguing that the mere fact that the source is reliable means it gets to stay. As soon as we figure out whether or not you are correct, then we can get down to the business of actually looking at that source and seeing what it does or doesn't add; I may, in fact, be wrong, because of the Google preview. But I want to have a discussion about it, and I want you to understand how it is you are misunderstanding policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Bull

Are you Thai?

I'm 100% Thai blood ! Majoring in International Business !

It's very obvious that Thai holidng 51 % of a share. Because whatever happen thai can take the whole share back. As Chaleo Yoovidhya announced in Thai Medias. The Krating Daeng ( spell : Krating not Kratin, Kratin is a kind of vegetable in Thailand. and Krating is Gaur ) They grew up together! sometime it's very hard to tell that the product calls Red Bull origin from where when you ask somebody who doesn't know anything. Thai people never be 100% proud Thai that Red bull is 100% Thai blood But Krating Daeng is 100 % Thai blood. Because This new Krating Daeng Version calls Red Bull and widely known because the Austrian investor who was very cleaver and made it widely known in the world., They both have invested and made this idea together. Chaleo always says that Red Bull successful because of both country having each other (Austria and Thailand.)

But the truth as the Thai person holding more share and easily judge that Red Bull origin is Thailand.

The logo that you see was designed by Chaleo Yoovidhya ! There's one TV program in Thailand call Fan pan tae (It's about people who know something in What they really like) They showed many thing like who designed the logo and the company information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontomoto (talk • contribs) 14:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not Thai, but that is irrelevant--all that matters is what our reliable sources say. Please go to Talk:Red Bull and post this information there, as this is something that all interested editors need to discuss. You will need to get consensus there to make this change. Please be ready and able to cite reliable sources. However, Wikipedia policy expressly forbids just continually reverting the changes of other editors--if an editor wants to make a change, and someone has expressed disagreement, they are required to discuss the potential change on the talk page. Not doing so is called edit warring, and can result in you being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, the three of us were patient and explained things. Unfortunately, I think he will be blocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Anna. I was worried that Ontomoto was possibly editing under both xyr name and as an IP, although the style wasn't identical at first. Since both seem to have stopped after Ontomoto was blocked, it seems that was the case. Well, maybe, just maybe, there will be a little more calmness after the block. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, on an unrelated note, thanks for getting rid of reference to me as a "wiki-tyrant" on my user page! Looks like I'm stirring up nationalist/ethnic pride sentiment around the globe. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. You are very patient. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Egg

You mean the part in egg (food) that goes:

"Focusing on the protein and crude fat content, a 2010 USDA study determined that there were no significant differences of these two macronutrients in consumer chicken eggs"

or do you mean:

"Pastured raised free-range hens which forage largely for their own food also tend to produce eggs with higher nutritional quality in having less cholesterol and fats while being several times higher in vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids than standard factory eggs"

In both cases they are not orignal research. If you look at the citations you'll see that is the case. --Jeanpetr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpetr (talk • contribs) 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This as a long time ago; I went back through the edit history, and I haven't edited that section of the article since the beginning of January. I'm comfortable, although not thrilled, with your most recent phrasing. The original research was the fact that you specifically pointed out that they "only" covered to macronutrients. Unless the article itself highlighted that fact, we cannot do so ourselves. As another editor pointed out, that's a form of critique of the original study, which is, itself, a type of original research (note that I mean that in the Wikipedia sense found in our original research policy, not in a more common/general sense). If another study or review article criticized that study for only covering two macronutrients, we could report from that second study. But we cannot critique the study ourselves. While I think the way you phrased it currently is still borderline OR, it's good enough that I don't feel like arguing about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

It appears your attempt at starting WP:Mediation is not going to work after all. Do you now feel ready to try out the idea I proposed? I think there are at least 2 that are reasonable targets to request topic bans for. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation is, at this point, a no-go. As for topic bans, I wonder if you're actually familiar with how they work? That is, you requested to two admins to make topic bans (although I don't think you actually went so far as to directly call for them, and looking it up would be too much effort at the moment). The problem is, individual admins can't call for topic bans under current Wikipedia rules, except for those specific topics that are under general sanctions. These are topics which have previously gone before ArbCom—topics like Scientology, Israel-Palestine issues, and The Troubles. Japanese/Chinese relations, Senkaku Islands, etc. are not under discretionary sanctions. For any article or topic outside of ArbCom sanctions, there are only 4 ways to be article banned: by ArbCom, by User:Jimbo Wales, by the Wikimedia Foundation (almost never done), and by community consensus. That is, individual admins may not ban users--not from individual pages, topics or Wikipedia as a whole. The current accepted practice for getting a topic/page/interaction ban is to start a discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard. However, you're going to need unbelievably strong evidence that the user in question is regularly and intentionally flouting WP policy, is consistently engaging in edits only with the intention of pushing a POV, has shown xyrself incapable of collaborating (playing nicely) with others on a particular topic, etc. Obviously, you're welcome to try, but I'd recommend that you read through the archives on WP:AN to get an idea of both successful and unsuccessful requests. I think you'll find that you don't have anywhere near the level of malfeasance (if, in fact, you have any at all) being demonstrated at these articles to call for topic or page bans.

Should you somehow find an admin willing to make a rogue decision, please not that I will not only oppose such a move, I will take the admin to task for it. During my first major dispute on Wikipedia, regarding Kimchi, an admin unilaterally topic banned an editor from the page. While I had generally disagreed with the editor in almost everything related to the article, I took the admin to WP:ANI, and requested a withdrawal of the topic ban, which xe had no right to give. Simply put, admins have no authority to issue topic/article bans outside of articles under discretionary sanctions--only the community (and the previously referenced special bodies) can do so.

Having said all that, though, I've about run out of patience with those articles. Not in the sense of me abandoning them, but in the sense that I no longer think it's appropriate to tolerate everyone's personal foibles. That means, everyone better actively try to improve the article, and not engage in tendentious editing, or they may find their actions questioned on a noticeboard somewhere. Editors who toy with others (or who, in general, comment about editors instead of edits) may find themselves needing to answer questions on WP:WQA. That is, in a sense, you may be right--we may need to weed out bad behavior through administrative means. But, let me just clarify--in exactly the same way that I've started in the past few days to push Tenmei to recognize that his editing style is causing problems, you, too, need to recognize that your behavior is making things worse. I don't know if it's long term frustration on your part, if it's a matter of feelings "outnumbered", or if it's been a deliberate strategy on your part to provoke some sort of response. Whatever reason you have/had, you need to stop, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right that I may not have enough to convince the admins/arbitrators. I asked User:Magog the Ogre (and later, User:Elen of the Roads) to get involved to see if he or she thinks I have a reasonable shot at this. I have not given them much at the moment, since you wanted to give WP:Mediation a try.

I feel it is important to realize there are times when cooperation is impossible. The sarcastic attitude I have for these other editors is a sign that I have come to such a realization. If a more conciliatory approach was the answer, then your patience and generous offer of WP:Mediation wouldn't have fallen through.

If you haven't noticed it already, the Remin Ribao article issue was a simple test of good faith I threw out to see what kind of responses I'd get. Surprisingly, all four of them jumped at it and tried to defend something that's so clearly indefensible. While I could've forced an RfC to resolve the issue my way, I left the matter open just to see if any of them has the editorial integrity to do things the right way. I am not at all certain if you see what I see in this, however. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)